Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.

 Skip to Content

Eleventh Circuit: Enforcement of a Security Interest Is Not Debt Collection
June 15, 2015

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently reaffirmed that enforcement of a security interest alone is not debt collection regulated by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

In Dunavant v. Sirote & Permutt, P.C., decided on February 9, 2015, the Eleventh Circuit found no error in a trial court’s refusal to reconsider its ruling that the publishing of foreclosure sale notices by the defendant law firm did not amount to debt collection under the FDCPA. The trial court relied, in part, on Warren v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. for the proposition that "an enforcer of a security interest such as a [mortgage company] falls outside the ambit of the FDCPA except for the provisions of section 1692(f)(6)."

On appeal, the consumers argued that the 2009 decision in Warren was overruled by the 2012 decision in Birster v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. which held a defendant that "both attempt[s] to enforce a security interest and collect a debt" may be liable under the FDCPA beyond § 1692f(6). The Eleventh Circuit rejected that argument, finding no conflict between the opinions because the Dunavant trial court ruled that the publication of the foreclosure sale notices was part of the enforcement of a security interest and not part of the collection on a debt. In affirming, the Eleventh Circuit focused on the facts that the notices at issue "were published in a newspaper to inform the public about the status of the foreclosure sale, were not addressed to the debtors, and included no information relating to the collection of payments from them."

Thus, Dunavant confirms the distinction between an in rem foreclosure and attempts to collect a debt in the Eleventh Circuit.
Authored By
Image: Christopher Smart
Christopher Smart
Related Practices
Consumer Finance
©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.