Lovegrove v. Ocwen Home Loans Servicing, L.L.C., 666 F. App'x 308

Lovegrove defaulted on a $1.239M mortgage (2009) and received a Chapter 7 discharge (2011); he remained in the property.
Ocwen became servicer in October 2012 and sent an initial accounting letter, monthly statements, and an escrow disclosure; many communications listed balances and payment information.
Each communication contained clear disclaimers stating that, if the obligation had been discharged in bankruptcy, the communication was for informational purposes only and not an attempt to collect a debt.
Ocwen reported the mortgage as outstanding to consumer reporting agencies from Oct 2012–May 2013; Lovegrove repeatedly asked Ocwen to stop collection and reporting.
Lovegrove notified the CRAs of disputed reporting in June 2014; Experian sent Ocwen a dispute notice July 21, 2014, and Ocwen promptly corrected its reporting.
Lovegrove sued under the FDCPA and FCRA; district court granted summary judgment for Ocwen and the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ocwen's communications were "in connection with the collection of a debt" under the FDCPA	Ocwen's letters/statements (listing balances and amounts due) were attempts to collect post-discharge debt	Communications contained clear, unambiguous bankruptcy-disclaimers and were informational, not collection attempts	Communications were not attempts to collect; FDCPA claim fails
Whether Ocwen violated the FCRA by furnishing inaccurate information to CRAs	Ocwen knowingly or recklessly reported a discharged debt and harmed Lovegrove's credit	Ocwen corrected reporting promptly after receiving a CRA dispute notice; liability under §1681s-2(b) requires CRA notice to furnisher	Ocwen complied with §1681s-2(b) by investigating and correcting reporting after CRA notice; FCRA claim fails

In re Dubois, 834 F.3d 522 (4th Cir.) (commonsense inquiry to determine whether communication is debt-collection activity)
Gburek v. Litton Loan Servicing LP, 614 F.3d 380 (7th Cir.) (factors for evaluating whether communication seeks to collect a debt)
United States v. Nat'l Fin. Servs., Inc., 98 F.3d 131 (4th Cir. 1996) (presumption that consumers will read straightforward disclaimers carefully)
Johnson v. MBNA Am. Bank, NA, 357 F.3d 426 (4th Cir. 2004) (private right of action under §1681s-2(b) triggered by CRA notice to furnisher)
Saunders v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 526 F.3d 142 (4th Cir. 2008) (no private right of action under §1681s-2(a))
Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78 (1991) (foreclosure is in rem and survives bankruptcy discharge)