10-3184 Carter v. AMC, LLC

Listen to this article

Consumer Protection
FDCPA; lessor’s agent

A landlord’s agent is not a debt collector under the FDCPA.

“We conclude that, although one usually ‘obtains’ a debt by purchasing it, this is not the only way to do so. A servicing agent ‘obtains’ a debt in the sense that it acquires the authority to collect the money on behalf of another. Cf. Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc., 554 U.S. 269 (2008) (discussing assignments for collection); CWCapital Asset Management, LLC v. Chicago Properties, LLC, 610 F.3d 497 (7th Cir. 2010) (discussing servicers of mortgage pools). It follows that AMC ‘obtained’ an interest in Carter’s debt to Jackson Square Properties when AMC became Jackson Square’s agent— which occurred before Carter got behind in her rent (if, indeed, that ever occurred, a question that the state’s court of appeals did not reach). Section 1692a(6)(F)(iii) thus tells us that AMC is not a debt collector and does not owe Carter any duties under the FDCPA. (Justice McDade reached a contrary conclusion without mentioning §1692a(6) or the FTC’s opinion letters; her opinion accordingly lacks the power to persuade.) Carter’s brief contends that AMC’s attorneys violated the Act even if AMC itself is not covered by the statute. Attorneys can be debt collectors, see Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 (1995), but none is a party to this suit, so this possibility need not be discussed further.”

Affirmed.

10-3184 Carter v. AMC, LLC

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Gettleman, J., Easterbrook, J.

Full Text