If you buy a defaulted private mortgage note and collect on your own account, the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1718, removes one specific FDCPA “debt collector” hook. That protection is real but narrow—state collection statutes, UDAP laws, and other FDCPA prongs remain fully live.

What the Court Actually Held

The Court read the FDCPA’s “owed or due… another” language in §1692a(6) at face value. A debt buyer collecting on its own account is not collecting a debt “owed or due… another”—the debt is now owed to the buyer itself. Justice Gorsuch’s opinion turned on plain statutory grammar, not policy. The holding left intact every other route to debt-collector status, including the “regularly collects… for another” prong and the principal-purpose-of-debt-collection test.

The Facts Behind the Case

Santander purchased a portfolio of defaulted auto loans from CitiFinancial Auto and sought to collect on them. Borrowers sued under the FDCPA, arguing Santander was a “debt collector” because the loans were already in default at acquisition. The Court declined to adopt a default-at-acquisition rule, anchoring its analysis entirely in the statute’s text: “owed or due… another” excludes obligations owed to the collecting entity itself.

Why Note Buyers Should Pay Attention

A note buyer that takes assignment and collects on its own account sits outside that one FDCPA debt-collector prong. That removes one layer of statutory exposure. The buyer still faces:

• State debt-collection statutes, some of which are broader than the FDCPA
• Other FDCPA prongs, if the buyer also collects obligations owed to third parties
• State Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices (UDAP) laws
• §1024.41 and §1024.36 obligations when the loan is consumer-purpose and federally related

Henson narrowed the FDCPA risk. It did not eliminate compliance risk.

Building the Acquisition File

A buyer acquiring a defaulted private note for its own account avoids the “owed or due… another” hook. To document that position cleanly, the acquisition file should confirm three things:

1. The buyer is collecting on its own account, not as agent or third party for another entity.
2. The buyer is not independently a “debt collector” under a different §1692a(6) prong for the same loan.
3. State-law analyses cover every jurisdiction where a borrower resides or collateral property sits.

Where the Henson Shield Stops

Lower courts post-Henson have held that a buyer remains a “debt collector” when its principal-purpose business is debt collection—the second prong of §1692a(6). More critically for serviced portfolios: the holding does not protect third-party servicers. A subservicer that qualifies as a debt collector under its own facts remains subject to the FDCPA regardless of the note buyer’s status. Buyers using subservicers must verify the subservicer’s FDCPA classification independently before boarding any loan.

Expert Take

Treat Henson as one tile in the compliance mosaic, not a clearance. The private lender who operates every note as if FDCPA, applicable state law, and RESPA all apply rarely faces UDAP exposure at exam or in litigation. Pair the holding with a thorough state-licensing analysis, a clean subservicer relationship, and disciplined loss-mitigation procedures—even when the loan is technically business-purpose. Qualified counsel should review FDCPA classification at the time of acquisition.

Related Resources

• 7 Compliance Mistakes Private Lenders Make
• 5 Tips to Limit Lender Liability
• 7 TILA-RESPA Misconceptions That Risk Your Seller Financing Investment
• 7 Mandatory Disclosures for Private Mortgage Lenders
• SAFE Act Compliance: A Private Lender’s Story
• 30% Less Litigation Risk: Proactive Disclosure for Private Lenders