Jordan v. Kent Recovery Services, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that security interest enforcers incur liability only under the illegal dispossession subsection because “ ‘where Congress includes (continued...
• distinguishing a debt collector from an enforcer of a security interest, who has a “present right to a piece of secured property [and] attempts to retrieve something which another person possesses but which the holder of the security interest still owns”
• distinguishing a debt collector from an enforcer of a security interest, who has a “present right to a piece of secured property [and] attempts to retrieve something which another person possesses but which the holder of the security interest still owns”
• “It thus appears that Congress intended an enforcer of a security interest, such as a repossession agency, to fall outside the ambit of the FDCPA except for the provisions of § 1692f(6).”
• “[T]he evil sought to be regulated by the FDCPA, i.e., harassing attempts to collect money which the debtor does not have due to misfortune, is not implicated by the actions of an enforcer of a security interest with a ‘present right’ to the secured property.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).