21.  Plaintiff Garcia is a consumer obligated to pay a residential mortgage debt that  arose from the transaction to purchase her personal family home.   22.  Nationstar did not originate this consumer debt and instead independently  solicited and acquired the servicing rights to collect payments on this debt.   23.  Plaintiff’s debt is owed to another entity, the Federal National Mortgage  Association; and Nationstar, having solicited and acquired the servicing rights, now collects  payments on that entity’s behalf. Pursuant to these collection efforts, Nationstar sends Plaintiff  monthly statements that state, “This is an attempt to collect a debt.”   24.  Pursuant to its Washington Collection Agency license, Nationstar acts as a  collection agency with regards to Plaintiff and her residential mortgage debt.   25.  Nationstar began servicing Plaintiff’s consumer debt at a time when Plaintiff had  missed making payments for several consecutive months and was in default. Nationstar is a debt  collector with regards to Plaintiff and her residential mortgage debt.   26.  Within the past year, Plaintiff has paid several “convenience” fees to make  payments on her residential mortgage debt. All or a part of these fees were collected by  Nationstar incidentally to Plaintiff’s debt but were not expressly authorized by the original  agreement creating this debt or otherwise specifically permitted by law.   27.  The “convenience” fees that Nationstar collected from Plaintiff to make debt  payments exceeded any actual pass-through costs that Nationstar paid to third parties, if any, to  process such payments.  36.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.   37.  Plaintiff and the CPA Class members are individuals obligated for the payment of  money concerning debts incurred primarily for personal, family, and/or household purposes and  as such are consumer “debtors” owing non-commercial “claims” within the meaning of RCW  § 19.16.100(2), (7).   38.  Defendant acts as a “collection agency” within the meaning of RCW  § 19.16.100(4). Defendant has a Washington collection-agency license and is a “licensee” under  the Washington Collection Agency Act within the meaning of RCW § 19.16.100(9). Defendant  regularly solicits claims for collection and otherwise engages in collection efforts. With respect  to the debts that it does not own but merely services, Defendant routinely collects and attempts to  collect claims owed or due (or asserted to be owed or due) to another. With respect to debts that  Defendant does own, it generally bought such debts pursuant to its business of purchasing  delinquent or charged off claims for collection purposes. Regardless of ownership, Defendant  furnishes regular account forms for residential mortgage debts that proclaim to be “attempt[s] to  collect a debt” and which thus represent to be part of a collection system intended to be used to  collect debts.   49.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.   50.  Plaintiff and the members of the FDCPA Class and Washington Subclass are  natural persons obligated or allegedly obligated to debts incurred for personal, family, and/or  household purposes, and as such are “consumers” within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3).   Violations of the CPA, RCW ch. 19.86  (on behalf of Plaintiff and the CPA Class)   Violations of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.  (on behalf of Plaintiff, the FDCPA Class, and the Washington Subclass)  