On May 15, the U.S. Supreme Court put to rest a theory of liability under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA or Act). This has a major impact on both the credit and collections industry as well as bankruptcy practitioners who represent creditors.
The court found that “the filing of a proof of claim that is obviously time-barred is not a false, deceptive, misleading, unfair or unconscionable debt collection practice” under the FDCPA, reversing the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit.
Three things were found in this case:
- State law determines whether a person has a “claim” or “right to payment” – In this case, the law of Alabama says a creditor has the right to payment of a debt even after the limitations period has expired.
- A Proof of Claim is Not a Civil Lawsuit – The filing of a lawsuit to collect a debt beyond the statute of limitations is in fact an FDCPA violation.
- The FDCPA and the Code serve separate purposes – With the FDCPA, the Acts work to protect consumers by preventing consumer bankruptcies in the first place. The Code creates and maintains the delicate balance of a debtor’s protections and obligations.
The courts have spent many years stretching the Act beyond what Congress had intended. The FDCPA has seen many interpretations due to a lack of regulation. This case is just another example.
Found This Useful? Let's Get You Set Up.
Start an application and an expert will tailor the next steps to your situation.
