Case Citator › Dale Kaymark v. Bank of America NA

Dale Kaymark v. Bank of America NA

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Third Circuit
Citation
783 F.3d 168
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
30 of 30
Citing cases (total)
30
Treatment dates
2019
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Kaymark v. Bank of America has been abrogated in part. Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP displaced its broad description of security-interest enforcers as debt collectors for all FDCPA requirements when the enforcer conducts only nonjudicial foreclosure.
More on how this was screened

Kaymark's judicial foreclosure and Pennsylvania consumer-law holdings remain distinct; later courts continue to apply them. The confirmed Supreme Court treatment is listed below. All 30 flagged citations have been read.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

30 later cases cite Dale Kaymark v. Bank of America NA; 30 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Dale Kaymark v. Bank of America NA?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court rejected Kaymark's broad view of FDCPA debt collectors for entities engaged in no more than nonjudicial foreclosure, while leaving judicial foreclosure claims outside its holding.

    Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    In our view, the last sentence does (with its § 1692f(6) exception) place those whose "principal purpose ... is the enforcement of security interests" outside the scope of the primary "debt collector" definition, § 1692a(6), where the business is engaged in no more than the kind of security-interest enforcement at issue here-nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings. ... with Kaymark v. Bank of America, N. A. , 783 F.3d 168, 179 (C.A.3 2015) (holding that such an entity is a debt collector for the purpose of all the Act's requirements)
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Dale Kaymark v. Bank of America NA and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace