As earlier indicated, there have been no DD’s since last Monday, September
13, due to my trip to China.
Daily Development for Tuesday, September 21, 2004
by: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law
Of Counsel: Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin Kansas City, Missouri email@example.com
FAIR DEBT COLLECTION; ATTORNEY’S FEES: Even though a court has issued a foreclosure order setting attorney’s fees at $1100, the mortgagee is not bound by the $1100 figure if the mortgagor has sold the property and wishes the satisfy the mortgage, and mortgagee’s collection agent can demand a greater amount of attorney’s fees to satisfy the mortgage.
Singer v. Pierce & Associates, P.C., No. 03-3108 (7th Cir. 9/8/04)
A court entered a foreclosure order, stipulating $1100 in attorney’s fees pursuant to the fee language in the mortgage. But the mortgagor continued its efforts to sell the property and ultimately was able to get a final contract before the foreclosure sale occurred. The mortgagor obtained the agreement of the mortgagee to cooperate in releasing the mortgage if the contract to sell went ahead, and ultimately the mortgagee dismissed the foreclosure action. Then the mortgagee sent to the mortgagor a closing statement to obtain the specified release. The statement demanded close to $2600 in fees - a figure supported by actual billings to the lender by the law firm. Under pressure to get the release to close the sale, the mortgagor paid the fees along with the rest of the payoff demand.
Subsequently, the mortgagor filed a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act complaint against the law firm (yes, the law firm) that had billed the lender for the fees in question. The action claimed that the attorney had engaged in an “unfair or unconscionable” act under Sec. 1692(f) because it misstated the debt and misled an unsophisticated consumer.
In fact, the lender’s servicing agent, an independent entity from the law firm, was the party that sent out a notice to the borrower demanding that the borrower pay a larger amount that the fees set forth in the foreclosure order to obtain satisfaction of the mortgage. The court commented that it did not appear that the law firm could be sued for something that the agent did here, but concluded that the parties had not raised this issue, so it moved on to other questions, assuming that the lawyer in fact could be liable for such a notice.
The court further opined that the notice of what would be required to obtain satisfaction of the mortgage in this case might not be an action to collect a debt within the Act, since a foreclosure had already been ordered. Again, however, it set this question aside in order to get to the substantive issues.
The court then held that, even if the plaintiff could have overcome the above mentioned hurdles, it still had no claim because the dismissed mortgage foreclosure action was not the final determinant of what constituted appropriate fees to be collected in the satisfaction transaction. The court did say that the court’s view as to what constituted an appropriate fee might be evidence of a the reasonableness of a fee claim more than double that amount.
The court’s ruling here was limited to the conclusion that merely setting forth the amount of the billed fees in the settlement demand is not “unreasonable or unconscionable” or misleading, as these if fact were the fees and the lender was permitted to collect reasonable fees. Apparently the court was of the mind that any attack on the reasonableness of the fees could not be carried out in this kind of FDCPA action.
Comment: Leaving aside the very valid issues the court first raises, we have the naked statement that simply passing along billed attorney’s fees cannot be an overstatement of the debt. The editor questions this conclusion. Where the parties routinely assess unreasonably high fees in cases where they can extort them from a mortgagor trying to salvage a foreclosure sale, the editor believes that a violation of the FDCPA might be found. The editor believes that the court simply concluded that the $2600 figure was not sufficiently beyond the pale of reasonableness to be regarded as wholly unacceptable. Therefore, it was not misleading for the lender to demand them.
Readers are encouraged to respond to or criticize this posting.
Items reported on DIRT and in the ABA publications related to it 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 provided and opinions expressed by the DIRT editor 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.
DIRT is an internet discussion group for serious real estate professionals. Message volume varies, but commonly runs 5 - 15 messages per work day.
Daily Developments are posted every work day. To subscribe, send the message
subscribe Dirt [your name]
To cancel your subscription, send the message signoff DIRT to the address:
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 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 cancel your subscription to BrokerDIRT, send the message signoff BrokerDIRT to the address:
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:
Members of the ABA Section on Real Property, Probate and Trust Law or of the National Association of Realtors can subscribe to a quarterly hardcopy report that includes all DIRT Daily Developments, many other cases, and periodic reviews of real estate oriented literature and state legislation by contacting Antonette Smith at (312) 988 5260 or firstname.lastname@example.org
To be removed from this mailing list, send an email message to email@example.com with the text SIGNOFF BROKERDIRT.
Please email firstname.lastname@example.org if you run into any problems.
See <http://www.umkc.edu/is/cs/listserv/unsubscribing.htm> for more information.