Cliff Hoofman

Biographical details

Cliff Hoofman Simpson v. Cavalry SPV I, LLC (2014)

Cavalry clearly purchased and attempted to collect delinquent accounts or bills, and therefore, Cavalry is a collection agency under the plain language of section 17-24-101. The mere fact that Cavalry retained an attorney to act on its behalf to litigate the matter is irrelevant under these circumstances as to whether Cavalry was attempting to collect.
Source: Wikisource

Cliff Hoofman Simpson v. Cavalry SPV I, LLC (2014)

Thus, the additional language in section 17-24-102 (b) explains that the "clients" are the individuals "in the collection" of the debt, and the attorneys are simply "rendering legal services" on behalf of their clients and are exempt from the licensure requirement.
Furthermore, Cavalry's interpretation would have this court infer that the definition of collection agency would include only "direct" attempts and not any "indirect" attempts to collect.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature