United States v. Mattio

How courts have described this case

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

• deciding that the defendants were not debt collectors for purposes of a motion for summary judgment
• holding that debt-owning bank was not debt collector and therefore not liable under FDCPA, unlike law firm it had hired to collect debt
• finding that a corporation that obtained debts before they were in default did not fall within the definition of a debt collector
• finding that one who is not a debt collector, as defined by the FDCPA, cannot be held liable under the FDCPA
• holding that even if a defendant did not own the loan it was servicing, the defendant “would be exempted from the definition of a debt collector . . . because its activity ‘concern[ed]’ a debt that was ‘not in default’ at the time [it] obtained the debt for servicing”
• declining to hold a non-“debt collector” vicariously liable for its attorney’s violations of the FDCPA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).