TORT debt not considered "debt" under FDCPA - Does CA have to comply with FDCPA?

I have a CA trying to collect an "alleged" debt from a former residential landlord for alleged/unproven "damages to a residential rental property" - there is no legal judgment or order.

There is an FTC Staff Opinion letter responding to a Law Firm that occasionally needs to pursue enforcement of legal judgments that arise out of tort; that states that the FTC Opinion is that "debts arising out of tort" are not considered "debt" under the FDCPA. Therefore, their actions would not fall under the FDCPA.

My question is this, is a CA bound by the FDCPA just because their primary/only business is debt collection; regardless of how the alleged debt arose?

And if a "debt" arising out of tort is not a "debt" under the FDCPA; shouldn't that mean that it cannot be reported on your credit record without a judgment?

Thanks for your insight.:confused:

Don't know about the rest, but rental damages are NOT supposed to be reported because they can not be validated unless there is a judgment.

And I thought once this was filed I would be able to leave it alone.

Guess not.

Thanks Christine!

Thing is, it really doesn't matter what the law says, what the FTC writes in their opinion letters, what case law we have ... You've been researching long enough to know that any case can go either way.

Here's what a lawyer recently wrote to me:

"You've been in a lawsuit. Going to court is going to war. I was a quarterback, and being in court is far more intense than running a ball open field. In a court there is too much going on--paying attention to what you're saying, how the judge is reacting, what the defense attorney is doing, what your client wants to whisper in your ear, etc. Even when you win, you lose."

That's of course true. And that's why over 90% of all cases are settled. And it's why publishing is such a great alternative.

What type of "publishing" are you referring to and where? What advantages could it hold?

Would it be wise to publish before the parties are served?

It's best if you publish BEFORE you sue. That way you can establish that everything you claimed is accurate, and that the defendant had plenty of opportunities to settle the matter.

And of course the defendant isn't only looking at a judgment or a settlement with a confidentiality clause, but they also have to worry about their reputation and they could even be subjected to regulatory action. It's rare, but not impossible. Once suit has been filed, regulators do even more of nothing than normally.

Those are some reasons for them to settle BEFORE they're liable for legal fees.

See 7/25 fax to collector Genesis Financial - SETTLED! (http://bayhouse.com/credit-forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=883)

I'm sure you've read Whyspers' published Experian suit, but I don't know if they ever knew it was published. Since she didn't have to delete it, I doubt it.

There've been a lot of "xyz company sucks" web sites that got shut down for payment. Unfortunately the bureaus don't care, they've never offered me anything.