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 SidThis 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/dnotify 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