Thomas N. Abbott

Subscribe to Thomas N. Abbott's Posts
Contact: Read more about Thomas N. Abbott

In Washington State the statute of limitations on actions to enforce a note or deed of trust can be a brutally effective sword for borrowers. The limitations period is six years, and a borrower may sue for quiet title where “an action to foreclose . . . would be barred by the [statute of limitations].” RCW 7.28.300. If successful, the borrower is entitled to “judgment quieting title” against the security instrument. Two commonly litigated issues arising in this context are tolling and acceleration. The Court of Appeals of Washington recently published two noteworthy opinions as they relate to installment loans that should dampen quiet title claims based on the statute of limitations.

Tolling

Quiet title litigation based on RCW 7.28.300 often involves a loan in which foreclosure is delayed one or more times because of loss mitigation or bankruptcy filed by the borrower—easily extending the foreclosure well beyond six years of the default or acceleration. The potentially harsh effects of events beyond a lender’s control, such as bankruptcy, is ameliorated by RCW 4.16.230, which provides that a limitations period is tolled when “an action is stayed by . . . statutory prohibition.” The automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 is one such statutory prohibition. Nonetheless, borrowers have argued that § 362 is not a statutory prohibition for purposes of the tolling statute because a creditor may seek relief from the stay.
Continue Reading Merceri Times Two Equals Clarity on the Statute of Limitations in Washington State

The linchpin of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) is debt collection. Not surprisingly, litigation often focuses on the crucial question of what is a “debt” and who is a “debt collector” for purposes of the FDCPA. In Ho v. ReconTrust Co., NA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently concluded that the enforcement of a security instrument by nonjudicial foreclosure is not debt collection as a matter of law.

The Ho court explained that “[t]he object of a non-judicial foreclosure is to retake and resell the security, not to collect money from the borrower[,]” and because “California law does not allow for a deficiency judgment following non-judicial foreclosure[,]” “the foreclosure extinguishes the entire debt even if it results in a recovery of less than the amount of the debt.” On this basis, the Ho court held that “actions taken to facilitate a non-judicial foreclosure, such as sending the notice of default and notice of sale, are not attempts to collect ‘debt’ as that term is defined by the FDCPA.”…
Continue Reading McNair v. Maxwell & Morgan PC: Judicial and Nonjudicial Foreclosure—A Distinction With a Difference

In a Declaratory Ruling and Order issued in 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) sought to clarify key aspects of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), including (1) what device making calls qualifies as an Automated Telephone Dialing System (“ATDS”), (2) whether a call made to a reassigned telephone number where the prior subscriber gave consent constitutes a violation, (3) the manner required for a consumer to revoke consent, and (4) whether healthcare-related calls are exempt. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in ACA International v. Federal Communications Commission set aside two parts of the Order but upheld two others.
Continue Reading ACA International v. Federal Communications Commission: A Mixed Opinion on the FCC’s Recent Interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act