Alaska Trustee, LLC and Stephen Routh, Appellant v. Brett Ambridge and Josephine Ambridge, Appellees

Summary

The Alaska Supreme Court held that a company conducting nonjudicial mortgage foreclosures is a debt collector under the FDCPA because foreclosure is a means of collecting the underlying consumer debt, and the company's notices violated the Act by omitting the full amount due. The court also held that the company's owner qualified as a debt collector based on his operational involvement, but was not individually liable because he did not materially participate in preparing or approving the specific defective notices. The court affirmed injunctive relief under the UTPA because an FDCPA violation constitutes an unfair or deceptive act under Alaska law. Justice Winfree, joined by Justice Stowers, dissented, arguing that nonjudicial foreclosure merely enforces a security interest and that the statutorily required notices were not FDCPA debt-collection communications.