This isn't quite true. They have to be "debt collectors" as defined by the statutes. I've run into tons of cases where the defendant trying to collect on a debt was awarded summary judgment because they were not debt collectors. Even an attorney who is collecting may not fall under the FDCPA if it is only a tiny percentage of the type of work he/she does. Here is a summary of a case in which this happened: LISA A. TRULL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LASON SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. No. 97 C 855 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION 982 F. Supp. 600; 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17740 November 4, 1997, Decided November 5, 1997, Docketed DISPOSITION: [**1] Defendant Lason Systems, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment [16-1] granted. Summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant Lason Systems, Inc. And against the plaintiff Lisa A. Trull. Plaintiff's motion for class certification [13-1] denied as moot. CASE SUMMARY PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff class representative filed a motion for class certification in a putative class action against defendants, legal firm and debt collection service, alleging numerous Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) violations. The law firm moved for summary judgment. OVERVIEW: The law firm moved for summary judgment, contending that it could not be liable under the FDCPA because it was not a "debt collector" under 15 U.S.C.S. § 1692a(6). The class representative contended that the law firm was a debt collector based on its advertising, its involvement with collection agency customers' communications, and its appearance on a communication to the class representative. The court granted the law firm's motion for summary judgment, holding that: (1) it was appropriate to decide summary judgment before class certification because the class representative's claims were without merit; and (2) the law firm was not a debt collector as defined by the FDCPA because the law firm's promotional materials did not advertise its business as debt collection, the "principal purpose" of the law firm's activities was not the "collection of debt," and the law firm did nothing more than print and mail collection letters drafted by the debt collection service. Because summary judgment was granted in favor of the law firm and the debt collection service had been previously dismissed from the case, the court denied the class representative's motion for class certification as moot. OUTCOME: The court granted the law firm's motion for summary judgment. The court denied the class representative's motion for class certification as moot. If Asset is representing themselves as an accounts receivable firm and are third party contractors to collect "in-house" debts, they are trying to get around being defined as debt collectors for the very reason they don't want to have to follow the FDCPA. This is a toughie. L
But they are not in house collectors and I believe, beta said that the debt was purchased fron Gulf States. They are tying to circumvent the law. I have dealt with them in the past and I sent the standard letters and they have responded along the lines of the FDCPA. I don't understand why they are feeding beta this line of bull, because they are a collection agency. As for the attorneys, of course there are always exemptions if they are not in the regular practice debt collections.
Oh, I agree with you Cypri. I think they are just trying to circumvent the law as well. I guess my point was that just because someone is collecting a debt, it doesn't necessarily mean they fall under the statute meaning of "debt collector" and that is key in trying to pin FDCPA violations on them. Asset has been sued in federal court several times and I couldn't find anywhere where they raised the defense of not being debt collectors. L
Whyspers: Your point is well-taken. Do you have some of those cites for the Asset cases? I would like to read them, this company is really reaching. They folded easily when I sent them a few letters, but I would be curious to see how they have been dealt with in court. That is a new one I have come across, "speciality finance company" LOL!
Cypri, I posted the ones I found at http://www.stormywebdesigns.com/wdny/ under the Message Boards, Legal link. I am pushing it because I'm pretty sure Lexis wouldn't appreciate me cutting and pasting, but until I find out more on what I can and can't use, I'm putting anything I find that could help someone. L
W: I am having trouble accessing our cite. I am missing my Lexis membership. I will definitely be signing up for it once we start our firm, I know its expensive but it worth it.
