Duane Montgomery v. Huntington Bank and Silver Shadow Recovery, Inc.
346 F.3d 693, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 20596 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), original creditors collecting their own debts are not considered "debt collectors." Repossession agencies are also not considered "debt collectors" under the general provisions of the Act, but only for the limited purpose of § 1692f(6), which prohibits repossessing property without a present right to do so.
Facts:
- In 1998, Helen J. Smith financed the purchase of a BMW by entering into a personal loan agreement with Huntington Bank, which took a security interest in the car as collateral.
- Approximately one year later, Smith became unable to work and allegedly defaulted on the loan.
- Smith's son, Duane Montgomery, borrowed the BMW and parked it in his personal garage.
- Huntington Bank retained Silver Shadow Recovery, Inc. to repossess the vehicle pursuant to the loan agreement.
- In 2000, while Montgomery was away from home, employees of Silver Shadow entered his locked garage without permission and repossessed the BMW.
- During the repossession, Silver Shadow allegedly damaged Montgomery's driveway, other cars, and confiscated personal items, which were later returned for a fee.
- Silver Shadow refused Montgomery's offer to pay outstanding fees to have the BMW returned to him.
Procedural Posture:
- Duane Montgomery filed suit against Huntington Bank and Silver Shadow Recovery, Inc. in the U.S. District Court, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
- The Defendants filed motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
- The district court granted the Defendants' motions and dismissed Montgomery's complaint.
- Montgomery then filed a motion for relief from judgment, which the district court also denied.
- Montgomery, as appellant, appealed the district court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a creditor collecting its own originated debt, or a repossession agency hired by that creditor to enforce a security interest, qualify as a 'debt collector' subject to the general liability provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Siler, Circuit Judge.
No. Neither an original creditor collecting a debt it originated nor a repossession agency enforcing a security interest are considered 'debt collectors' under the general provisions of the FDCPA. The court reasoned that the FDCPA's definition of 'debt collector' explicitly exempts a creditor attempting to collect a debt that originated with that creditor, as Huntington Bank did here. The bank is further exempt because it obtained the debt before it was in default. As for Silver Shadow, the court adopted the reasoning that repossession agencies, as enforcers of security interests, are only considered 'debt collectors' for the specific purpose of § 1692f(6) of the Act. The court noted that Congress's choice to include security interest enforcers for one specific section implies their exclusion from the rest of the FDCPA. Therefore, because Montgomery did not allege a violation of § 1692f(6), his claims against Silver Shadow under other sections of the Act must fail.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and narrows the scope of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by reinforcing the distinction between third-party debt collectors and original creditors. It solidifies the 'creditor exemption,' ensuring that institutions like banks collecting their own accounts are not subject to the FDCPA's stringent requirements. Furthermore, by adopting the reasoning from other circuits, the court establishes that repossession agencies are shielded from general FDCPA liability, limiting their exposure to the narrow prohibition against wrongful dispossession under § 1692f(6). This holding protects creditors and their agents from expansive litigation under the Act, directing its enforcement toward the independent collection agencies it was originally designed to regulate.
Unlock the full brief for Duane Montgomery v. Huntington Bank and Silver Shadow Recovery, Inc.