The United States Supreme Court recently held that the submission of a proof of claim in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case for payment of a time-barred claim did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “Act”). Overturning the decision of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court explained that the Bankruptcy Code includes certain safeguards which limit the potential for abuse, and thus, the assertion of a time-barred claim in bankruptcy proceedings did not constitute a practice prohibited under the Act.

“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).

Debt collectors scored a win on Monday when the United States Supreme Court ruled that pursuing stale debt is not a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”).

The case of Midland Funding LLC v Aleida Johnson addressed an ongoing issue for creditors, debt collectors and consumers. As debts age, and are often sold, there remains a question of how far collectors may go to pursue payment on the debt.

In Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a debt collector does not run afoul of the FDCPA by filing a proof of claim in bankruptcy on a stale debt.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a mortgage loan borrower’s federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and related state law claims because the defendant mortgagee was not a “debt collector” as defined by the FDCPA.

In so ruling, the Court also rejected the borrower’s allegations that the monthly statements the mortgagee sent to the borrower after her bankruptcy discharge were impermissible implied assertions of a right to collect against her personally.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that a court cannot extinguish a secured creditor’s state-law security interests for failure to file a proof of claim during the administration of an equity receivership over entities involved in a Ponzi scheme.

A copy of the opinion in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Wells Fargo Bank is available at: Link to Opinion.

We have written in the past about the doctrine of equitable mootness. A March 30, 2017 per curiam affirmance by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Beem v. Ferguson (In re Ferguson) explores the concept and limitations of equitable mootness and distinguishes it from the related doctrine of constitutional mootness.

Section 523(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code is clear that a debtor can discharge a debt for money obtained by a false statement respecting the debtor's financial condition unless that statement is in writing. What has not been clear is whether a debtor's false oral statement regarding a single asset is a "statement respecting the debtor's financial condition" that falls within the ambit of 523(a)(2)(A). If so, debts obtained by such a false oral statement would be dischargeable. If not, then creditors could seek to have such fraudulently obtained debts excepted from discharge.

A debtor ordinarily may discharge debts in bankruptcy, unless one of several exceptions apply. One of the preclusions to dischargeability of certain debts, found in Section 523(a)(19) of the U.S.

A recent case in the Southern District of New York, U.S. Bank, NA v. T.D. Bank, NA, applied the so-called Rule of Explicitness to the allocation of recoveries among creditors outside of a bankruptcy proceeding. In the bankruptcy context, this rule requires a clear and unambiguous intention to turn over post-petition interest to senior creditors at the expense of junior creditors. The court in this case found the requisite documentary clarity to pay post-petition interest ahead of the distribution of principal.