DS News

» VISIT US ONLINE @ DSNEWS.COM 29 successor. A misstep with either of these two major rule changes could subject the servicer or the firm to a potential suit by consumer law attorneys. How is your firm addressing these challenges? We are retooling our technology to ensure enhancements for the future around CFPB requirements and streamlining workflow process to help with efficiencies and cost. We are working with our business partners to make sure our case management program can process the work with the transfer of data between our office to our clients seamlessly. is includes making sure all documents are automatically uploaded when completed, all required searches are done in accordance with client requirements and uploaded to the clients, and all steps are properly managed. We have dedicated several staff members and database persons to this project, and have included the rest of the staff in testing and providing suggested enhancements. Your firm currently has a case pending before the 7th Circuit, Holcomb v. Freedman Anselmo Lindberg. What precedents may this case set for the industry? Holcomb v. Freedman Anselmo Lindberg deals with notice to attorneys who may be representing the borrower and may have implications for those in judicial states. Section 1692(c)a 2 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) states that a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer if the debt collector knows that the consumer is represented by counsel unless allowed to do so by a court of competent jurisdiction. e issue is whether an attorney for a creditor knows that another attorney is representing the borrower and whether, under the rules set by the court, if the purported debtor attorney does not comply with the rules, is that attorney really representing the debtor? In this case, an attorney appeared in a high-volume courtroom "on behalf " of the borrower but never formally filed his appearance in the case. A motion for default was sent with notice to both the attorney and the borrower. e borrower sued under the FDCPA alleging that notice should only have gone to the attorney. e law firm argued that since the attorney had not formally complied with the rules of the Supreme Court of Illinois, the attorney was not representing the borrower in the court case, that notice was properly sent to the borrower and as a courtesy to the attorney. e argument is that the court of competent jurisdiction, the Illinois Supreme Court, set forth rules which the other attorney failed to comply with and thus notice had to be sent to the consumer. e District Court ruled against the law firm and the case has been fully briefed, argued, and is set for a ruling in the 7th Circuit. THE LEADER IN DEFAULT SERVICING NEWS Help shape the next issue of DS News. Drop us a line at Editor@DSNews.com. "The successors in interest rule will require not only the servicers but also the law firms to have policies and procedures in place to identify who is a successor in interest and then have processes set out to communicate with that successor. A misstep with either of these two major rule changes could subject the servicer or the firm to a potential suit by consumer law attorneys."

• Cover