Skip to Main Content

Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP

139 S.Ct. 1029 (2019) — Supreme Court of the United States (2019)

30+ Years Experience Nationwide Service Fast Response Confidential
Supreme Court of the United States
2019
139 S.Ct. 1029 (2019)

Facts of the Case

Dennis Obduskey defaulted on his mortgage. The law firm McCarthy & Holthus, acting as the foreclosure attorney for the lender's servicer, initiated a non-judicial foreclosure in Colorado. The firm sent Obduskey a letter stating the debt amount and that the firm was a 'debt collector.' Obduskey sent a written dispute under FDCPA § 1692g(b) requesting validation of the debt. The law firm did not cease collection — it proceeded with the non-judicial foreclosure. Obduskey sued, alleging the firm violated the FDCPA by continuing collection without verifying the debt. The district court and Tenth Circuit dismissed, holding that the law firm's conduct in enforcing a security interest (non-judicial foreclosure) was not 'debt collection' under the primary provisions of the FDCPA.

Legal Issue

Does the FDCPA apply to law firms conducting non-judicial foreclosure proceedings? Specifically, is a business primarily engaged in the enforcement of security interests (rather than the collection of debts as money) subject to ALL provisions of the FDCPA, or only to § 1692f(6)?

Court Holding

The Supreme Court held (unanimous, 9-0) that non-judicial foreclosure proceedings are NOT 'debt collection' for purposes of the FDCPA's main provisions. A business engaged in non-judicial foreclosure is subject ONLY to § 1692f(6) — which prohibits taking or threatening to take non-judicial action to dispossess the debtor when there is no present right to possession. The Court reasoned that non-judicial foreclosure is fundamentally about enforcing a security interest (seizing and selling the property), not about collecting money — it is a different legal process from debt collection. The FDCPA's primary provisions (validation notices, cease-communication, time/place restrictions) apply to money debt collection, not to non-judicial foreclosure.

Why This Case Matters

Obduskey is a landmark decision narrowing the FDCPA's application in the foreclosure context. Before Obduskey, borrowers argued that foreclosure attorneys and trustees were 'debt collectors' subject to all FDCPA requirements (validation, time/place restrictions, cease-communication, etc.). After Obduskey, non-judicial foreclosure is NOT 'debt collection' under the FDCPA for most purposes — foreclosing attorneys can proceed with non-judicial foreclosure without complying with FDCPA validation requirements. However, the Court left open the possibility that a business that engages in BOTH non-judicial foreclosure AND traditional debt collection may still be subject to the full FDCPA.

Impact on Homeowners

If you're facing non-judicial foreclosure, FDCPA claims against the foreclosure attorney are limited after Obduskey. You can still assert FDCPA violations under § 1692f(6) — if the attorney threatens foreclosure without the legal right to do so (lack of standing, defective notice, invalid assignment). But you generally cannot assert FDCPA claims for failure to validate the debt, communication violations, or harassment. Focus your defenses on state foreclosure law, RESPA (servicer violations), and standing challenges rather than relying on FDCPA claims against the foreclosing attorney.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Obduskey mean FDCPA claims are dead in foreclosure?
No. Obduskey limited the FDCPA's application to NON-JUDICIAL foreclosures only. Judicial foreclosure — where the lender sues in court seeking a money judgment AND foreclosure — may still be 'debt collection' subject to the FDCPA. Also, the FDCPA still applies to: (1) traditional debt collection (phone calls, letters demanding payment), (2) threats of action that cannot legally be taken (§ 1692e), and (3) unfair practices under § 1692f. The key distinction: non-judicial foreclosure (security interest enforcement) vs. debt collection (seeking money from the debtor). If the attorney is doing BOTH (sending collection letters AND foreclosing), they may be a 'debt collector' subject to the full FDCPA.
What is § 1692f(6) and how does it help me?
Section 1692f(6) prohibits: 'Taking or threatening to take any nonjudicial action to effect dispossession or disablement of property if — (A) there is no present right to possession of the property claimed as collateral through an enforceable security interest; (B) there is no present intention to take possession of the property; or (C) the property is exempt by law from such dispossession or disablement.' If the foreclosure attorney threatens a non-judicial sale without having the legal right to foreclose (no standing, void assignment, defective notice), this is a § 1692f(6) violation even after Obduskey.
Free · Confidential · No Obligation

Ready to Protect Your Home?

Every day matters when facing foreclosure. Get your free, confidential consultation and learn your options — no obligation.

Available Monday–Friday · 10:00 AM – 6:00 PM Pacific

Free · Confidential · No Obligation

Get Your Free Full Case Review

Tell us about your situation — our senior legal team will review every detail and contact you within 24 hours with a tailored plan. No obligation. 100% confidential.

1

Submit Your Information

Tell us about your situation in complete confidence.

2

Case Analysis

Our legal team reviews your documents and foreclosure status.

3

Receive Your Strategy

We outline your best options and recommended path forward.

4

We Get to Work

Your dedicated team begins protecting your home and rights.

Call or Text Us

Monday–Friday · 10:00 AM – 6:00 PM Pacific

Contact Information
Property Information
Loan Details
Financial Situation
Your Situation

Your information is 100% confidential. We never share your details.

Call/Text NowFree Consultation