“I’m strong to the fin-ich. Cause I eats me spin-ach. I’m Popeye the . . . debt collector man?”

by: Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher) (LinkedIn)

For lawyers, debt collection can be a trap for the unwary. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") governs debt collection by both attorneys and non-attorneys. It generally prohibits debt collectors from using deceptive, abusive, or unfair practices to collect debts. While that sounds straightforward, it is often difficult to figure out whether you are even a debt collector governed by the FDCPA, much less whether what you are trying to collect is a debt under the FDCPA and whether what you are doing to collect that debt is deceptive. And the consequences for running afoul of the FDCPA — statutory damages and attorney's fees — can be significant.

A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Tepper v. Amos Financial, LLC, offered a good primer on one of these tricky issues — whether a party that buys debt and seeks to collect that debt for its own account qualifies as a debt collector under the FDCPA — but the more interesting aspect of the opinion is the court's frequent references to Popeye (the sailor man, not the fast food restaurant).

The opinion began: "Many would gladly pay Tuesday for a hamburger today." This, of course, is a reference to Wimpy's famous tag-line in Popeye. The court then described the basic purpose of the FDCPA and introduced the issue in the case as follows:

The Act does not apply . . . to all entities who collect debts; only those whose principal purpose is the collection of any debts, and those who regularly collect debts owed another are subject to its proscriptions. Those entities whose principal place business is to collect the defaulted debts they purchase seek to avoid the Act's reach. We believe such an entity is what it is – a debt collector. [Emphasis added.] If so, the Act applies.

Understandably, the court was not willing to go so far as have the defendant declare "I yam what I yam, and that's all that i yam," but you get the point. Popeye references continued throughout the opinion, so keep reading.

Continue reading ““I’m strong to the fin-ich. Cause I eats me spin-ach. I’m Popeye the . . . debt collector man?”” →

Supreme Court: Party That Buys Defaulted Debt Not A “Debt Collector” Under The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

by: Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher) (LinkedIn)

In Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., Justice Gorsuch delivered his first opinion for the Supreme Court, and in doing so, provided an interesting opinion on a relatively boring issue, and subconsciously (I assume) invoked the movie Repo Man, a classic (?) mid-1980's movie starring Emilio Estevez and Harry Dean Stanton, which the website, imdb.com, summarized as follows: "Young punk Otto [Estevez] becomes a repo man after helping to steal a car, and stumbles into a world of wackiness as a result."

Neither the facts nor the law in Henson were wacky. Plaintiffs took out loans from CitiFinancial Auto to buy cars, but later defaulted on those loans. Defendant purchased the defaulted loans and sought to collect the debt from plaintiffs in ways that plaintiffs claimed violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Act, which was designed to curtail "[d]isruptive dinnertime calls, downright deceit and more besides" authorizes private lawsuits and "weighty fines" for anyone who engages in "wayward collection practices." But, it only applies to "debt collectors," a term that is defined to include anyone who "regularly collects or attempts to collect . . . debts owed or due . . . another." The question in Henson was whether a party who purchases debts originated by someone else and then seeks to collect those debts for its own account qualifies as a debt collector." Justice Gorsuch framed the issue as follows:

Everyone agrees that the term ["debt collector"] embraces the repo man – someone hired by a creditor to collect an outstanding debt. What if you purchase a debt and then try to collect it for yourself – does that make you a "debt collector" too? That 's the nub of the dispute now before us.

The district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit sided with defendant, holding that a party that buys defaulted debt and collects it for its own account is not a "debt collector." In doing so, however, the Fourth Circuit acknowledged that other circuit courts had come to the opposite conclusion. The U.S. Supreme Court took the case to clear up this split.

Continue reading “Supreme Court: Party That Buys Defaulted Debt Not A “Debt Collector” Under The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act” →

One Minute for Oral Argument? Motion Decided in 60 Seconds Doesn’t Survive Appeal.

by: Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher) (LinkedIn)

"We anticipate that the court will engage counsel with more patience on remand."

I assume this is not something a trial court wants to see at the end of an opinion from an appellate court. But, this was precisely how the Appellate Division ended its decision in Midland Funding v. Bordeaux. The case, which involved the enforceability of an arbitration provision, is notable as much for the manner in which it was decided by the trial court as the legal issues at play in the decision.

In Midland Funding, plaintiff sued defendant over $1,018.04 in consumer debt that plaintiff purchased from the original creditor. In response, defendant denied liability and asserted a counterclaim alleging plaintiff violated the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. During discovery, defendant moved to compel plaintiff to answer interrogatories. Plaintiff responded with a motion to compel arbitration. On the eve of the return date of that motion, defendant moved for summary judgment. Oral argument on these motion was adjourned for approximately 30 days.

When oral argument was eventually held, it did not last long. The Appellate Division noted that the transcript "show[ed] that the oral argument hearing began at 9:10 a.m. and concluded at 9:11 a.m." In the span of a minute, the trial court concluded that defendant's credit card agreement "contain[ed] an arbitration agreement," therefore "[i]t's going to arbitration." The trial court also denied defendant's summary judgment motion without explanation and declared that defendant's motion to compel answers to interrogatories was moot.

Continue reading “One Minute for Oral Argument? Motion Decided in 60 Seconds Doesn’t Survive Appeal.” →

In Life, There Are No [Personal] Guarantees (Especially When They Are Buried In An Ambiguous Provision Of A Contract)

by: Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher)

In a recent unpublished decision, the Law Division refused to enforce a purported personal guarantee in a commercial contract. Individuals and entities that include such guarantees in their contracts with customers should read the decision (or just continue reading below).

In Century Star Fuel Corp. v. Jaffe, defendant entered into a contract with plaintiff whereby defendant obtained a line of credit from plaintiff that defendant could use to purchase heating oil from plaintiff. The one-page contract, which was prepared by plaintiff, contained a single signature line for defendant’s president to sign on behalf of defendant. It also contained what the court described as “boilerplate language” providing the following: “Applicant . . . agrees and acknowledges that the person who signs this Application has the Authority to do so; and Personally Guarantees all present and future extensions of credit.” Defendant was identified as the “Applicant” in the signature line. Plaintiff alleged that this clause was unambiguous and rendered defendant’s president personally liable for defendant’s debts. Defendant disagreed and argued that the clause was unenforceable because its president never intended to be personally bound. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The trial court sided with defendant.

Continue reading “In Life, There Are No [Personal] Guarantees (Especially When They Are Buried In An Ambiguous Provision Of A Contract)” →

Extra! Extra!

by: Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher)

The latest edition of "Commercial Litigation Briefs" is out. The newsletter is published by my firm and contains short articles on topics and cases of interest to commercial litigators. This month there are two articles — one by me and one by my colleague, John DeSimone. My article discusses a recent decision from the Delaware Supreme Court that required Wal-Mart to produce attorney-client communications to shareholders as they investigated whether to bring a derivative lawsuit against the company. John's article reports on a recent New Jersey Appellate Division decision about debt buyers trying to collect on charged-off credit card accounts they purchased from other debt buyers, which also provides helpful guidance for litigators on the hearsay exception for business records.

Enjoy!