SCOTUS Rules Debt Purchasers Are Not Subject To Fair Debt Collection Protection Act

Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by GM404, Jun 16, 2017.

  1. GM404

    GM404 Well-Known Member

    3,028
    153
    63
  2. Whitewolf

    Whitewolf Member

    265
    4
    18
    Well now that's a kick in the teeth
     

  3. GM404

    GM404 Well-Known Member

    3,028
    153
    63
    Yeah, I do understand why the court ruled like it did...it basically says that it's up to Congress to update the 1977 law. It sucks for those that are tough financial straights and have their debts sold. I was in that position many years ago, and those debt purchasers are the absolute scum of the earth when it comes to the "practice" of debt collection. I would imagine that the law won't be changed anytime soon w/ the GOP controlling congress.
     
  4. a_springfield

    a_springfield Well-Known Member

    3,393
    125
    63
    Why does that not apply to the second amendment?
     
  5. GM404

    GM404 Well-Known Member

    3,028
    153
    63
    Well, I am glad YOU brought that up...I wanted to, but I didn't want to stir the puddin'.

    I think this is also a perfect example of how the court will "create law" when it suits them. Otherwise, not so much. It appears the whole reason that the court heard this case was that the different appeals courts were in disagreement as to if they qualified as debt collectors or not, so they wanted to resolve that. I was somewhat surprised that it was a unanimous decision, though. I would have certainly thought that RBG would have twisted the definitions around to suit a dissent, but she did not.

    Of secondary note, I am glad I wasn't involved in writing the brief for the petitioner's...because they had their assess handed to them. IF you are going make your argument primarily about grammar usage, you BEST do some basic research on it before presenting it to the court. I might need to go find the oral arguments to see if they were destroyed by the court. I can only imagine...
     
  6. Craftsman

    Craftsman Well-Known Member

    2,973
    242
    63
    While this is an outcome that will vex many persons, it is the right answer. Congress wrote the law with specific language. The business world has changed since then. Nobody hires debt collectors, they simply sell off bad debts and let the collectors make whatever they can from them. Congress needs to update the laws. The courts don't need to make up laws when Congress fails. Short term, the decision sucks. Long term, the principles are right.
     
  7. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,541
    683
    113
    Implications to Ga gun law

    So, the Supreme Court basically said that it is possible for an entity to acquire greater rights than the party selling them that bundle of rights had themselves.

    If the XYZ company had to follow a bunch of restrictions about collecting the debt, but then XYZ company just sells it off to the ABC debt collection firm, the result is ABC is not so constrained.

    ABC has more power and more options to do what they want to collect that debt then the original debtholder had.


    Do you see the implications regarding banning guns on publicly-owned property that is leased to, or managed by, a private entity here in Georgia?
     
  8. GM404

    GM404 Well-Known Member

    3,028
    153
    63
    And I am curious what this will do to the junk debt market. Currently, you can buy some pretty worthless debt for pennies on the dollar, but many companies wouldn't do so because they felt hemmed up by the FDCPA...now it will be a free for all for these debt purchasers. This might be a good thing for the debtors (at least initially) as these portfolios probably just more expensive to buy so the original lenders might hold on to them longer. Of course, there is absolutely nothing here in fact...just my opinion.

    As to GS's point, yes, I can see that this could have some very detrimental secondary effects...even as broad as the question you presented.
     
  9. Rugerer

    Rugerer GeePeeDoHolic

    6,387
    70
    48
    They didn't "acquire" rights, and the party selling them had all the same rights. There is no implication.

    They noted that the restrictions apply only to debt collection agents, and do not apply to loan originators. The ruling is that a debt purchaser is more like a loan originator, as they now "own" the loan, than a debt collection agent. Are you collecting the debt for your own loan, or collecting for the debt of another?

    The court pointed out that the petitioner didn't argue using a definition of debt collector as "in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts." And since they didn't, the court didn't address that question.

    We can see the judge that diagrammed sentences in one of his rulings likes to talk grammar, using four-plus pages to explain grammar and tense. :)
     
  10. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    You did not consider that one very carefully before posting.
     
  11. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    Why? You want a Supreme Court that just makes up the law to fit its own preferences?

    It was unanimous. Cool.