Barber v. Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a mortgage servicer was not a “debt collector” because the plaintiff was not in default when the servicer began servicing the mortgage
• holding that a mortgage servicer was not a “debt collector” because the plaintiff was not in default when the servicer began servicing the mortgage
• dismissing a TILA claim when “plaintiff has proffered no evidence that [the debt servicer] ever was the owner of plaintiff’s debt”
• dismissing intentional misrepresentation claim because “the alleged misrepresentation . . . was not ‘collateral or extraneous’ to the forbearance agreements but, instead, goes to the heart of the contracts between the parties”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).