DS News - Bank of America

40 LEGAL INDUSTRY UPDATE NATIONAL FOCUS 824 F. Supp 2d 226, 232-233 (D. Mass. 2011) (foreclosure law firm cannot be held liable under the FDCPA because it is enforcing a security interest); and Jordan v. Kent Recovery Services, 731 F. Supp. 652, (D. Del. 1990). To understand those decisions concluding that non-judicial and judicial foreclosures are the collection of a debt, please review Glazer v. Chase Homes Fin. LLC, 704 F.3d 453 (Sixth Cir. 2013) (holding that mortgage foreclosure is debt collection under the FDCPA): Reese v. Ellis, Painter, Ratterree & Adams, L.L.P, 687 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2012) (holding that a foreclosure firm qualified as a debt collector because it regularly engaged in the business of collecting debts); Wilson v. Draper & Goldberg, P.L.L.C. 443 F.3d 373 (Fourth Cir. 2006) (holding that the FDCPA applies to lawyers conducting a deed of trust foreclosure); Kaltenbach v. Richards, 464 F. 3d 524 (Fifth Cir. 2006) (holding the FDCPA can apply to a party whose principal business is enforcing a security interest). Next summer, the U.S. Supreme Court will clarify whether the FDCPA and the "meaningful attorney involvement" standard are applicable to non-judicial foreclosures [see Obduskey v. Mc- Carthy & Holthus LLP U.S., No. 17-1307, June 28, 2018]. Wells Fargo hired the law firm of McCarthy & Holthus LLP to pursue non-judicial foreclosure proceedings against Dennis Obduskey after he defaulted on his mortgage loan. Obduskey sued McCarthy and Wells Fargo, alleging, among other things, a violation of the FDCPA. e district court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss on all claims and noted disagreement among courts as to whether the FDCPA applied to non-judicial foreclosure proceedings. Upon Obduskey's appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, the appellate court held that McCarthy was not a debt collector under the FDCPA because attempting to enforce a security interest was not the same as attempting to collect a money debt. In reaching this conclusion, the Tenth Circuit joined the Ninth Circuit and ruled in conflict with the outcomes reached on this topic in the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Circuits. Law firms serving clients in the default in- dustry must be familiar with the cases addressing "meaningful attorney involvement" when drafting debt collection letters and pleadings. Currently, there are divergent appellate court rulings on whether non-judicial and judicial foreclosures are attempts to collect debts and therefore subject to the provisions of the FDCPA. ankfully, the Supreme Court decision in Obduskey v. Mc- Carthy & Holthus will provide clarity on whether law firms initiating non-judicial foreclosures are subject to the provisions of the FDCPA. Brian P. Henry is the Chief Legal Officer for Orlans P.C., the largest women-owned multi-juris- dictional law firm in the country, comprised of over 60 attorneys licensed in eight jurisdictions. Henry oversees legal operations for all services related to mortgage default and transfers of real estate. He has over 35 years' experience in real estate law, title, and related litigation. Henry is a past Chair of the Real Property Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan and its CLE Committee. Melissa Z. Prantzalos, at attorney at Orlans PC, earned her undergraduate degree summa cum laude from the University of Detroit Mercy and her law degree from the Detroit Mercy School of Law. Her areas of practice include eviction, foreclosure, and con- tested litigation. Prantzalos is a member of the State Bar of Michigan and is admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. SOMETIMES, IT'S GOOD TO BE A FOLLOWER. Follow MReport on social media to put the latest mortgage banking news, stories, strategies, and insights at the touch of your fingertips. MReport @TheMReportNews The MReport

• Cover