In Franceschi v. Mautner-Glick Corp. (S.D.N.Y. 1998) 22 F. Supp. 2d 250, the court granted a motion to dismiss the complaint, holding that the clause (F)(iii) "debt-not-in-default" exclusion applied to a property management company that collected rents for a landlord. The Franceschi court explained the rationale underlying the distinction between creditors and property managers who are excluded from the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), as opposed to post-default debt collectors who are governed by the statute: "Congress did not intend the Act to cover companies in the business of regularly servicing outstanding debts, such as rents, for others. . . . 'Unlike creditors, who generally are restrained by the desire to protect their good will when collecting past due accounts, independent collectors are likely to have no future contact with the consumer and are often unconcerned with the consumer's opinion of them.' . . . The Act recognizes that creditors have a natural incentive to avoid abusing their debtors and thus are less in need of policing. As the agents of the creditor, property managers . . . have as strong an incentive as creditors to maintain their reputation in the community in order to encourage existing and new tenants and landlords to conduct business with them." (Franceschi, supra, at p. 254.)