Judicial mortgage foreclosure proceedings fall within the FDCPA's broad definition of debt collection. (See Cohen v Rosicki, Rosicki & Assoc., P.C., 897 F3d 75, 83 [2d Cir 2018], supra; cf. Obduskey v McCarthy & Holthus LLP, 586 US —, 139 S Ct 1029 [2019] [business engaged solely in non-judicial mortgage foreclosure, wherein borrower may not be held liable for balance due on note, is not a "debt collector" under the FDCPA].) A mortgage servicer is deemed to be a "debt collector" under the FDCPA if the mortgage was in default at the time the servicer began servicing the mortgage debt. (See Roth v CitiMortgage Inc., 756 F3d 178, 183 [2d Cir 2014], supra; Jones v New Penn Fin., LLC, 2020 WL 8771252, *4-5, 2020 US Dist LEXIS 216988, *12-13; Zirogiannis v Seterus, Inc., 221 F Supp 3d 292, 302 [ED NY 2016], affd 707 Fed Appx 724 [2d Cir 2017], supra; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Mantle, 134 AD3d 903 [2d Dept 2015], supra; 15 USC § 1692a [4], [6] [F].)
Defendant has not controverted plaintiff's evidence that Nationstar Mortgage (1) never possessed an ownership interest in the defendant's loan, (2) was at all times acting solely as a mortgage servicer on behalf of the beneficial owner, and (3) first undertook to act as a mortgage servicer for defendant's loan approximately six months after the loan was in default. On the record before the court, it must be concluded that Nationstar was a "debt collector" subject to the requirements of the FDCPA.{**76 Misc 3d at 733}
Protection Afforded Debtors by the FDCPA
[*7]