After hearing about this subject, Process Server or Collector, I heard from another process server, Greg Kellerman. His company was listed in a law suit however he won his argument and had the suit against him dismissed. He provided the following link on the decision.
click here to read more on his law suit.
Here is some of the discussion on it:
The FDCPA was designed to protect consumers from the “abusive, deceptive and unfair debt collection practices” of debt collectors 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. In the instant case, Plaintiff Rita avers that co-Defendant Grillion’s conduct of serving the arbitration claim notice on Plaintiff in an aggressive manner violates 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(1) because Grillion came to Plaintiffs’ home. Further, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant Wolpoff is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for co-Defendant Grillion’s conduct of serving the arbitration claim notice to Plaintiff.
In Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Lamar, 2006 WL 2422903, *1 (N.D.Ohio Aug. 22, 2006), the District Court held that the FDCPA does not apply to process severs because process servers are not debt collectors as defined by 15 U.S.C. (a)(6)(D). Id. at *9. The plaintiff in Lamar therefore was unable to hold the debt collection agency liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for the actions of the process server. Id.
Section 1692(a)(6) of title 15 defines the term debt collector as follows:
“debt collector” means any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another. Notwithstanding the exclusion provided by clause (F) of the last sentence of this paragraph, the term includes any creditor who, in the process of collecting his own debts, uses any name other than his own which would indicate that a third person is collecting or attempting to collect such debts. For the purpose of section 1692f(6) of this title, such term also includes any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the enforcement of security interests. The term does not include —
(A) any officer or employee of a creditor while, in the name of the creditor, collecting debts for such creditor;
(B) any person while acting as a debt collector for another person, both of whom are related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if the person acting as a debt collector does so only for persons to whom it is so related or affiliated and if the principal business of such person is not the collection of debts;
(C) any officer or employee of the United States or any State to the extent that collecting or attempting to collect any debt is in the performance of his official duties;
(D) any person while serving or attempting to serve legal process on any other person in connection with the judicial enforcement of any debt;
[ 477 F.Supp.2d 1019 ]
(E) any nonprofit organization which, at the request of consumers, performs bona fide consumer credit counseling and assists consumers in the liquidation of their debts by receiving payments from such consumers and distributing such amounts to creditors; and
(F) any person collecting or attempting to collect any debt owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another to the extent such activity (I) is incidental to a bona fide fiduciary obligation or a bona fide escrow arrangement; (ii) concerns a debt which was originated by such person; (iii) concerns a debt which was not in default at the time it was obtained by such person; or (iv) concerns a debt obtained by such person as a secured party in a commercial credit transaction involving the creditor.
Subsection D of the FDCPA specifically provides that process servers are not debt collectors, thus the regulations of the FDCPA do not extend to the actions of process servers. Here, there is no genuine issue of matter fact as the interrogatories of Grillion and affidavit of Ronald M. Abramson reveal that Grillion is indeed a process server and not an employee of Wolpoff. Because Grillion is a process server and not a debt collector he is not liable to Plaintiffs under the FDCPA and there is no vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Therefore, Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, with respect to this issue, is granted.
I also had a discussion with a PI about this and he made a great point, we are hired all the time to obtain information. We are not trying to get any money from anyone but are only after information. We do this thru many different avenues however if we were at the door serving papers and asked for contact information how would that constitute collecting a debt? We would not accept money if they tried to pay us, we aren’t authorized to collect a dime!! We are interested in obtaining information, as much information as we can get from them or the surroundings.
While this is a subject we will be paying close attention to it sounds like the final verdict is still out, we will continue to update as we hear things.
Sincerely,
Statewide Process servers
www.statewideprocessservers.com