# Key Cases — Oregon Consumer-Debt Defense

A catalog of Oregon and federal decisions most relevant to
Oregon consumer-debt defense.

> **NOT LEGAL ADVICE.** Always verify a case is still good
> law before citing. Use CourtListener or KeyCite.

## Oregon UTPA

### Pearson v. Philip Morris, 358 Or 88, 361 P3d 3 (2015)

UTPA class certification. Holds:

- The "ascertainable loss" requirement applies at class
  certification
- Common questions can predominate over individual issues
- Discussion of UTPA scope and remedies

### Denson v. Ron Tonkin Gran Turismo (verify recent cite)

UTPA standing. Holds:

- "Ascertainable loss" is interpreted broadly
- Out-of-pocket expenses, time spent disputing qualify
- Emotional distress may qualify in some circumstances

### Recent Oregon Court of Appeals decisions

Multiple recent UTPA decisions refine the contours of:

- Standing requirements
- Damages calculation
- Punitive-damages availability
- Fee-shifting under ORS 646.638(3)

Always shepardize before citing — UTPA case law evolves
quickly.

## Oregon Collection Agency Registration (ORS 697)

### Recent Oregon Court of Appeals decisions

Search recent decisions interpreting:

- "Collection agency" definition under ORS 697.005
- Registration requirements under ORS 697.015
- ORS 697.105 lack-of-capacity defense

The DCBS itself has issued rulings under OAR Ch. 441 that
may be cited as persuasive authority.

## FDCPA — 9th Circuit and federal

### Henson v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., 582 US 79 (2017)

- A debt buyer collecting debts it owns is generally NOT a
  "debt collector" under FDCPA § 1692a(6)'s primary
  definition
- But may qualify under the "regularly collects" prong

For Oregon practice: this is a key threshold question for any
FDCPA counterclaim. Debt buyers that regularly use third-
party collection agents may still be FDCPA covered.

### Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 US 291 (1995)

- Attorneys whose practice is significantly the collection of
  consumer debts are "debt collectors" under the FDCPA

### Marx v. General Revenue Corp., 568 US 371 (2013)

- FDCPA fee-shifting under § 1692k is not exclusive of cost
  awards under FRCP 54

### Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 758 F3d 1254 (11th Cir 2014)

- Filing a proof of claim on time-barred debt in bankruptcy
  is an FDCPA violation
- Foundational case for Reg F § 1006.26(b)

### Rotkiske v. Klemm, 589 US ___ (2019)

- FDCPA § 1692k(d)'s 1-year SOL runs from the violation, not
  from discovery
- Discovery rule may apply only through equitable tolling
  (limited)

## Business records foundation

### Federal cases informing Oregon practice

#### United States v. Pena-Gutierrez, 222 F3d 1080 (9th Cir 2000)

- Adopted-records theory under FRE 803(6); generally rejected
  for criminal cases
- Persuasive in civil business-records analysis

#### Federal cases on "remote custodian" issue in debt
buyer authentication:

- Generally hostile to debt-buyer custodian attempting to
  authenticate original-creditor records
- See *Midland Funding LLC v. Brent*, 644 F Supp 2d 961 (ND
  Ohio 2009) and progeny

### Oregon Court of Appeals — business records

Look for recent Oregon decisions on:

- OEC 803(6) foundation in debt cases
- Whether a debt buyer's custodian can lay foundation for
  original creditor records (the trend favors defendant)
- OEC 902(11) compliance requirements

## ORCP and procedural

### Two Two v. Fujitec America, Inc., 355 Or 319, 325 P3d 707 (2014)

ORCP 47 summary-judgment burden. Cited often in debt-buyer
SJ practice when:

- Plaintiff moves for SJ; defendant shows lack of evidence on
  standing or chain of title
- Defendant moves for SJ on lack of capacity (ORS 697.105) or
  SOL

### Jones v. General Motors Corp., 325 Or 404, 939 P2d 608 (1997)

Favorable inferences to non-movant on summary judgment.

### Mattiza v. Foster, 311 Or 1, 803 P2d 723 (1990)

ORS 20.105 "objectively unreasonable" standard. Applicable when
seeking fees for a debt-buyer's frivolous suit.

### Granewich v. Harding, 329 Or 47, 985 P2d 788 (1999)

Oregon is fact pleading, not notice pleading. Plaintiff
debt-buyers must allege ultimate facts of chain of title; bare
allegations of "Plaintiff acquired the account" may be subject
to ORCP 21 A(8).

### Strawn v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Oregon, 353 Or 210, 297 P3d 439 (2013)

Lodestar methodology for fee awards.

## Bankruptcy

### Crawford v. LVNV Funding (cited above)

Bankruptcy proof of claim on time-barred debt = FDCPA
violation.

### Midland Funding LLC v. Johnson, 581 US 224 (2017)

Modified Crawford in some respects (specifically for proofs of
claim under Chapter 13). Not directly applicable to most state-
court debt-buyer cases.

## Garnishment and post-judgment

### 9th Circuit on federal-benefit garnishment protections

- Federal preemption of state garnishment in Social Security
  and VA contexts (42 USC § 407, 38 USC § 5301)
- 31 CFR 212 safe-harbor protection for direct-deposited
  federal benefits

## Cases to track

The Oregon Court of Appeals and 9th Circuit produce regular
decisions on:

- Debt-buyer standing and chain of title
- OEC 803(6) foundation in debt-buyer cases
- UTPA application to debt collection
- ORS 697 registration requirements
- FDCPA / Reg F enforcement

Run a periodic search on:

- CourtListener: filter Oregon courts; keywords "FDCPA",
  "ORS 646", "ORS 697", "debt collection"
- Google Scholar: filter Oregon courts; same keywords
- CFPB enforcement page for federal regulatory developments

## Verification template

```
WebFetch:
  url: https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%22[case name]%22&type=o&court=or,orctapp,ca9
  prompt: Verify the citation [case], [vol] Or/Or App/F3d
          [page] ([year]). Confirm year, parallel cite, and
          identify any subsequent treatment (overruled,
          distinguished, criticized).
```

## Cross-references

- `or-consumer-debt` SKILL — main bundle
- `or-law-references/references/key-cases.md` — general
  civil precedents
- `references/recent-decisions.md` — recent decisions
  worth tracking
- CourtListener (canonical): https://www.courtlistener.com/