ILNews

Agency collecting credit card debt not a creditor, COA rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A debtor’s counterclaim that a collection agency violated the Indiana Uniform Consumer Credit Code by not obtaining a license was rejected by the Indiana Court of Appeals on the grounds that although the agency was trying to recover a debt, it was not a creditor.

Asset Acceptance LLC, a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Michigan, tried to recover $6,594.26 from Nathan Wertz, who had defaulted on his credit card from Chase Bank/First USA/Chase.

Wertz claimed Asset Acceptance could not collect on payments for consumer loans debts because it is not licensed under the IUCCC. Accordingly, Wertz argued Asset Acceptance’s collection efforts violated both the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act and the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Indiana Court of Appeals disagreed in Nathan Wertz v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 71A03-1305-CC-175. The COA affirmed the trial court’s grant of the agency’s Trial Rule 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss Wertz’s counterclaim.

Wertz raised the question on appeal of whether Asset Acceptance “regularly engage(d) in Indiana” in taking assignments of consumer loans or in the collection of payments from debtors arising from consumer loans as described in Indiana Code 24-4.5-3-502. If so, then it was required to have a license from the IUCCC.

Citing Sheetz v. PYOD LLC, 3:12-cv-811-JD-CAN, 2013 WL 5436943 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 26, 2013), the Court of Appeals rejected the argument that the plain language of the IUCCC extends the licensure requirement to entities not physically located in Indiana.

“…Section 3-502(3), which is the licensure requirement relevant here, does not require ‘creditors’ to obtain a license and instead focuses on the actions undertaken by the entity in question,” Judge Edward Najam wrote for the court. “These actions, in particular that of taking an assignment or collecting on a debt, may or may not be the actions of a creditor.”

 

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  2. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  3. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  4. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

  5. What form or who do I talk to about a d felony which I hear is classified as a 6 now? Who do I talk to. About to get my degree and I need this to go away it's been over 7 years if that helps.

ADVERTISEMENT