Mortgage servicers need to carefully review their Transfer Notices when the debt is in default at the time of transfer. In an unpublished decision, the Eastern District of New York recently held that a “Notice of Servicing Transfer” violated 15 U.S.C. §1692e(10). In Baptiste v. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103609 (E.D.N.Y. July 5, 2017), Carrington sent a “Notice of Servicing transfer” to the plaintiff alerting him that his mortgage servicing was being transferred to Carrington. The letter went on to advise the plaintiff that “going forward, all mortgage payments should be sent to Carrington, but that ‘[n]othing else about [the] mortgage loan will change.” Baptiste at *2. The letter additionally included an FDCPA notice that stated that “[t]his notice is to remind you that you owe a debt. As of the date of this Notice, the amount of debt you owe is $412,078.34.” Id.. The attached FDCPA notice also noted that “[Carrington} is deemed to be a debt collector attempting to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose.” Id. at *3. At the time of the servicing transfer, the mortgage was in default. The plaintiff contended the letter violated 15 U.S.C. §1692e(10) by failing to disclose that the balance on his debt was increasing due to interest. Carrington moved to dismiss.
In denying Carrington’s motion to dismiss, the court relied upon the Second Circuit’s recent decision in Avila v. Riexinger & Associates, LLC, 817 F.3d 72 (2nd Cir. 2016). In Avila, the Second Circuit held “that the FDCPA requires debt collectors, when they notify consumers of their account balance, to disclose that the balance may increase due to interest and fees.” Avila, 817 F.3d at 76.
In support of its motion to dismiss, Carrington argued that Avila was not applicable because the Transfer Notice was not a collection attempt and therefore not subject to section 1692e. The court, however, rejected that argument relying on another Second Circuit decision, Hart v. FCI Lender Servs., Inc., 797 F.3d 219 (2nd Cir. 2015). In doing so, the court considered the following factors when reviewing the notice: (a) the Notice’s reference to the debt and direction that payments be sent to Carrington; (b) the reference to the FDCPA and inclusion of the section 1692g notice; and (c) the inclusion of a statement that the Notice is an attempt to collect a debt. These factors, according to the court, indicated that the Notice of Transfer was sent in connection with the collection of a debt.
Mortgage servicers need to pay careful attention to each and every communication with consumers beginning with their Notice of Transfer. While mortgage servicers are not covered by the FDCPA when servicing current accounts, those mortgage servicers accepting transfers of defaulted portfolios or mixed portfolios should review each and every communication provided to a consumer to ensure its compliance with the FDCPA.