Elsie Marino v. Jeffrey Nadel, dba Law Offices of Jeffrey Nadel, et al.

In Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291, 296, the Court observed that an apparent objective of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., is preserving creditors’ judicial remedies, “but the term [‘creditor’] does not include any person to the extent that he receives an assignment or transfer of a debt in default solely for the purpose of facilitat­ ing collection of such debt for another.” § 1692a(4). Congress distinguishes and includes debts either owed or due another, § 1692a(6). Respondent Bank Of New York Mellon, As Trustee For CIT Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-1, is a self-proclaimed trustee. The first question is whether a trustee such as respondent that receives assignment or transfer of a debt, as trustee for beneficial interest holders solely to bring a foreclosure action, can qualify as a person facilitating collection “for another” within the defined exclusion to the term “creditor” in § 1692a(4). The second question is whether the lower court’s rule that “the filing of an action to foreclose is a necessary precedent to reaching a postjudgment judicial remedy, so communications with a court that are necessary to maintain that foreclosure action do not violate § 1692c(b)” renders § 1692i(b) and § 1692c(b)’s exception “or as reasonably necessary to effectuate a postjudgment judicial remedy,” and particularly the word “postjudgment” superfluous, void, or insignificant.