U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Expand FDCPA

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case in which consumers who had defaulted on their car loans and argued that Santander, which had purchased the debts, was acting in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). In this case, after the petitioners defaulted on their car loans, Santander purchased those debts from CitiFinancial Auto and attempted to collect on them. Among the central questions the U.S. Supreme Court needed to address was whether a debt buyer, upon purchasing debts as Santander did, looks more like a “creditor” or more like a “debt collector.” The latter would be subject to the FDCPA in ways that a creditor would not.
The case is Henson v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc. The U.S. Supreme Court, which reached a unanimous decision, determined that a company like Santander is allowed to collect debts that it purchased for itself without becoming a “debt collector” under the FDCPA. The decision may impact debtors negatively, and it is important to understand how the court reached its decision.
Third-Party Debt Collectors Versus Creditors
The key question, according to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling, was whether a company that purchases debts, aiming to collect for themselves and not for the original creditor, should be treated as “debt collectors” under the definition of the FDCPA. As Justice Gorsuch, who drafted the opinion, explained, the parties generally agreed at the outset on the fact that third-party debt collectors do indeed qualify as debt collectors under the FDCPA and would be barred from the type of collection at the heart of this case.
Justice Gorsuch clearly distinguished third-party debt collectors from creditors for the purposes of the FDCPA. He explained that “debt collection agents seek to collect debts ‘owed . . . another,’ while loan originators acting on their own account aim only to collect debts owed to themselves.” Within this definition, do debt buyers look more like third-party debt collectors or more like creditors?
U.S. Supreme Court Finds in Favor of Debt Buyer
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Santander, finding that the debt buyer looked more like a creditor than a debt collector since it was seeking to collect the debts for its own benefit rather than for another party owed the money. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed and upheld the Fourth Circuit’s ruling. The decision also emphasized that, if changes are to be made concerning how we classify debt buyers, then such changes need to come from Congress and not from the Court.
For debtors, this means that debt buyers are not bound by the FDCPA in the same manner as debt collectors. This distinction might sound like a small one, but it could have significant consequences for debtors who are being contacted by debt buyers like Santander that are seeking to recover.
Contact an Experienced Consumer Protection Attorney in Oak Park
Have you been receiving calls from debt collectors for stale debts or debts you never owed at all? You may be able to file a claim and should discuss your options with an Oak Park consumer protection lawyer. An advocate at our firm can speak with you today. Contact the Emerson Law Firm to learn more about how we can help.
See Related Blog Posts:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Phantom Debt Collection Scams on the Rise in Illinois

Have you been contacted by a person claiming to be a debt collector who is seeking to recover a debt you allegedly owe? If so, you are not alone. According to a recent report from CBS Chicago , such parties claiming to be debt collectors are on the rise, and they are scamming Chicago-area residents. These alleged debt collectors are part of schemes known as “phantom debt collection scams,” since they involve the attempt to collect on a debt that the consumer does not actually owe. How can you avoid becoming a victim in a debt-collection scam ? What should you do if you have been targeted by a fake debt collector? How Do Phantom Debt Collection Scams Work? Now, you might be thinking to yourself: I would never agree to make payment on a debt that I did not owe. But the scam is not always that simple. Parties at the center of debt-collection scams often target consumers who do actually owe debts (to someone or to some entity), and they prey on the fact that these c...
Read more

Payday Lending and Predatory Lenders in Illinois

If you are in substantial debt in the Chicago area and are living in a paycheck-to-paycheck cycle, you may have taken out a payday loan to make ends meet. While payday lending is illegal in a number of states due to the predatory nature of these loans, it remains legal in Illinois. As a result, many debtors in the state have used payday lenders, and far too many of those borrowers cannot repay what they owe. According to a recent article from Progress Illinois , consumers have filed complaints about payday lenders in the state, illuminating a need for federal rules that address harmful lending practices . Predatory Payday Lenders and Protections for Consumers Due to the perceived predatory nature of payday loans, twelve states in the country have banned these lenders from operating completely, according to a fact sheet from loans.org . The states that currently have laws prohibiting payday lenders from operating include Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Mary...
Read more

New Information on Debts That Bankruptcy Cannot Discharge

If you are thinking about filing for bankruptcy in the Oak Park area, it is important to know that certain kinds of debts cannot be discharged in a bankruptcy case. Under U.S. bankruptcy law, these are known as non-dischargeable debts, or exceptions to discharge. There are certain types of debts that have long been identified clearly as non-dischargeable debts, while there are misconceptions about other types of debts that may or may not be dischargeable. As an article in CNBC discusses, the U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a ruling in the case of Bartenwerfer v. Buckley , which clarifies that debts incurred due to another party’s fraud cannot be discharged in an individual’s bankruptcy case. Our Oak Park bankruptcy attorneys can explain the Court’s recent ruling and provide you with additional information on dischargeable and non-dischargeable debts. Supreme Court Says Debt Incurred Due to Another’s Fraud is Non-Dischargeable The recent Bartenwerfer case involved a debtor attempti...
Read more