Boyd v. J.E. Robert Co.
765 F.3d 123
2d Cir.2014Background
- Plaintiffs-appellants allege FDCPA and New York law violations by JER and Trust defendants regarding attorneys’ fees in foreclosures for two NYC properties with unpaid taxes and charges.
- Liens securing taxes and mandatory water/sewer charges were sold to the Trust defendants, who contracted JER to collect and foreclose as servicing agents.
- FDCPA claims center on attorneys’ fees/costs under NY Admin Code § 11-335 authorizing fees in tax lien foreclosures.
- District Court granted summary judgment for defendants, ruling the liens did not constitute a “debt” under the FDCPA and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
- Appeal challenges the FDCPA coverage of water/sewer charges and the district court’s refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.
- Court ultimately concludes water/sewer charges are not “debt” under the FDCPA and affirms the district court’s rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are NYC water/sewer charges a FDCPA debt? | Boyd/Jones: charges arise from consumer transaction; constitute debt. | JER/Trust: charges are taxes; not debt under FDCPA. | Not debt; outside FDCPA. |
| May the district court exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing FDCPA claims? | State-law claims should proceed alongside federal claims. | Court may decline supplemental jurisdiction if federal claims drop. | District court properly declined supplemental jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beggs v. Rossi, 145 F.3d 511 (2d Cir.1998) (automatic municipal taxes do not involve a transaction; not debt)
- Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 388 F.3d 39 (2d Cir.2004) (standard for abuse of discretion in supplemental jurisdiction)
- Piper v. Portnoff Law Assoc., Ltd., 396 F.3d 227 (3d Cir.2005) (distinguishes municipal charges in different circuits)
- Pollice v. Nat’l Tax Funding, L.P., 225 F.3d 379 (3d Cir.2000) (whether charges arise from a transaction)