DS News

28 OBDUSKEY: A LANDMARK JUDGMENT FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES e U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the case of Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus, LLP recently, finding that businesses engaged in nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings are not considered "debt collectors" under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). e Justices ruled 9-0 in the case, with Justice Stephen Breyer writing the opinion and Justice Sonia Sotomayor also penning a concurring opinion. e court's opinion called Obduskey's counterarguments "unconvincing." e opinion continued: "First, he suggests that the limited- purpose definition is not superfluous because it was meant to cover 'repo men'—a category of security-interest enforcers who he says would not otherwise fall within the primary definition of 'debt collector.' e limited- purpose definition, however, speaks broadly of 'the enforcement of security interests,' §1692a(6), not 'the enforcement of security interests in personal property.' Second, Obduskey claims that the Act's venue provision, §1692i(a), which covers legal actions brought by 'debt collectors' to enforce interests in real property, only makes sense if those who enforce security interests in real property are debt collectors subject to all prohibitions and requirements that come with that designation. e venue provision, however, does nothing to alter the definition of a debt collector. ird, Obduskey argues that McCarthy engaged in more than security-interest enforcement by sending notices that any ordinary homeowner would understand as an attempt to collect a debt. Here, however, the notices sent by McCarthy were antecedent steps required under state law to enforce a security interest, and the Act's (partial) exclusion of 'the enforcement of security interests' must also exclude the legal means required to do so. Finally, Obduskey fears that this Court's decision will permit creditors and their agents to engage in a host of abusive practices forbidden by the Act. But the Court must enforce the statute that Congress enacted, and Congress is free to expand the FDCPA's reach if it wishes." Responding to the court's decision, Matthew Podmenik, Managing Partner, McCarthy & Holthus Law Firm said, "I think the biggest takeaway of this case is what can happen when an industry like ours has everyone pulled together and had a common goal. is was a case of great importance and an undecided question for many years. We had the Legal League 100 and eight other organizations who filed amicus briefs. A total of 19 different parties joined us and all of us came together and this is a real team victory. So, I think that's largely why this happened." "As far as the ramifications of the court's

• Cover