Recently, several courts across the country have considered whether filing a proof of claim on debt that is barred by the statute of limitations violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). The increased attention on this issue was sparked by the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 758 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2014). The Eleventh Circuit held that filing a proof of claim on debt that is barred by the applicable statute of limitations violates the FDCPA.

A Louisiana District court finds that the filing of an allegedly time barred proof of claim by a creditor does not amount to a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. B-Real, LLC v. Rogers et al., 2009 WL 1405844 (M.D.La. May 19, 2009) (Ruling on Appeal)

A Louisiana District Court ruling provides that a creditor did not violate the provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by filing what were alleged to be three time-barred proofs of claim based upon underlying debt allowed under Louisiana law.

On January 2, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) filed an amicus curiae brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to reverse a district court’s decision finding that a debt collector lacked the requisite knowledge and intent to violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when it sent a debt-collection communication prior to any knowledge of the debtor’s bankruptcy filing.

On July 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit partially affirmed and partially reversed a district court’s dismissal of an FDCPA suit. The district court reviewed plaintiff’s claims under the FDCPA, which alleged that defendants violated the bankruptcy court’s order discharging his debt and knowingly filed a baseless debt collection lawsuit.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a consumer’s lawsuit against a debt collector, holding that the consumer lacked Article III standing to sue because his allegations of ʺconfusion” and “alarm” were not sufficiently concrete to result in an injury in fact.

Creditors and debt collectors may rest assured that they are not violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when sending debt-collection communications prior to any knowledge of a debtor’s bankruptcy filing. In Carrasquillo v.

In 2020, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) issued a final rule (“Rule”) that amends Regulation F, 12 C.F.R. part 1006, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”). The Rule became effective on November 30, 2021. Because the FDCPA was implemented over four decades ago, the Rule is designed to interpret and further the goals of the FDCPA in present day. The Rule places additional restrictions on debt collection practices and addresses communications regarding debt collection.

Scope of the Rule

Overview

We all remember The Devil and Daniel Webster – the Devil comes to collect a seven year old debt (secured by Jabez Stone’s soul), only to be foiled by the great trial lawyer Daniel Webster – thanks to a skilled litigator, the old debt is forgiven!

A recent opinion issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois reminds us that corporate veil-piercing liability is not exclusive to shareholders. Anyone who is in control of and misuses the corporate structure can be found liable for the obligations of the corporation. The facts of this case, however, did not support personal liability for veil-piecing.