(Seventh Circuit July 2, 2014)
The Seventh Circuit issues a significant opinion on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act’s requirement that a debt collector file its collection suit in the “judicial district or similar legal entity” where the contract was signed or where the debtor resides. The court concludes that this term means the smallest geographic area that is relevant for determining venue in the court system in which the case is filed, which may be a township or other smaller geographic area in the applicable county. The Court overturns its 1996 opinion in Newsome v. Friedman. Opinion below.
2014-07-02 – suesz v med-1 solutions
(S.D. Ind. June 30, 2014)
The district court reverses the bankruptcy court, holding that Section 523(a)(3)(B) does not apply to the creditors’ claim that the debtors failed to make required disclosures following the prepetition sale of their home. While the debtors failed to list the claim in their schedules, they did not have knowledge of the claim at the time of the bankruptcy filing (the creditors brought the claim in state court after the discharge order) and thus Section 523(a)(3)(B) did not apply. Because that section does not apply, the bankruptcy court had exclusive jurisdiction to determine the dischargeability of the debt, rather than concurrent jurisdiction with the state court in which the creditors brought their claim, and thus should have decided the dischargeability issue. The district court remands to the bankruptcy court to decide the issue. Opinion below.
2014-06-30 – muir v mcwilliams