Disclosure: We would like to hear from you, but cannot represent you unless we know that doing so would not create a conflict of interest, or would require us to practice law in states or courts where we are not licensed to practice or give advice. Accordingly, please do not send us information about any specific matter that may involve you unless you are a client and have received a written statement from us that we represent you (an “engagement letter”).
Please click the “I Accept” if you understand and accept the terms of the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.
Against the Grain: Bankruptcy Court Allows FDCPA Claim to Proceed Despite Res Judicata Argument
Few issues involving the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) are more hotly contested than whether filing a proof of claim on a time-barred debt violates the FDCPA. In bankruptcy, creditors have a right to file proofs of claim outlining the debt owed to them by the bankrupt debtor. In some instances, the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit on that debt has run, and up until July 10, 2014, when the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, it was common practice to file a proof of claim on such a time-barred debt. Crawford—for the first time—likened the filing of a proof of claim to the filing of a lawsuit, finding that if one is wrongful, so is the other. After Crawford, debt collectors have faced a tidal wave of cases across the country, raising numerous defenses, one of which is res judicata. The argument goes like this: if a debt collector files a proof of claim to which neither the debtor nor the trustee objects and the court subsequently confirms the debtor’s plan, then a final judgment exists stating the debt is valid. Thus the debtor is barred by res judicata from further challenging the debt.
Despite a chorus of cases adopting this reasoning, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia recently dealt a blow to the res judicata argument, finding that the grounds upon which the FDCPA claim was raised and the grounds upon which the proof of claim was confirmed were not sufficiently similar such that one could foreclose the other. For two years the so-called Crawford cases have raged; circuit splits exist; and this recent decision from the Southern District of Georgia shows that further disagreement is likely. Creditors and debt collectors alike should monitor the development of these cases to ensure they know how their claims will be treated in the bankruptcy courts.
At Balch & Bingham, we go beyond building a case to building a relationship - one that's grounded in trust with a team of exceptional professionals dedicated to discovering creative and practical options that help you advance your business.