Banks & Banking – Debt Collector – Fair Debt Collection Practices Act – Truth in Lending Act – Foreclosure – Civil Conspiracy

Listen to this article

Appellant’s allegations were insufficient to support a conclusion that Bank of America was a “debt collector” within the meaning of the FDCPA.

We affirmed the circuit court’s order.

In this foreclosure action, Nelson L. Bruce, pro se, appealed the circuit court’s order granting Wilmington Savings Fund Society FSB as Trustee of Stanwich Mortgage Loan Trust C’s motions to dismiss Bruce’s counterclaims and for an order of reference. On appeal, Bruce argued the court erred by dismissing his counterclaims for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act based on its finding Wilmington was not a debt collector within the meaning of the FDCPA; dismissing his counterclaims without instructing him on how his pleadings were deficient or how to repair them and without allowing him the opportunity to correct any deficiencies; denying his constitutional right to a jury trial; dismissing his motions based on his failure to pay the filing fees; failing to consider his affidavits as facts before the court and prima facie evidence to support his claims; failing to join all parties he requested to be joined under Rule 13(h), SCRCP, in violation of his due process rights; limiting his counterclaims to only those stated in the caption and ignoring his other remaining counterclaims specified in paragraphs 35, 41, 42, and 49 of his pleadings; failing to file physical proof of its jurisdiction; violating Rules 5 and 25(c), SCRCP, by substituting Wilmington for the original plaintiff, Bank of America, without a hearing that would have given him an opportunity to object; and dismissing his claims for constructive fraud, conspiracy, and violation of the Truth in Lending Act.

Among other things, we held Bruce failed to plead sufficient facts to support a claim for violation of the FDCPA. Bruce did not allege that by initiating foreclosure proceedings, Bank of America was attempting to collect the debt of another. Instead, he alleged it was “asked to cease any and all communication attempts via telephone and ignored that request on more than 20 occasions” and that it “failed to validate the debt.” These allegations were insufficient to support a conclusion that Bank of America was a “debt collector” under the FDCPA.

We also held Bruce failed to preserve his argument the court erred by failing to instruct him as to how to amend his pleadings or give him the opportunity to do so, and we rejected Bruce’s argument that the court erred by failing to hold him to a less stringent standard than that required of a licensed attorney.

Finally, we held the court did not err by dismissing Bruce’s claim for civil conspiracy. Bruce failed to plead any facts alleging two or more persons combined or agreed to injure him. Accordingly, we hold the circuit court did not err by dismissing this claim.

Affirmed.

Wilmington Savings Fund Society FSB v. Bruce (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 012-003-24, 8 pp.) (Per Curiam) Appealed from Dorchester County Circuit Court (Diane Schafer Goodstein, J.) Nelson L. Bruce, of Summerville, pro se; William S. Koehler, of Albertelli Law Firm, of Columbia, for respondent. South Carolina Court of Appeals Unpublished