Bradford v. HSBC Mortgage Corp.
829 F. Supp. 2d 340
E.D. Va.2011Background
- Bradford refinanced Ashburn home with HSBC; Note endorsed to Ally; ownership later chain to RFC is disputed.
- Bradford stopped paying in Oct 2008; foreclosure efforts were halted due to litigation.
- S&B (on PFCVA’s behalf) sent default/foreclosure communications; Bradford requested ownership identity and documents.
- Bradford’s amended complaint adds TILA claims; HSBC, Ally, RFC remain as defendants.
- Undisputed facts show HSBC sold Note to Ally in Nov 2006 and Ally sold to RFC in Dec 2009.
- MERS and other defendants have been dismissed or not active; Bradford remains sole plaintiff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDCPA status of HSBC and Ally as debt collectors | Bradford: all defendants regularly collect debts, thus debt collectors | HSBC/Ally: not debt collectors; Ally is creditor; RFC not engaged in collection | HSBC and Ally not debt collectors (creditor exemption applies) |
| RFC's status under FDCPA | Bradford: RFC is debt collector due to ownership after default | RFC engaged in no collection communications; not a debt collector | RFC entitled to summary judgment on FDCPA claim |
| TILA §1641(f)(2) claim against HSBC timely | Bradford's 2009 suit timely after 2008 inadequate response | No timely accrual period; improper timing | Bradford's §1641(f)(2) claim survives (timely) |
| TILA §1641(g) claims against Ally and RFC viability | RFC/Ally failed to notify Bradford of transfers; tolling applies | Ally: §1641(g) not retroactive; RFC: tolling applies, timely added | Ally: not actionable; RFC: equitable tolling renders §1641(g) claim timely |
Key Cases Cited
- Chiang v. Verizon New England, 595 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2010) (false-name creditor-exemption considerations under FDCPA)
- Maryland Highways Contractors Ass’n v. State of Md., 933 F.2d 1246 (4th Cir. 1991) (hearsay/admissibility and agency relationships in FDCPA context)
- FTC v. Check Investors, 502 F.3d 159 (3d Cir. 2007) (creditor vs. debt collector distinction; agency liability)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (U.S. 1994) (principle against retroactive application of statutes)
- Barnes v. West, Inc., 243 F. Supp. 2d 559 (E.D. Va. 2003) (equitable tolling in TILA context for concealment)