Posted by NCBRC - December 4th, 2020
Declining to extend its 2002 holding in Walls, the Ninth Circuit found that a chapter 13 debtor who fully paid the creditor’s claim prior to completion of his plan was not precluded from pursuing an FDCPA claim based on the creditor’s post-discharge collection efforts. Manikan v. Peters & Freedman, L.L.P., No. 19-55393 (9th Cir. Nov. 25, 2020).
The debtor entered chapter 13 bankruptcy after receiving a notice of foreclosure from Peters & Freedman, a debt collector, based on HOA arrears. Through P&F, the HOA filed a claim in his bankruptcy, and the debtor provided for the arrears in his plan. He fully paid off the debt approximately two years prior to completion of his plan. After the debtor received his discharge, P&F hired Advanced Attorney Services (AAS) to re-serve a Notice of Default based on the debt that the debtor had paid off in his bankruptcy. AAS served the notice by breaking through a gate, entering the debtor’s backyard and banging on his windows, causing the debtor to call the police. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - November 13th, 2019
The district court abused its discretion when it denied certification of a class of plaintiffs alleging FDCPA violations based on the mortgage servicer’s post-discharge collection efforts where the servicer’s defense that the Bankruptcy Code’s discharge injunction precluded the claim applied to all claims of the purported class members. Sellers v. Rushmore Loan Management Services, No. 15-1106 (11th Cir. Oct 29, 2019).
After the Sellerses moved out of their home and obtained a chapter 7 discharge, the mortgage servicer, Rushmore, continued to send them monthly statements listing an ever-increasing amount due on their mortgage. The Sellerses filed suit in the district court alleging that Rushmore’s continued collection efforts violated the FDCPA and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) by falsely representing its right to collect the discharged debt. In addition, the Sellerses sought to certify a class of consumers subject to the same conduct. In its answer to the complaint, Rushmore argued against class certification and raised the affirmative defense that the claims were preempted/precluded by the Bankruptcy Code’s discharge injunction provision.
The district court declined to certify the class, finding that the issue of whether the Code preempted/precluded the purported class’s claims was a matter of individualized consideration. Its decision rested on the finding that the preclusive effect of the Bankruptcy Code was a function of the applicability of section 524(j), which permits a debt collector to collect payments in lieu of foreclosure from a debtor whose personal liability was discharged in bankruptcy but who continues to live on the property. The district court found that the issue of preclusion would affect only debtors to whom section 524(j) applied. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - March 29th, 2019
In a unanimous, narrow, decision, the Supreme Court held that an entity merely carrying out nonjudicial foreclosures is not a “debt collector” within the meaning of the FDCPA. Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, 586 U.S. ___, No. 17-1307 (March 20, 2019).
The action arose when the law firm of McCarthy & Holthus, acting as agent for the mortgagee, initiated nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings against Dennis Obduskey. In response to McCarthy’s notice of foreclosure, sent in compliance with Colorado nonjudicial foreclosure law, Mr. Obduskey invoked the FDCPA and sent a letter disputing the debt. When McCarthy went forward with the foreclosure proceedings, Mr. Obduskey filed a complaint in district court alleging violation of the FDCPA’s requirement that, upon notification of a disputed claim, a debt collector must cease collection activities and obtain verification of the debt. The district court found that McCarthy was not a debt collector to which the FDCPA requirements applied. The Tenth Circuit affirmed. Obduskey v. Wells Fargo, 879 F. 3d 1216 (2018). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - May 26th, 2017
An FDCPA claim based on efforts to collect a debt discharged in bankruptcy is not precluded by the Code’s discharge injunction. Barnhill v. FirstPoint, Inc., No.15-892 (M.D. N.C. May 17, 2017).
