629 F.3d 364 (3rd Cir. 2011), 09-1466, Allen ex rel. Martin v. LaSalle Bank, N.A.

Docket Nº:09-1466.
Citation:629 F.3d 364
Opinion Judge:SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.
Party Name:Dorothy Rhue ALLEN, by her Attorney in fact, James MARTIN, Individually and as a class representative on behalf of others similarly situated, Appellant v. LASALLE BANK, N.A.; Cenlar Federal Savings Bank FSB; Fein, Such, Kahn and Shepard, PC; John Doe Servicers 1-100; John Doe Law Firms 1-100.
Attorney:Lewis G. Adler (Argued), Roger C. Mattson, Woodbury, N.J., for Appellant. Andrew C. Sayles (Argued), Gregory E. Peterson, Connell Foley, Roseland, N.J., for Appellee Fein, Such, Kahn and Shepard, P.C. Daniel C. Green, Vedder Price, New York, N.Y., Chad A. Schiefelbein (Argued), Vedder Price, Chic...
Judge Panel:Before: SLOVITER, BARRY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:January 12, 2011
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 364

629 F.3d 364 (3rd Cir. 2011)

Dorothy Rhue ALLEN, by her Attorney in fact, James MARTIN, Individually and as a class representative on behalf of others similarly situated, Appellant

v.

LASALLE BANK, N.A.; Cenlar Federal Savings Bank FSB; Fein, Such, Kahn and Shepard, PC; John Doe Servicers 1-100; John Doe Law Firms 1-100.

No. 09-1466.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

January 12, 2011

Argued Sept. 14, 2010.

Page 365

Lewis G. Adler (Argued), Roger C. Mattson, Woodbury, N.J., for Appellant.

Andrew C. Sayles (Argued), Gregory E. Peterson, Connell Foley, Roseland, N.J., for Appellee Fein, Such, Kahn and Shepard, P.C.

Daniel C. Green, Vedder Price, New York, N.Y., Chad A. Schiefelbein (Argued), Vedder Price, Chicago, IL, for Appellee LaSalle Bank.

Gregory A. Lomax, Christopher L. Soriano, Morgan J. Zucker, Duane Morris, Cherry Hill, N.J., for Appellee Cenlar Federal Savings Bank.

Before: SLOVITER, BARRY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.

This appeal presents the question whether a communication from a debt collector to a consumer's attorney is actionable under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (" FDCPA" ), 15 U.S. C. § 1692f(1).

I

Factual and Procedural History

In 1976, Dorothy Rhue Allen purchased her home with a 30-year mortgage. After Allen failed to make the last payment due, she was declared in default. On May 7, 2007, Fein, Such, Kahn & Shepard, PC (" FSKS" ), a law firm, brought a mortgage foreclosure action against Allen on behalf of LaSalle Bank.1

At the request of Allen's attorney, FSKS sent a letter to Allen's attorney on June 7, 2007 that set forth a payoff quote for the principal balance remaining on the loan and other charges due to the servicer of Allen's loan, Cenlar Federal Savings Bank (" Cenlar" ), as well as charges for FSKS's attorney fees and costs. The

Page 366

same day, FSKS sent a second letter to Allen's attorney itemizing the attorney fees and costs referred to in its previous letter. Less than three weeks later, Allen filed a class action counterclaim and third party complaint in the foreclosure action, asserting that FSKS's response violated the FDCPA and state law. LaSalle and FSKS then released the mortgage and moved to dismiss the foreclosure action, after which the New Jersey Superior Court dismissed Allen's claims without prejudice.

Some time thereafter, Allen filed a class action against FSKS, LaSalle, and Cenlar in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. In the Complaint, Allen alleged that FSKS and LaSalle violated the FDCPA and state law, and that Cenlar also violated state law. For example, Allen alleged that FSKS demanded: $910 in attorney fees when court rule permits only $15.43, $335 for searches when court rule permits only $75, $160 for recording fees when the actual fee was only $60, and $475 for service of process when statute and court rule limit reimbursement to $175. Although she made other specific and general FDCPA allegations in her Complaint, Allen conceded at oral argument that her FDCPA claims were predicated only upon alleged violations of 15 U.S. C. § 1692f(1).

FSKS moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), contending that Allen had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. FSKS asserted that a communication from a debt collector to a consumer's attorney is not covered by the FDCPA.2

The District Court noted that the courts of appeals are divided on this issue. The Fourth Circuit has held that a communication with a debtor's attorney is to be treated as an indirect communication with the debtor and therefore actionable. Sayyed v. Wolpoff & Abramson, 485 F.3d 226, 232-33 (4th Cir.2007). In contrast, the Second Circuit has stated in dicta and the Ninth Circuit has concluded that because an attorney will protect a consumer from a debt collector's behavior, statements made only to a consumer's attorney are not actionable per se. Guerrero v. RJM Acquisitions LLC, 499 F.3d 926, 934-39 (9th Cir.2007); Kropelnicki v. Siegel, 290 F.3d 118, 129-31 (2d Cir.2002).

Eschewing either approach, the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP