39. Marivel Trevino (on 9/23/08), Cureese Payton (on 11/19/08), Alfredo Cruz (on 2/19/09), and Melody Waters on 11/11/08 both violated the FDCPA by writing the Plaintiff letters in violation of 15 USC 1692(e), 15 USC 1692(g), and 15 USC 1692(e)(5) as the letters contained false assertions of a debt being owed, continued to collect after the Plaintiff’s objections, and constitute illegal actions taken in an attempt to collect a debt. 40.

63. The foregoing acts and omissions constitute numerous and multiple violations of the FDCPA, including but not limited to each and every one of the above cited provisions of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. 64.

Since the HOA was obligated to accept partial payments from Plaintiff, Defendant had no authority to refuse Plaintiff’s payments as a means of collecting the full amount. Therefore, Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692(10), which prohibits the use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt, by communicating to Plaintiff that she was not allowed to make a partial payment toward her delinquent assessments. B. Plaintiff’s UCL Claim is Adequately Pled

CONCLUSION Under the foregoing, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim under the §§ 1692(e) or 1692(f) of the FDCPA and should be dismissed. Additionally, G&C Case 1:17-cv-00632-SCJ-JCF Document 12-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 23 of 25 24 asks the Court to find that this suit was brought in bad faith and award Defendant the costs and attorney’s fees suffered in defending it.

The express purposes of the FDCPA are to “eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors, to insure that debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e). Accordingly, the FDCPA broadly enumerates several practices considered contrary to its stated purpose, and forbids debt collectors from taking such action.

The FDCPA contains no provision setting a limit as to when a debt becomes judicially unenforceable. 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et. seq.

There could have been no violation of the FDCPA for falsely representing the character, amount or legal status of the “debt”, that a false deceptive or misleading representation or means was used to collect the debt or that unfair or unconscionable means were used to collect Case 1:16-cv-00290-PCH-TFM Document 28 Filed 10/11/16 Page 7 of 8 the debt. See, 15 U.S.C. §1692(e)(2), e(10) and (f). Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which this Court may grant her relief.

Of course, if the loan was sold to BSI then as the creditor the FDCPA would be completely inapplicable. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a)(6) (definition of “debt collector” subject to the FDCPA is limited to who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another.”). Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges that the loan was sold to BSI “while the subject loan was in default.”

There are further no factual allegations that a debt collector utilized false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of a consumer debt. 15 U.S.C. §1692(e). Simply put, there are no factual allegations that would trigger the application Case 2:15-cv-00257-SPC-CM Document 10 Filed 07/02/15 Page 5 of 7 PageID 46 Lutman v. Harvard Collection Services, Inc.

Congress expressly stated that the purpose of the FDCPA is to "eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors" and "insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged." 15 U.S.C. §1692(e). To combat this serious problem, the FDCPA requires debt collectors like Defendant to send consumers “validation notices” containing certain information about their alleged debts and consumers’ rights in relation to those debts.