[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-278977-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":81,"doc-detail-278977-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","singer-v-pierce-associates-pc-no-03-3108-seventh-circuit-decision","Singer v. Pierce & Associates, P.C. - No. 03-3108 - Seventh Circuit decision","","United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirms dismissal of a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim filed by Lois Ann Singer against Pierce & Associates, P.C. The case centers on attempts to collect attorneys’ fees after Illinois orders were vacated once the mortgage was paid off. The court reviews de novo, treats the April 5 loan payoff letter as FDCPA-covered debt collection, and holds Pierce’s actions were not unlawful under the FDCPA even though fee amounts were in dispute.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/","Letters",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/singer-v-pierce-associates-pc-no-03-3108-seventh-circuit-decision/278977/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/singer-v-pierce-associates-pc-no-03-3108-seventh-circuit-decision/278977.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Jordan Avery","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-09-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",15,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What was the main issue on appeal in No. 03-3108?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Whether Singer stated a valid FDCPA claim against Pierce regarding efforts to collect $2,574 in attorneys’ fees when only $1,100 had been designated in a vacated Illinois interlocutory order.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"Why was the Illinois foreclosure-related order for fees and costs vacated?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The Illinois court granted Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss and vacated previous orders after Singer paid off the loan in full and closed the property sale.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What was the appellate court’s conclusion about Pierce’s conduct under the FDCPA?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The court affirmed dismissal, reasoning that Pierce did not take unlawful action to collect the disputed attorneys’ fees under the FDCPA, and the payoff letter and related billing issues did not establish Pierce’s FDCPA violation.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},278977,1790301994,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,89,94,99,103,108,113,117,122],{"id":85,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":86,"show_sort_weight":87,"slug":88},11,"Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":90,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":91,"show_sort_weight":92,"slug":93},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":95,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":96,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":98},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":55,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":100,"show_sort_weight":101,"slug":102},"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":104,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":105,"show_sort_weight":106,"slug":107},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":109,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":110,"show_sort_weight":111,"slug":112},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":114,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":115,"slug":116},18,30,"letters",{"id":118,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":119,"show_sort_weight":120,"slug":121},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":123,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":125},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":127},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":128,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":22,"category_id":114,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":135,"language":136,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":140,"read_time":26},1099523882367,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_9964176cb1d06d4a9deccf72a44ae3dc","In the  \nUnited States Court of Appeals  \nFor the Seventh Circuit  \nNo. 03-3108  \nLOIS ANN SINGER,  \nPlaintiff-Appellant,  \nv.  \nPIERCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.,  \nDefendant-Appellee.  \nAppeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.  \nNo. 02 C 6323—Blanche M. Manning, Judge.  \nARGUED MAY 21, 2004—DECIDED SEPTEMBER 8, 2004  \nBefore BAUER, KANNE, and DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judges.  \nKANNE, Circuit Judge. In November of 2000, Lois Ann Singer obtained a $100,750 mortgage loan that, among other things, authorized the collection of “reasonable attorneys’fees” should she default. After Singer fell behind on her mortgage payments, her bank, Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, hired Pierce & Associates, P.C., to foreclose on the property. Once Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., 1 the bank’s ser-  \n1 Saxon was formerly known as Meritech Mortgage Services, Inc. According to Singer’s complaint, Wells Fargo “authorized Saxon to accept all payments on [Singer’s] loan and to deal with [Singer] on  \n(continued...)  \n2 No. 03-3108  \nvicing agent, accelerated the loan, Pierce filed the foreclosure action on September 28, 2001, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The Illinois court set the foreclosure sale for May 10, 2002 and awarded $1100 in attorneys’ feesand $908 in costs to the bank.  \nBefore the scheduled foreclosure sale, however, Singer arranged to sell the property. She notified Saxon that she wanted to pay off the loan. Saxon, in response to Pierce’s request to satisfy the loan and avoid a foreclosure sale, sent a loan payoff letter dated April 5 to Singer setting forth, in pertinent part, the following:  \nPrincipal  \nInterest Thru 04/30/2002 Escrow  \nLate Charge Attorney Fee Marketing Cost Pir Inspection Attorney Fee  \nLate Charge Prepayment Penalty  \nTotal Funds Due for Pay Off:  \n100,599.78  \n11,737. 10  \n2,485. 13  \n711.62 993.00 205.00  \n39.75 1,581.00  \n54.74 5,128.67  \n123,535.79  \n(R. 38, Ex. C.) Full payment of the $123,535.79 was a precondition to releasing the Wells Fargo mortgage so the sale to the third party could be finalized. In early May, Singer closed the deal with the buyer and paid off the bal-  \n1 (...continued)  \nbehalf of [Wells Fargo] as if Saxon were the owner [of the debt]. All actions of Saxon described [in the complaint] were taken within the scope of Saxon’s authority as servicing agent.” (Amend. Comp.¶ 10.)  \nNo. 03-3108 3  \nance requested in the loan payoff letter. On May 8, the Illinois court granted Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss the foreclosure action and vacate all previous orders (includingthe order setting attorneys’ fees and costs).  \nSinger, along with two other plaintiffs, sued several defendants, including Pierce, Wells Fargo, and Saxon, alleging that the defendants engaged in illegal lending and collection practices. The only issue before us on appeal is whether Singer stated a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”), claim against Pierce for its attempts to collect $2574 in attorneys’ fees when the Illinois court had designated only $1100 in attorneys’ fees in a vacated interlocutory order. The district court dismissed this count, finding that the mortgage contract entitled Wells Fargo to collect reasonable attorneys’ fees against Singer, without regard to the vacated Illinois court order. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm.  \nI. Analysis  \nWe review the district court’s decision to dismiss de novo,“accepting the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Marshall-Mosby v. Corporate Receivables, Inc. , 205 F. 3d 323, 326 (7th Cir. 2000).  \nBefore we assess the propriety of the district court’s ruling, a couple of troubling issues should be noted. Initially, although not raised by Pierce in this appeal, it is questionable whether the loan payoff letter of April 5 constitutes a demand for collection of a debt contemplated by the FDCPA. A ","cbCain7fLYac2buW","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCain7fLYac2buW","pdf",16484,6,"English","# Appeal Information\n## Parties and Procedural Background\n## Issue on Appeal\n# Analysis and Holding","[{\"question\":\"What was the main issue on appeal in No. 03-3108?\",\"answer\":\"Whether Singer stated a valid FDCPA claim against Pierce regarding efforts to collect $2,574 in attorneys’ fees when only $1,100 had been designated in a vacated Illinois interlocutory order.\"},{\"question\":\"Why was the Illinois foreclosure-related order for fees and costs vacated?\",\"answer\":\"The Illinois court granted Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss and vacated previous orders after Singer paid off the loan in full and closed the property sale.\"},{\"question\":\"What was the appellate court’s conclusion about Pierce’s conduct under the FDCPA?\",\"answer\":\"The court affirmed dismissal, reasoning that Pierce did not take unlawful action to collect the disputed attorneys’ fees under the FDCPA, and the payoff letter and related billing issues did not establish Pierce’s FDCPA violation.\"}]","Singer v. Pierce & Associates, P.C. - No. 03-3108 - Seventh Circuit decision | PDF",1789514476]