Daily Development for October 17, 2006
by: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law
Of Counsel: Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin
Kansas City, Missouri
dirt@umkc.edu

LANDLORD/TENANT; RESIDENTIAL; EVICTION; FAIR DEBT COLLECTION ACT:  A summary dispossess action is an attempt to collect a debt and if an attorney is regularly in the business of filing summary possession actions, it must abide by the provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, even it that means inserting the required notices in the eviction complaint.  Hodges v. Feinstein, Raiss, Kelin & Booker, LLC, 383 N.J. Super. 596, 893 A.2d 21 (App. Div. 2006), Also discussed under the heading: “Landlord/Tenant; Residential; Evictions; Due Process.”

A law firm brought eviction actions against tenants in federally subsidized housing for

The tenants filed this action alleging the law firm violated, inter alia, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA.)  The law firm moved to dismiss the complaint.  The lower court ruled that the FDCPA's definition of "debt collector" applies to law firms who regularly engage in consumer debt collection activity.  Finding that this firm was not "regularly" engaged in the collection of debts, the lower court granted the law firm's motion to dismiss.  Further, the lower court found that the landlord was seeking possession of the premises, not collection on a debt.  In issuing its decision, the lower court did not conclude that an action for non-payment of rent was equivalent to an a action to collect on a debt.  Even assuming that an action for possession would be considered an action to recover a debt, the lower court drew a distinction between a landlord, through its attorneys, asserting its own rights, and the purpose of the FDCPA which, according to the lower court, is to pr

event contracted third parties from harassing debtors to enforce the rights of creditors.  The tenants appealed.

The Appellate Division reasoned that summary dispossess actions, while being actions pertaining to property and not directed against specific persons, have the same effect as enforcing a lien for outstanding rent.  The summary dispossess action forecloses the right of the tenant to possession of the leased premises.  Holding there was no difference between actions affecting property and actions directed against people, the Appellate Division held that summary dispossess actions are actions to collect a debt within the FDCPA.  The FDCPA applies to attorneys who regularly engage in the practice of filing summary dispossess actions.  Therefore, it reversed and remanded the matter to the lower court for a factual finding as to whether this particular law firm "regularly" engaged in the filing of summary dispossess actions, and thus qualified as a "debt collector" under the FDCPA.

The court listed what it viewed to be the consequences of imposition of FDCPA standards to eviction actions in New Jersey:

Landlord’s attorney [assuming the attorney is a “debt collector” under the Act} must include FDCPA required information (including the disclosure of the right to contest the debt) in the non-payment Complaint or in a separate notice to be served upon the tenant after the complaint.  Trial dates could not be scheduled until the thirty period for notice to contest the debt has passed. 

Comment 1:  The court, for some reason, failed to cite a parallel decision based upon New York law in 1999, romea v. Heiberger & Assocs., 163 F. 2d 111 (2d Cir. 1999).  This case was applied by the New York courts at least in Giaio v. Greco,  QDS:46701058, May 5, 1999, New York Civ. Ct. https://e2k.exchange.umkc.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.nylj.com/decisions/99/05/050599b2.htm. (The DIRT DD for 5/7/99)  As Romeo was decided seven years ago, undoubtedly there is other authority around the country that the court also didn’t bother to pick up. 

Comment 2:   If you wonder whether you might be a “debt collector” under the Act, you probably are.  The standards as to what constitutes “regularly” collecting consumer debts aren’t that hard to satisfy. 

But as both the trial court (which gave summary judgment to the lawyers) and the appellate court failed to pick up Romeo, the editor felt it might be useful to review this law.  Perhaps lawyers in other states who do eviction work might want to review their own state’s procedures in light of these rulings.

Items reported here and in the ABA publications
are for general information purposes only and
should not be relied upon in the course of
representation or in the forming of decisions in
legal matters.  The same is true of all
commentary provided by contributors to the DIRT
list.  Accuracy of data and opinions expressed
are the sole responsibility of the DIRT editor
and are in no sense the publication of the ABA.
Parties posting messages to DIRT are posting to a
source that is readily accessible by members of
the general public, and should take that fact
into account in evaluating confidentiality
issues.

ABOUT DIRT:

DIRT is an internet discussion group for serious
real estate professionals. Message volume varies,
but commonly runs 5 to 15 messages per work day.

Daily Developments are posted every work day.  To
subscribe, send the message

subscribe Dirt [your name]

to

listserv@listserv.umkc.edu

To cancel your subscription, send the message
signoff DIRT to the address:

listserv@listserv.umkc.edu

for information on other commands, send the message
Help to the listserv address.

DIRT has an alternate, more extensive coverage that includes not only
commercial and general real estate matters but also focuses specifically upon
residential real estate matters.  Because real estate brokers generally find
this service more valuable, it is named “BrokerDIRT.”  But residential
specialist attorneys, title insurers, lenders and others interested in the
residential market will want to subscribe to this alternative list.  If you
subscribe to BrokerDIRT, it is not necessary also to subscribe to DIRT, as
BrokerDIRT carries all DIRT traffic in addition to the residential discussions.

To subscribe to BrokerDIRT, send the message

subscribe BrokerDIRT [your name]

to

listserv@listserv.umkc.edu

To cancel your subscription to BrokerDIRT, send the message
signoff BrokerDIRT to the address:

listserv@listserv.umkc.edu

DIRT is a service of the American Bar Association
Section on Real Property, Probate & Trust Law and
the University of Missouri, Kansas City, School
of Law.  Daily Developments are copyrighted by
Patrick A. Randolph, Jr., Professor of Law, UMKC
School of Law, but Professor Randolph grants
permission for copying or distribution of Daily
Developments for educational purposes, including
professional continuing education, provided that
no charge is imposed for such distribution and
that appropriate credit is given to Professor
Randolph, DIRT, and its sponsors.

DIRT has a WebPage at:
https://e2k.exchange.umkc.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://cctr.umkc.edu/dept/dirt/

-----

To be removed from this mailing list, please go to
<https://e2k.exchange.umkc.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://listserv.umkc.edu/listserv/wa.exe?SUBED1=BROKERDIRT%26A=1>
or send an email message to the address listserv@listserv.umkc.edu,
with the text SIGNOFF BROKERDIRT in the body of the message. Problems
or questions should be directed to manager@listserv.umkc.edu.

randolphp@UMKC.EDU