It is currently Sat Jul 11, 2020 2:04 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:06 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:54 am
Posts: 118
http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/le ... scuola.htm

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Division of Credit Practices
Bureau of Consumer Protection


May 17, 1994

John C. LaScuola
Wright, Constable & Skeen
250 W. Pratt Street, 13th Floor
Baltimore, MD 21201-2467

Dear Mr. LaScuola:

This is in reply to your letter of April 20, 1994 concerning the propriety of court-ordered service of process on "a person of suitable age and discretion at the place of business, dwelling house or usual place of abode . . ." of a consumer, under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. You ask whether such service would constitute an impermissible third party communication in violation of Section 805(b).

We answer in the negative. Ordinarily, such service might well be considered an impermissible third party communication under the Act. However, based on the legislative history of the Act (see enclosed Staff Commentary), the Commission staff has interpreted it to cover only "communications" undertaken as part of the traditional debt collection process (e.g., dunning letters) and not notices sent to a consumer in accordance with a specific statutory requirement as a condition precedent to the exercise of a legal right. Additionally, Congressman Annunzio, a sponsor of the Act, further pinpointed congressional intent by stating that "only collection activities, not legal activities, are covered by the Act." The Act does not apply to attorneys "when they are performing tasks of a legal nature."(1)

Since effective service of process is required by Maryland law as a condition precedent to proceeding with a lawsuit, we do not believe that it is a "communication" undertaken as part of the traditional debt collection process. It is also in the nature of a "legal activity" which, as previously stated, we believe is exempt from the Act. This is true particularly if the service is ordered by a court. Therefore, since service of process is not covered by the Act, serving a third party in the circumstances you describe would not violate Section 805(b) even if the debt is disclosed.

I trust that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

John F. LeFevre


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. 132 Cong. Rec. H141 (daily ed. October 14, 1986).

_________________
David Szwak
Chairman, Consumer Protection Section, Louisiana State Bar Association
Bodenheimer, Jones & Szwak
509 Market Street, 7th Floor
Mid South Tower
Shreveport, Louisiana 71101
318-221-6444
Fax 318-221-6555


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group