Facts of the Case
The petitioners are a group of individuals who all obtained car loans from CitiFinancial Auto. When they were unable to make payments on the vehicles, CitiFinancial repossessed them, sold them, and then informed the petitioners they owed a balance to cover the difference between the agreed purchase price and the amount of money for which CitiFinancial sold the debt. It later sold the defaulted loans to Santander Consumer, USA (Santander), which attempted to collect these alleged debts. In November 2012, the petitioners filed a putative class action lawsuit that alleged that Santander violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) in its communications with them. Santander moved to dismiss the action and claimed that it was not a “debt collector” under the regulations of the FDCPA because Santander merely bought the debt from another institution and did not originate it. The district court agreed with Santander and dismissed the case.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision and declined to rehear the case en banc.
Questions
Is a company that regularly attempts to collect debts it purchased after the debts had fallen into default is a “debt collector” subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act?
Conclusions
-
A party that purchases a debt and attempts to collect the debt for its own account is not a “debt collector” subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion for the unanimous Court, which held that the plain text of the FDCPA defined debt collectors as those who collected debts owed to another and therefore focused on debt collection agents collecting on behalf of a debt owner. A debt owner who was collecting debts for his own profit was not subject to the FDCPA. Although the petitioners tried to argue that the statute’s use of the past tense “owed” covered those who were collecting debts that had been previously owned by someone else, as Santander Consumer USA, Inc. (Santander) did, that reading does not comport with the text of the statute. The Court held that it was clear that Congress intended to use “owed” in the present tense in the relevant part of the statute, because elsewhere Congress clearly distinguished between original and current creditors. Because the meaning of the text was plain and there was no evidence that Congress intended an alternate, broader reading, purchasers of debt who collect for their own accounts are not subject to the FDCPA.
TransUnion, Article III, and Expanding the Judicial Role
Federalist Society Review, Volume 23
In 2021’s TransUnion v. Ramirez, the Supreme Court confirmed that Article III standing requires a...
Environmental Law in the Supreme Court: Highlights from the October 2020 Term
Federalist Society Review, Volume 22
The Supreme Court decided nine important environmental law cases during its October 2020 term. This...
Civility, Courage, Humility: Lessons in Life and Law From a Justice
Federalist Society Review, Volume 20
A review of A Republic, If You Can Keep It, by Neil Gorsuch, https://www.amazon.com/Republic-If-You-Can-Keep/dp/0525576789/. ...