Lara Barnhill filed a class action complaint in district court alleging that FirstPoint, Inc. and FirstPoint Collection Resources made efforts to collect a debt after her debt had been discharged in chapter 7 bankruptcy in violation of the FDCPA, North Carolina Collection Agency Act (NCCAA). The complaint also made a claim for injunctive relief. FirstPoint moved to dismiss under section 12(b)(1) and (6) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
FirstPoint argued that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the FDCPA and NCCAA claims because both consumer protection laws are preempted by the Bankruptcy Code’s discharge injunction. FirstPoint further argued that Ms. Barnhill failed to allege injury-in-fact and therefore lacked Article III standing. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - May 16th, 2017
“Midland’s filing of a proof of claim that on its face indicates that the limitations period has run does not fall within the scope of any of the five relevant words of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.” Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, 2017 WL 2039159 (May 15, 2017) (case no. 16-348), reversing Johnson v. Midland Funding, LLC, 823 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2016). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - January 11th, 2017
In a flurry of party and amici briefs, the issue of whether a proof of claim for a stale debt gives rise to an FDCPA claim has been briefed before the Supreme Court. Midland Funding v. Johnson, No. 16-348 (petition filed Sept. 16, 2016). The case is on appeal from the Eleventh Circuit decision that the “Bankruptcy Code does not preclude an FDCPA claim in the context of a Chapter 13 bankruptcy when a debt collector files a proof of claim it knows to be time-barred.” Johnson v. Midland Funding, LLC, C.A. No. 15-11240, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9478 (11th Cir. May 24, 2016). The issue is currently pending in courts around the country including the First, Third, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Circuits. Oral argument is scheduled for January 17.
Johnson ACA Intl amicus
Johnson Brunstad Amicus
Johnson Chamber of Commerce amicus
Johnson DBA intl amicus
Johnson NABT Amicus
Johnson NACBA Amicus SCt Dec 2016
Johnson NARCA amicus
Johnson NCLC etc amicus
Johnson Petition brief
Johnson petition reply
Johnson Reprinted brief of respondent
Johnson Resurgent Capital Amicus
Johnson US amicus
Posted by NCBRC - October 12th, 2016
The Supreme Court today granted certiorari in the case of Midland Funding, LLC. v. Johnson, No. 16-348, in which the Eleventh Circuit found that not only does a proof of claim on a time-barred debt violate the FDCPA, but the FDCPA claim is not in conflict with, nor is it precluded by, the Bankruptcy Code.
This issue has been circulating in various forms throughout the courts as many debt collectors have made it a business practice to file proofs of claim in bankruptcy cases on debts they know to be time-barred and, therefore, uncollectible. Success of this practice depends upon the claim slipping past the debtor and his or her attorney, if the debtor is represented, as well as the bankruptcy trustee. In many cases, trustees have conceded that they do not routinely check proofs of claim for validity based on timeliness. NACBA has taken a stand on the issue, arguing that such practices violate the FDCPA and that the debtor can prosecute the FDCPA claim notwithstanding the existence of the bankruptcy action. Owens v. LVNV Funding, LLC, ___F.3d ___, 2016 WL 4207965 (7th Cir. Aug. 10, 2016); Nelson v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, 2016 WL 3672073 (8th Cir. July 11, 2016).
Posted by NCBRC - September 29th, 2016
Midland Funding, LLC., has filed a petition for certiorari seeking Supreme Court review of the Eleventh Circuit decision in Johnson v. Midland Funding, LLC., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9478, No. 15-11240 (May 24, 2016), petition for cert. filed, No. 16-348, (Sept. 16, 2016). In Johnson, the court expanded its earlier decision in Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 758 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 1844, 191 L.Ed.2d 724 (2015), to find that not only does a proof of claim on a time-barred debt violate the FDCPA, but the FDCPA claim is not in conflict with, nor is it precluded by, the Bankruptcy Code. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - September 13th, 2016
The Fifth Circuit held that “a collection letter violates the FDCPA when its statements could mislead an unsophisticated consumer to believe that her time-barred debt is legally enforceable, regardless of whether litigation is threatened.” Daugherty v. Convergent Outsourcing Inc., No. 15-20392 (5th Cir. Sept. 8, 2016). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - August 26th, 2016
The Seventh and Fourth Circuits have joined the fantasy world in which the debtor, the trustee or the court stand as gatekeepers against debt collectors determined to sneak an collectible debt into the debtor’s chapter 13 plan. Owens v. LVNV Funding, LLC., Nos. 15‐2044, 15‐2082, 15‐2109 (7th Cir. Aug. 10, 2016); Dubois v. Atlas Acquisitions, LLC. No. (4th Cir. Aug. 25, 2016). In both cases the voice of reason was represented by a dissenting opinion. Read More
