Borrower stated an FDCPA claim against his loan servicer for violation of 15 USC 1692f(1) (attempting to collect an amount not authorized by the contract or applicable law).  The loan servicer was a debt collector because it became servicer when plaintiff was already in default.  According to the complaint, the loan servicer kept dunning plaintiff and treating him as if he were still in default after he paid the sum the servicer demanded to reinstate the defaulted loan.  Also, plaintiff alleged that the reinstatement amount was miscalculated to include fees he wasn’t obligated to pay.  Plaintiff could also amend to state a claim for violation of 15 USC 1692(f)(6) based on the loan servicer’s continuing to pursue foreclosure after the borrower reinstated the loan.  Finally, the borrower could amend to state a UCL claim based on the two FDCPA claims.

California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1 (McConnell, P.J.); May 24, 2018; 2018 Cal. App. LEXIS 476