[Pale Rider]

Of course, I do know the answer as I am sure everyone does. I am doing some research and would like any court cases, definitions, etc, that state that a collector cannot be a creditor.

TIA

[Pale Rider]

http://www.mofo.com/mofo_dev/decisions/352F3d1118.html

[Pale Rider]

From TILA

(17) Creditor means:

(i) A person (A) who regularly extends consumer credit 3 that is subject to a finance charge or is payable by written agreement in more than four installments (not including a downpayment), and (B) to whom the obligation is initially payable, either on the face of the note or contract, or by agreement when there is no note or contract.

(ii) For purposes of §§ 226.4(c)(8) (discounts), 226.9(d) (Finance charge imposed at time of transaction), and 226.12(e) (Prompt notification of returns and crediting of refunds), a person that honors a credit card.

(iii) For purposes of subpart B, any card issuer that extends either open-end credit or credit that is not subject to a finance charge and is not payable by written agreement in more than four installments.

(iv) For purposes of subpart B (except for the credit and charge card disclosures contained in §§ 226.5a and 226.9(e) and (f), the finance charge disclosures contained in §§ 226.6(a) and 226.7(d) through (g) and the right of rescission set forth in § 226.15) and subpart C, any card issuer that extends closed-end credit that is subject to a finance charge or is payable by written agreement in more than four installments.

[direred]

I can think of one case where an OC can be argued to be a third-party collector, but I suspect this is the reverse of the situation you're looking at.

Consider the following scenario:

1) OC charges off account.
2) OC sells account to JDB.
3) OC has reporting errors.
4) Consumer writes OC, who then directs consumer to pay (or take things up with) JDB.

At that point, one can argue that the reporting errors are false and misleading under the FDCPA.

Dunno if one would be successful (especially if one is also claiming the JDB is a collector under the FDCPA).

But it's a theory.

[VexatiousLitigant]

Well under the plain meaning definition of creditor, it's anyone you owe money to. So a JDB could be a "creditor" in that respect.

For the purposes of the FDCPA, they are not a creditor. Just need to look at 15 USCA 1692(a) for some caselaw.

[VexatiousLitigant]

Purchaser of defaulted debt portfolios was a debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and, as such, it could be held liable for its attempts to collect on debtor's defaulted debt, although it contracted with a debt collector and did not itself communicate with debtor in an attempt to collect debt. Munoz v. Pipestone Financial, LLC, D.Minn.2005, 397 F.Supp.2d 1129

[VexatiousLitigant]

Corporation formed for sole purpose of collecting on bankrupt company's accounts receivable was "debt collector," within meaning of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, though it was collecting debts for itself, in that it regularly collected debts and debt collection was its principal purpose; moreover, debts collected were already in default when they were assigned to corporation and thus corporation fell within assignee exception to definition of creditor. Kimber v. Federal Financial Corp., M.D.Ala.1987, 668 F.Supp. 1480.

[VexatiousLitigant]

Check authorization services do not become creditors under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when they attempt to collect a defaulted debt assigned to them by another party. Volden v. Innovative Financial Systems, Inc., C.A.8 (S.D.) 2006, 440 F.3d 947

[hannah]

In WV, anyone collecting on a debt is a debt collector including an OC. There is a ton of caselaw on it but this is state caselaw not federal and references state consumer law not the FDCPA or TILA.

[Pale Rider]

Originally Posted by VexatiousLitigant

Well under the plain meaning definition of creditor, it's anyone you owe money to. So a JDB could be a "creditor" in that respect.

For the purposes of the FDCPA, they are not a creditor. Just need to look at 15 USCA 1692(a) for some caselaw.

I agree with the FDCPA part.

The TILA requires a bit more than just owing money. A collector does not offer a "line of credit" or "open end agreements", so they do not qualify as a creditor. In most cases they do not even accept payments. At best, they may qualify as an assignee of the OC, but even fail at that part of the definition in most circumstances.

[DUSTY]

Don't like your link...

"neither corporation was a debt collector under 15 U.S.C.S. § 1692a(6) of the FDCPA and thus neither was subject to its provisions"

Tell me that this is the only ruling like it and...... there are like 10,000 that say it right!

[Pale Rider]

Originally Posted by DUSTY

Don't like your link...

"neither corporation was a debt collector under 15 U.S.C.S. § 1692a(6) of the FDCPA and thus neither was subject to its provisions"

Tell me that this is the only ruling like it and...... there are like 10,000 that say it right!

I posted it to show how collectors can not be "creditors".

The plantiffs were stupid in that case. They tried to say that Cap 1 was a debt collector because they sold the debt to CAMCO. The court ruled that selling the debt was not collection activity. Not sure why they ruled CAMCO was not a collector, but it dealt with section 803 (6) only. At one time I had a better link with much more detail.

Don't worry, collectors will not be quoting that case to get out of the definition of debt collector.

[VexatiousLitigant]

I see you cited the Neff v CAMCO case which appears in the annotated 1692a.

They didnt rule that CAMCO did not meet the definition of debt collector, it's that they weren't liable merely by reselling a defaulted debt they had purchased.

[Pale Rider]

I agree, but I posted it for other reasons. It clearly shows how a collector is not a creditor under TILA.