Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson

(U.S. Sup. Ct. May 15, 2017)

The Supreme Court holds that a creditor did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when it filed a proof of claim on a debt that was barred from collection by the applicable statute of limitations. The proof of claim made clear that the limitations period had passed. The decision resolves a split among the circuits on the question of whether such a filing constituted “false,” “deceptive,” “misleading,” “unconscionable,” or “unfair” conduct under the act. The court reasons that while the claim may not be enforceable, it is nevertheless a “claim” under the bankruptcy code. It is not a false or misleading statement, but it can be disallowed based on its unenforceability. Similarly, the court reasons that the filing was not unconscionable or unfair, as there are protections built into the bankruptcy process that minimize risk to the debtor. Opinion below.

Justice Breyer

2017-05-15 – in re midland funding

Author: Matt Lindblom

Suesz v. Med-1 Solutions, LLC

(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