IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA
THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE
BRETT AMBRIDGE and |
JOSEPHINE AMBRIDGE,
Plaintiffs,
vs. Case No. 3AN-10-6356 Cl
ALASKA TRUSTEE, LLC,
and STEPHEN ROUTH,
Defendants, {
ecesetaeeeeeeeeace lachlan aSESEEE
OPINION RE: PARTIES’ CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Introduction
When Plaintifs Brett and Josephine Ambridge defaulted on their housing loan,
Alaska Trustee, LLC, conducted a non-judicial foreclosure of their deed of trust, In due
course, Alaska Trustee mailed the Ambridges a Notice of Default.’ The Ambridges
allege that this Notice violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and
Alaska’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (UTPA) by omitting
required information. They seek injunctive and declaratory relief as well as damages.
‘The Ambridges have moved for partial summary judgment as to the FOCPA violation,
and Defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment with respect to the counts
asserting violations of the FDCPA and the UTPA.
” See attached Exhibit,
Alaska Court System
Page 1
Ambridge v. Alaska Trustee, et al.
3AN-10-6356 Cl
Opinion Re: Parties’ Cross-Motions for SidThis Court finds that Alaska Trustee is a debt collector as defined by Title 15 of
the United States Code, section 1692a(6). It further finds that the Notice of Default was
@ communication under section 1692a(2). Plaintiffs! motion for partial summary
Judgment as to Alaska Trustee is granted.’ Defendants’ cross-motion for summary
judgment is denied
Background
Facts
Plaintiffs were obligated on a loan secured by a deed of trust against property
they owned at 276 Lane Street in Anchorage, Alaska. Santiago Affidavit at 5. The
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation ("Alaska Housing’) owned the loan. Compiaint at
1110. When Plaintiffs went into default, Alaska Housing retained Alaska Trustee to
conduct a non-judicial foreclosure of the deed of trust. Santiago Affidavit at {]4. Alaska
Trustee subsequently recorded a Notice of Default on August 7, 2009, which informed
the Ambridges that they owed the principal amount of $196,712.28, “plus interest, late
charges, attorney fees and costs and other advances.” Pl.’s Exh. 1; Santiago Affidavit at
116. The following statement is printed at the top of the Notice: “The purpose of this
letter Is to collect a debt. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose.” PI's
Exh. 1.
‘The Notice also states that the trustee, Pacific Northwest Title of Alaska, has
elected to sell the property on November 10, 2009. PI's Exh. 4. At the bottom of the
Notice is an FOCPA Statement, which informs the Ambridges that if the Ambridges
||AS discussed in the Procedural History section, Defendants have not yet filed a motion to dismiss Routh as to his
liability. The Court thus declines to make a ruling regarding Routh at this time.
Alaska Court System
Page 2
Ambridge v. Alaska Trustee, et a,
3AN-10-6356 C)
Opinion Re: Parties’ Cross-Motions for S/dnotify Alaska Trustee within thirty days, disputing the debt, Alaska Trustee “will obtain
verification of the debt and mail itto [the Ambridges].” Alaska Trustee will also provide
information upon request regarding the original creditor.
‘An Amended Notice of Default was recorded on August 28, 2009, and mailed to
the Plaintiffs; it changed the date of sale to December 4, 2009. P's Exh. 2. The
foreclosure sale took place as scheduled, with Alaska Housing as the successful bidder
by offset. Santiago Affidavit at {| 7. According to the Ambridge’s counsel, Daniel C
Coons, the Notices ‘were defendants[’] only communications to plaintiffs conceming the
debt owed." Coons Certificate at 1 4
il. Procedural History
Plaintiffs fled a complaint on Aprii 2, 2010, asserting violations of the FDCPA
and the UTPA. Count | alleges that Defendants violated section 1692g(a) of the
FDCPA when they failed to send Plaintiffs a written notice containing the precise
amount of debt owed. Pls’ Complaint at | 13. Plaintiffs seek damages and declaratory
relief stating that Defendants must, within five days of their first communication with a
debtor, provide the actual amount of debt due. Id. at 14.2 Plaintiffs’ second count
alleges that because Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, they also violated AS §
45.50.471(a) ("Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in
the conduct of trade or commerce are deciared to be unlawful."). Id. at 16. They seek
injunctive and declaratory relief and damages. Id. at {| 17.
“Ina Notice of Corection and Clarification, dated December 14, 2010, Plaimiffs acknowledged that injunctive and
declaratory relief are not available under the Federal Act
Alaska Court System
Page 3
Ambnoge v. Alaska Trustee, et al
3AN-10-6356 Cl
Opinion Re: Parties’ Cross-Motions for S/d
Lawyer Antognini Files Reply Brief in The Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage, OCWEN, Deutsche California Appeal Case at The California Supreme Court - Filed March 2015
New Century Liquidating Trust Still Has Over $23 Million in Cash in Their Bankruptcy - 1ST Quarter 2014 Financial Report From Alan M Jacobs The Apptd. Bankruptcy Trustee For Nclt.