those expenses will likely result in a special assessment. Therefore, not only has the delinquent homeowner taken advantage of the assessments paid by his fellow homeowners, but he has now increased their fee burden. Surely, this was not the purpose behind the WVCCPA, which is plainly designed to target commercial, profit-generating entities. Certain federal courts, including the Fourth Circuit, have construed the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) to require a- debt to be a “consumer debt.” See Mabe v. G.C. Services Limited Partnership, 32 F.3d 86, 88 (4th Cir.1994) (finding that child support obligation was not a “debt” under the FDCPA because it was not “incurred to receive consumer goods or services.”); Bloom v. I.C. Sys., Inc., 972 F.2d 1067, 1068 (9th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); Nance v. Petty, Livingston, Dawson, &
holding that a debt incurred for a personal family or household purpose is a consumer debt even though it is secured by the debtors real property holding that student loans for debtors sons education were for family purposes and should be considered consumer debt holding that a debtor has primarily consumer debts if the aggregate amount of consumer debt is more than 50 of the total debt holding that the fdcpa applies only to consumer debts incurred primarily for personal family or household purposes holding that fdcpa applies to attorneys who regularly engage in consumer debt collection activities