by Jeff Sovern
The decision in Henson v. Santander is here. A debt buyer could still qualify as a debt collector under the FDCPA if debt collection is the "principal purpose" of its business, under 1692a(6), but if collections is not the principal purpose of its business, as is true of Santander, it will not be subject to the FDCPA under Henson. I wonder if we will see debt buyers merge with other businesses so collection becomes only a part of their business, and they can evade the FDCPA. As a policy matter, it is difficult to justify treating debt buyers differently from debt collectors, and when Congress becomes more protective of consumers, we might see a legislative fix to this problem. But Congress probably did not anticipate the debt buying industry back in 1977 when it wrote the law, and so didn't address debt buyers in the text of the statute. The decision was unanimous, and was Justice Gorsuch's first decision for the Court. His first sentence: "Disruptive dinnertime calls, downright deceit, and more besides drew Congress’s eye to the debt collection industry." Evidently, he likes alliteration.
Exactly as predicted….bad consumer attorneys pick miserably bad cases to pursue to SCOTUS ruining consumers and any protections of the law forever. Consumer attorneys like Phillip Robinson Esq. are now helping predatory corporations like DYCK-O’NEAL use unconstitutional tactics against victims of the National Mortgage Settlement and The Independent Foreclosure Review. Evidence proves DYCK-O’NEAL used counterfeit assignments against their victims.
See Links Below:
http://www.gordonsimmons.com/gs-defeats-170000-claim-by-debt-collector-dyck-oneal-inc/
http://www.gordonsimmons.com/gordon-simmons-defends-clients-six-figure-deficiency-judgment-sought-dyck-oneal-inc/
Covering up disasters like the NMS and IFR are symptomatic of a failing system due to overwhelming CORRUPTION. More bad case law will follow….attorneys on both sides want it that way.
End Corruption INDICT Money Crimes