Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP
Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, 586 U.S. 466 (2019)
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Decided
- 2019-03-20
- Docket
- 17-1307
What happened
Mr. Obduskey disputed his debt with the law firm hired to foreclose his Colorado home non-judicially. The firm went ahead without verifying the debt, and he sued under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
What the court decided
The Supreme Court held that a business engaged only in non-judicial foreclosure is not a "debt collector" under the FDCPA, except for the Act's provision barring threats to take property without a present right to do so.
In the court's words
“those who engage in only nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings are not debt collectors within the meaning of the Act”
Why it may matter to you
It saves you from a dead end: in a Texas-style non-judicial foreclosure, the FDCPA often does not reach the trustee's law firm. Put your energy into state notice rules and servicer rules instead.
Why it might not apply
A firm that also collects money (letters demanding payment, deficiency suits) may still be covered. State debt-collection laws, like the Texas Debt Collection Act, are separate.
Most useful when
- You want to use the FDCPA against the law firm running a non-judicial foreclosure
How to cite it
The full citation for the first time you mention it, a short form for later, and a sample sentence you can adapt.
Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, 586 U.S. 466 (2019)Short formObduskey, 586 U.S. 466Draft — check it with free legal aid before you file or say it in court.
In Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, 586 U.S. 466 (2019), the court held that a business engaged only in non-judicial foreclosure is not a debt collector under the FDCPA, apart from the provision barring threats to take property without a present right. Here, [say in one sentence what happened in your case]
Ask Techy about this case
Techy explains the case in plain words, why it may matter to you, its limits, and how to prepare. It only uses this case record.
Related cases
- Homeowner wonBinding
Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich, L.P.A.
559 U.S. 573 · Decided 2010
A law firm filed a foreclosure against Ms. Jerman and sent a notice saying she had to dispute the debt in writing. She sued, and the firm said its mistake was an honest legal error.
Read the case - Homeowner wonBinding
Heintz v. Jenkins
514 U.S. 291 · Decided 1995
A lawyer collecting a car-loan debt sent Ms. Jenkins a letter demanding charges she said were not owed. The lawyer argued lawyers who litigate are not "debt collectors."
Read the case - Homeowner lostBinding
Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson
581 U.S. 224 · Decided 2017
In Ms. Johnson's Chapter 13 case, a debt buyer filed a claim for a debt that was obviously too old to collect. She sued under the FDCPA.
Read the case