The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a summary judgment ruling in favor of a Hutchison & Steffen client seeking to enforce a promissory note secured by residential real property. Michael R. Brooks represented the lender against multiple claims by a borrower challenging the client’s ownership and the enforceability of a loan secured by residential real property. Significantly, the Court of Appeals affirmed that the FDCPA requires that any mistaken representation must be material and likely to mislead a least sophisticated debtor. The Firm was able to demonstrate to the Court that the alleged error was so inconsequential that it was neither material nor likely to mislead. Moreover, the Court of Appeals determined that the borrower did not have standing to challenge the lender’s acquisition of the loan and its status as a mortgage broker or mortgage banker. Moreover, the 9th Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court finding that the borrowers claim of a loan discharge in the form of a letter from the original lender was baseless and that the alleged discharge letter could properly be disregarded where its origins were suspect and there was no evidence to corroborate its existence.