Bankruptcy is not a sure-fire remedy for credit union members in severe financial distress. While it can provide an avenue for escaping your promises to repay, it can also have some unintended, disagreeable consequences. I have represented credit unions across four states in US Bankruptcy Courts over the last 40 years. During those decades, I found that too many lawyers who file bankruptcies for credit union members are often not discussing all the consequences with their clients.
“The law has long treated unenforceability of a claim (due to the expiration of the limitations period) as an affirmative defense … And we see nothing misleading or deceptive in the filing of a proof of claim that, in effect, follows the Code’s similar system.”
Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, (May 15, 2017).
A New York District Court recently tackled the intersection between bankruptcy and pre-petition FDCPA claims and the application of judicial estoppel to undisclosed claims. In December 2013, Jeziorowski filed a complaint alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA). Jeziorowski v. Credit Prot. Assn., L.P., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66084 (W.D.N.Y. 2017). Shortly after filing suit, Jeziorowski filed bankruptcy pursuant to Chapter 7.
A Virginia bankruptcy court recently ruled that an objection to a proof of claim was not barred by the doctrine of res judicata when an order of confirmation was entered prior to the objection being filed.In re Haskins, No. 15-60644 (W.D. Va. Jan. 27, 2017) [Dkt No.
Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Midland Funding v. Johnson and resolve the split in the circuits over whether the filing of a time barred proof of claim violates the FDCPA and whether the Bankruptcy Code preempts the FDCPA regarding proofs of claim.
Last week, the Seventh Circuit chimed in on whether time barred proofs of claim violate the FDCPA.In Owens v. LVNV Funding, LLC, the Seventh Circuit affirmed three district court decisions which dismissed consumer’s FDCPA claims against debt buyers who filed time barred proofs of claim.Owens v. LVNV Funding, LLC, Nos. 15-2044, 15-2082, 15-2109 (7th Cir. Aug. 10, 2016).In doing so, the Seventh Circuit joins the Second and Eighth Circuits in siding against the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 758 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2014).
A district court in Nevada recently granted a mortgage company’s motion to dismiss FCRA claims where the reported debt had been discharged in bankruptcy.The opinion serves as a reminder of the rules governing the reporting of discharged debt.In Riekki v. Bayview Fin. Loan Servicing, the consumer alleged that the subject debt was discharged pursuant to his Chapter 13 bankruptcy and that the creditor continued to report balances through the pendency of the bankruptcy as well as post-petition.Riekki v. Bayview Financial Loan Servicing, 2:15-cv-2427, 2016 U.S. Dist.
A recent decision out of the Southern District of Georgia shows the collateral impact of the Crawfordv. LVNV Funding proof of claim decision issued by the Eleventh Circuit.
The Eleventh Circuit has made it clear: it will not back down from its decision in Crawford v. LVNV Funding, a decision it issued in 2014 and one which has been the subject of hot debate ever since. In Crawford, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the filing of a proof of claim was an attempt to collect a debt and the filing of a proof of claim on time-barred debt violated the FDCPA. Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 758 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2014). Since Crawford, the debate has raged on with several courts weighing in on the subject.
The Eleventh Circuit has made it clear: it will not back down from its decision in Crawford v. LVNV Funding, a decision it issued in 2014 and one which has been the subject of hot debate ever since.In Crawford, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the filing of a proof of claim was an attempt to collect a debt and that the filing of a proof of claim on time barred debt violated the FDCPA. Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 758 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2014).