552 F. App'x 502
6th Cir.2014Background
- Esteps filed FDCPA claims against MDK for an occupied-conveyance notice sent during Wells Fargo’s foreclosure; HUD occupancy rules govern the notice timing and content.
- MDK notified the Esteps that HUD may acquire the property and that they must apply for continued occupancy within 20 days; the letter included HUD forms and a bold 20-day deadline.
- HUD regulations require a notice 60–90 days before title transfer and reserving occupancy rights under conditions; foreclosure costs shift to HUD after purchase.
- FDCPA claims allege MDK misrepresented or indirectly attempted to collect a debt via the occupied-conveyance notice.
- District court dismissed on ground that the letter was not a debt-collection communication; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding the letter was not in connection with debt collection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was MDK’s letter sent in connection with debt collection? | Esteps contend the letter induced payment. | MDK argues no payment inducement; notice only informs HUD occupancy. | No; not in connection with debt collection. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grden v. Leikin Ingber & Winters PC, 643 F.3d 169 (6th Cir. 2011) (animating purpose inquiry; payment induction required for FDCPA)
- Gburek v. Litton Loan Servicing LP, 614 F.3d 380 (7th Cir. 2010) (FDCPA applies to actions that seek to induce payment)
- Simon v. FIA Card Servs., N.A., 732 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2013) (circuits treat related activities as within FDCPA if aimed at collecting)
- Glazer v. Chase Home Fin. LLC, 704 F.3d 453 (6th Cir. 2013) (mortgage foreclosure can be debt collection under FDCPA)
- Bailey v. Sec. Nat’l Servicing Corp., 154 F.3d 384 (7th Cir. 1998) (communication describing debt status not necessarily in collection)