## Facts

- Vallorie Clark financed a 1987 Saab through the University of Bridgeport Credit Union, which held a security interest in the vehicle.
- After Clark defaulted, the Credit Union hired Auto Recovery Bureau Conn., Inc., whose principal business was repossessing collateral for secured creditors.
- Auto Recovery commonly used a tow truck with a “Dynamic Auto Load System,” allowing a vehicle to be hooked and towed quickly, often without the crew exiting the truck.
- On May 13, 1991, Auto Recovery attempted to repossess the Saab at Clark’s residence; when Clark objected, Auto Recovery stopped and notified the Credit Union that she would not surrender the vehicle.
- On May 17, 1991, while Clark attended a picnic at the University of Bridgeport, the Saab was parked on a nearby public street; the Credit Union directed Auto Recovery to repossess it.
- Auto Recovery towed the Saab away quickly, without giving Clark an opportunity to remove personal belongings from the car.
- Clark’s personal property in the vehicle included an umbrella, raincoat, a purse containing $150, and her son’s costume needed for an upcoming play.
- The personal property was returned only after the time the costume was needed, causing Clark to buy a replacement costume for $50.
- Clark sued only Auto Recovery (not the Credit Union), asserting FDCPA, CUTPA, and conversion claims.
- The case was tried to the court, resulting in findings of fact and conclusions of law under Rule 52(a).

## Issues

1. Whether a repossession company whose principal business is enforcing security interests is a “debt collector” for purposes of FDCPA § 1692f(6).
2. Whether the nonjudicial repossession was taken “without a present right to possession” under FDCPA § 1692f(6), given state-law limits on self-help repossession (including the requirement to avoid a breach of the peace).
3. Whether the repossession conduct constituted an unfair or deceptive act or practice under CUTPA.
4. Whether towing the vehicle while exercising control over Clark’s personal property, and delaying its return, constituted conversion under Connecticut law.

## Decision

- The court held Auto Recovery was a “debt collector” for the limited purposes of FDCPA § 1692f(6) because its principal business was enforcing security interests.
- The court found Auto Recovery violated FDCPA § 1692f(6) by taking nonjudicial action to dispossess Clark without a “present right to possession,” as measured by Connecticut self-help repossession limits.
- The court held the same conduct constituted an unfair trade practice under CUTPA.
- The court held Auto Recovery liable for conversion of Clark’s personal property taken with the vehicle.
- The court awarded statutory and fee relief under the FDCPA and damages for the conversion-related losses (amounts determined in the judgment).

## Legal Principles

- Entities whose principal purpose is the enforcement of security interests are treated as “debt collectors” for purposes of FDCPA § 1692f(6).
- FDCPA § 1692f(6)’s “present right to possession” requirement is evaluated in light of state law governing self-help repossession; if the repossession is conducted in a manner state law forbids (including by breaching the peace), the repossessor lacks a present right to possession for § 1692f(6).
- Conduct supporting an FDCPA violation can also support a finding of “unfair” conduct under CUTPA when it causes consumer injury and conflicts with public policy against abusive enforcement practices.
- Conversion under Connecticut law occurs when a defendant exercises unauthorized dominion over another’s personal property to the exclusion of the owner’s rights; temporary deprivation and delayed return can establish liability and damages.

## Conclusion

The court imposed liability on a repossession company for an unlawful self-help repossession under FDCPA § 1692f(6), found the same conduct unfair under CUTPA, and held the company liable for conversion based on its control and delayed return of the debtor’s personal belongings taken with the vehicle.


Clark v. Auto Recovery Bureau Conn., Inc., 889 F. Supp. 543 (D. Conn. 1994)