Found this :
The Supremacy Clause
State Law versus Federal- Which rules?
[THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE Article. VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. ]
Any federal law does trump any conflicting state law
Issues like credit reporting and debt collector abuse are researched by millions of consumers each and every day. Commonly, there is confusion as to whether the law to consider is a state or federal law and which one will finally rule. The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution explains that federal law always trumps state law which means federal always wins if there is a conflict between the two. If there is no conflict then the state law will be used but if there is any question or conflict of the two reading as the same, then the federal rule would win.
According to FindLaw, State courts are bound then to give effect to federal law when it is applicable and to disregard state law when there is a conflict; federal law includes, of course, not only the Constitution and congressional enactments and treaties but as well the interpretations of their meanings by the United States Supreme Court. While States need not specially create courts competent to hear federal claims or necessarily to give courts authority specially, it violates the supremacy clause for a state court to refuse to hear a category of federal claims when the court entertains state law actions of a similar nature.
According to LectLaw, Under the Supremacy Clause, everyone must follow federal law in the face of conflicting state law. It has long been established that "a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute" and that a conflict will be found either where compliance with both federal and state law is impossible or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Edgar v. Mite Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 631 (1982). Similarly, we have held that "otherwise valid state laws or court orders cannot stand in the way of a federal court's remedial scheme if the action is essential to enforce the scheme."
Stone v. City and County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 862 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1050 (1993). Due to concerns of comity and federalism, the scope of federal injunctive relief against an agency of state government must always be narrowly tailored to enforce federal constitutional and statutory law only.
Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1089 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1069 (1987). This is critical because "a federal district court's exercise of discretion to enjoin state political bodies raises serious questions regarding the legitimacy of its authority." If Congress expressly provides for exclusive federal dominion or if it expressly provides for concurrent federal-state jurisdiction, the task of the Court is simplified, though, of course, there may still be doubtful areas in which interpretation will be necessary.
Where Congress is silent, however, the Court must itself decide whether the effect of the federal legislation is to oust state jurisdiction.
FDCPA III. COVERAGE UNDER THE ACT
A. Arises only in a "consumer" "debt" "transaction.", 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692a(3) and (5); Creighton v. Emporia Credit Service, Inc., 981 F.Supp. 411 (E.D.Va. 1997).
1. Natural person obligated to pay any obligation or alleged obligation arising from a transaction the subject of which is primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.
2. Underlying debt must arise from a "transaction," thus child support, tort claims, and personal taxes are excluded - Mabe v. G.C. Services Limited Partnership, 32 F.3d 86 (4th Cir. 1994); Zimmerman v. HBO Affiliate Group, 834 F. 2d 1163 (3rd Cir. 1987); Hawthorne v. Mac Adjustment, Inc., 140 F.3d 1367 (11th Cir. 1998); Beggs v. Rossi, 145 F.3d 511 (2nd Cir. 1998); Staub v. Harris, 626 F.2d 275 (3rd Cir. 1980).
Item A and # 2 seems to lend an argument that a husband who incurs a court order for payment for a civil suit loss would NOT have the wife responsible under Calf Statues of cross responsibilty between spouses even though Cal law requires cross spouse responsibility.
By the same token, since a wife's medical bills does not arise from a "transaction" between teh husband and the OC, then dinging a husbands credit report under State community property law would conflict with Fed law, and thus under the Supremacy Clause, Fed law would preempt State.
Also, check this out:
Per the FDCPA:
§ 816. Relation to State laws [15 USC 1692n]
This title does not annul, alter, or affect, or exempt any person subject to the provisions of this title from complying with the laws of any State with respect to debt collection practices, except to the extent that those laws are inconsistent with any provision of this title, and then only to the extent of the inconsistency. For purposes of this section, a State law is not inconsistent with this title if the protection such law affords any consumer is greater than the protection provided by this title.
§ 817. Exemption for State regulation [15 USC 1692o]
The Commission shall by regulation exempt from the requirements of this title any class of debt collection practices within any State if the Commission determines that under the law of that State that class of debt collection practices is subject to requirements substantially similar to those imposed by this title, and that there is adequate provision for enforcement.
It seems as if Section 816 bolsters my claim of preemption, since it would seem Fed law affords more protection to the consumer in this instance.
As to S 817, my reading is that the Fed law will not trump State law if the debt collection practices are similar to those imposed under FDCPA, but it appears that State law is not similar and affords less protection, and therefore is preempted.
Thoughts Aaron?

