Campbell v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

4 Citing cases

  1. Boczek v. Pentagon Fed. Credit Union

    Civil Action 1:23-CV-43 (KLEEH) (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 26, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    Id. (citing Garbutt v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 8:20-CV-136-T-36JSS, 2020 WL 5641999, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 22, 2020; Est. of Campbell v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 467 F.Supp.3d 1262, 1265 (S.D. Fla. 2020); Bardak v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, No. 8:19-cv-1111-24TGW, 2020 WL 5104523 at *4 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 12, 2020); Reid v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 20-cv-80130, 2020 WL 5104539, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2020); and Flores v. Collection Consultants of California, No. SACV140771DOCRNBX, 2015 WL 4254032,at *10 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2015)).

  2. Thomas-Lawson v. Carrington Mortg. Servs.

    Case No. 2:20-cv-07301-ODW (Ex) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2021)   Cited 3 times   2 Legal Analyses

    Some courts, including courts in the Central District, have held that where a consumer chooses to pay a convenience fee while other fee-free methods of payment are available, such convenience fees are not prohibited by § 1692f because they are not "incidental to" principal debts. See, e.g., Flores v. Collection Consultants of Cal., No. SA CV 14-0771-DOC (RNBx), 2015 WL 4254032, at *10 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2015) (dismissing FDCPA claim because convenience fees for optional payment methods are "not 'incidental' to the principal obligation"); Est. of Campbell v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 467 F. Supp. 3d 1262, 1264-65 (S.D. Fla. 2020) (dismissing FDCPA claim because "convenience fees are a separate transaction neither part of, nor incidental to, the transferred debt"); see also Lish v. Amerihome Mortg. Co., LLC, No. 2:20-cv-07147-JFW-JPRx, 2020 WL 6688597, at *3-4 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2020) (dismissing RFDCPA claim based on Flores). But other courts, including courts in the Central District, have declined to follow Flores because § 1692f(1) prohibits the collection of any amount, whether incidental to the underlying debt or not.

  3. Cooper v. PennyMac Loan Servs., LLC

    509 F. Supp. 3d 1325 (S.D. Fla. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    This split has yet to be resolved by the Eleventh Circuit. The Court, however, is persuaded by the well-reasoned analysis conducted by Judge Singhal in Estate of Derrick Campbell v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC. 467 F. Supp. 3d 1262 (S.D. Fla. 2020). There, Judge Singhal, himself persuaded by the Middle District's Judge Moody's "well-reasoned, commonsense approach and analysis in Turner v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC , 467 F.Supp.3d 1244 (M.D. Fla. 2020)," adroitly analyzed the issue before the Court:

  4. Garbutt v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

    Case No: 8:20-cv-136-T-36JSS (M.D. Fla. Sep. 22, 2020)   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    The Court is unpersuaded that the convenience fee here is incidental to the principle obligation, but rather adopts the reasoning of those courts that have concluded the convenience fee is a separate optional fee that originated from Defendant and was not a fee stemming from the underlying mortgage. See Lang, at *5; Turner, at *4 (finding convenience fee was "a fee incurred in a separate agreement between the parties to ensure same-day posting and processing of Turner's mortgage payments—an optional service that Turner voluntarily incurred"); Campbell v. Ocwen, Case No. 20-cv-80057-Singhal (Apr. 30, 2020) (finding convenience fees are a separate transaction neither part of, nor incidental to, the transferred debt and rejecting plaintiff's argument that convenience fees are part of the defaulted mortgage debt); but see Webster v. Ocwen, 20-cv-60117-DIMITROULEAS, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 30, 2020) (finding that the Speedpay fees at issue are "expenses incidental to the principal obligation" and therefore are covered by the FDCPA and the FCCPA). Because the Court concludes that the convenience fees were not a debt owed another and were not in default, Defendant would not be a "debt collector" under the FDCPA and the FCCPA.