• office locations
     
    Bluffton, SC map
    Bluffton, SC Office
    The Plaza at Belfair
    4 Clarks Summit Drive
    Suite 200 | Bluffton, SC 29910-4993
    843.815.2171  Main | 843.815.5991  Fax
     
    Charleston, SC map
    Charleston, SC Office
    100 Calhoun Street
    Suite 400 | Charleston, SC 29401
    843.723.7831  Main | 843.722.3227  Fax
     
    Charlotte, NC map
    Charlotte, NC Office
    Bank of America Plaza
    101 South Tryon Street
    Suite 2610 | Charlotte, NC 28280
    704.347.1170  Main | 704.347.4467  Fax
     
    Columbia, SC map
    Columbia, SC Office
    1221 Main Street
    Suite 1800 | Columbia, SC 29201
    803.799.9800  Main | 803.753.3278  Fax
     
    Greenville, SC map
    Greenville, SC Office
    Poinsett Plaza
    104 South Main Street
    Suite 700 | Greenville, SC 29601
    864.271.4940  Main | 864.271.4015  Fax
     
    Hilton Head Is., SC map
    Hilton Head Island, SC Office
    Shelter Cove Executive Park
    23-B Shelter Cove Lane
    Suite 400 | Hilton Head Island, SC 29928
    843.785.2171  Main | 843.686.5991  Fax
     
    Myrtle Beach, SC map
    Myrtle Beach, SC Office
    Founders Centre
    2411 Oak Street
    Suite 206 | Myrtle Beach, SC 29577
    843.444.1107  Main | 843.444.4729  Fax
     
    Pawleys Island, SC map
    Pawleys Island, SC Office
    11019 Ocean Highway
    Pawleys Island, SC 29585
    843.235.4100  Main | 843.235.4101  Fax
     
  • contact us
      No   Yes  
PROFESSIONALS OTHER CONTENT
     
Instagram

News Room

Print
Share

The Supreme Court Delivers a Unanimous Opinion in favor of Debt PurchasersAuthored by: Michael H. Weaver, Esq.
June 13, 2017

Related Information

Professionals

Practices

Locations

In today’s political environment, having unanimous support on an issue is exceedingly difficult particularly on issues emanating from our Executive and Legislative branches of government. Hope springs eternal however, and unanimity is exactly what we got from our Judicial branch of government in the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Henson v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc, 582 U.S. ____ (2017) which was decided on June 12th

The Court held (in an opinion written by Justice Gorsuch – his first for the Court) that an entity who regularly purchases debts originated by a third party and then seeks to collect the debt for its own account, does not qualify as a “debt collector” and is therefore not subject to the rigors of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). 

In Santander,CitiFinancial Auto loaned money to Henson and other petitioners (collectively, the “Petitioners”) to buy cars. The Petitioners defaulted on those loans, and Santander purchased the defaulted loans from CitiFinancial. Santander then sought to collect the debts in ways the Petitioners alleged were in violation of the FDCPA.

The parties acknowledged that third party debt collection agents generally qualify as “debt collectors” and that those who seek to collect debt they originated do not. Consequently, the former are subject to the FDCPA while the latter are not. But what about individuals and entities who purchase debts originated by a third party and then seek to collect? Does the FDCPA “treat the debt purchaser…more like the repo man or the loan originator”?

The Petitioners argued for an expansive reading of the FDCPA and made the argument that “owed” is the past participle of the verb “to owe,” which suggests that the statute’s definition of debt collector includes anyone who regularly seeks to collect debts previously “owed…another.”

The Court responded to that argument by concluding that the Petitioners’ reading did not follow “good grammar, let alone ordinary meaning.” The Court noted that “[p]ast participles like ‘owed’ are routinely used as adjectives to describe the present state of a thing….” The Court also looked at Congress’ use of the word “owed” in other subsections of the FDCPA and, similarly, found little support for the Petitioners’ argument.  

The Court also considered the Petitioners’ argument that debt purchasers should be subject to the FDCPA for public policy reasons. The Petitioners noted that when passing the FDCPA, “Congress never had the chance to consider what should be done about those in the business of purchasing defaulted debt” and had they known, “it surely would have judged defaulted debt purchasers more like…independent debt collectors.”

The Court quickly disposed of the Petitioners’ policy arguments by noting “[I]t is never our job to rewrite constitutionally valid statutory text under the banner of speculation about what Congress might have done had it faced a question that, on everyone’s account, it never faced.”

The Santander decision represents a win for debt purchasers and provides Supreme Court observers with their first glimpse of Justice Gorsuch’s writing style which, ironically, required parsing through participles.