UTA has filed an amicus brief along with industry organizations CMBA, CMA and ATA, in the case of Obduskey v. McCarthy Holthus.  The brief summarizes why nonjudicial foreclosure should not qualify as debt collection under the FDCPA.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court summary of the case: “This case presents a clear and entrenched conflict regarding whether the FDCPA applies in the foreclosure context. In the decision … , the Tenth Circuit, siding with the Ninth Circuit, held that non-judicial foreclosures are not covered by the FDCPA; in doing so, the panel acknowledged the issue has “divided the circuits,” and it expressly rejected the “contrary position” of multiple courts of appeals and state high courts. This holding was the sole basis of the decision … , and it arises on the precise fact-pattern that has generated extensive “confusion” and hundreds of conflicting decisions. This case is the perfect vehicle for resolving the widespread disagreement over this important issue.”

Both sides participated in the oral argument.  The U.S. Solicitor General had previously filed a motion for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, and their counsel joined in the oral arguments in support of Respondent on January 7th, noting that state law should be the primary determinate in these decisions.  Their motion stated:

“Pursuant to Rules 28.4 and 28.7 of the Rules of this Court, the Solicitor General, on behalf of the United States, respectfully moves that the United States be granted leave to participate in oral argument in this case as amicus curiae in support of respondent and that the United States be allowed ten minutes of argument time. Respondent has agreed to cede ten minutes of argument time to the United States and therefore consents to this motion.”

A decision is anticipated by June 30th.