Careers

Experiences

Industries

Offices

Our Firm

Pages

Our People

Updates

Practices

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is a corporate law firm with over 230 attorneys serving clients in nine offices throughout Michigan. Among the largest law firms in Michigan, Warner works in virtually all areas of business law.

Michigan Law Firm - Warner Norcross + Judd LLP

In Midland Funding, LCC v. Johnson, issued May 15, 2017, the Court held that a creditor does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when it files a proof of claim in a Chapter 13 case after the applicable statute of limitations period for that debt has passed. The decision establishes that filing the time-barred proof of claim does not qualify as a false, deceptive, misleading, unconscionable or unfair practice under the FDCPA.

contentpilot/introduction

core/heading

Initially, the Court noted that the law of many states provides that a creditor has a right to payment of a debt even after the expiration of the limitations period. While the expiration of the limitations period renders a claim unenforceable, a proof of claim on a stale debt is not false, deceptive or misleading because the bankruptcy code does not limit “claims” to “enforceable claims.” Moreover, the Court noted that generally, a debtor must assert the statute of limitations in a lawsuit or the defense is waived.

core/paragraph

The Court distinguished a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding from a collection lawsuit, noting that in a lawsuit, a debtor may unknowingly pay a stale debt to his or her disadvantage. However, in a bankruptcy proceeding, the debtor initiates the proceeding and has the benefit of established procedures and is guided by a knowledgeable bankruptcy trustee. These protections reduce risk to the debtor and decrease the likelihood that the debtor will unknowingly pay a stale debt.

The Court also suggested that a debtor may actually benefit when a creditor asserts a stale claim in bankruptcy, since the debt will be discharged and erased from the debtor’s later credit reports.

Finally, the Court emphasized that to find a violation of the FDCPA under these circumstances would upset the “delicate balance” that the Court attempts to maintain between the bankruptcy code and the FDCPA, particularly in terms of the obligations placed upon creditors and debtors in bankruptcy.

Impact and Implications for Creditors and Debtors

The Supreme Court’s decision may provide peace of mind to certain businesses, particularly those that buy older debt from others. Debtors and trustees must remain vigilant in evaluating proofs of claim to ensure that no claims are barred by the statute of limitations.

The Court’s decision is limited to Chapter 13 bankruptcies and does not affect other collection activities aimed at stale debts. Several lower courts have held that seeking to enforce stale debts outside of bankruptcy is an unfair practice under the FDCPA.

If you have questions about this case, contact Elisabeth Von Eitzen at 616.752.2418 (Grand Rapids), 269.276.8118 (Kalamazoo) or evoneitzen@wnj.com, Emily Rucker at 616.752.2764 or erucker@wnj.com or your attorney at Warner Norcross &amp; Judd.

Partner

Emily S. Rucker

Elisabeth M. “Liz” Von Eitzen

Bankruptcy, Restructuring and Insolvency

Proof of Claim on Stale Debt Does Not Violate Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is responsible for the contents of our advertising and this website. Please read our full <a href="/privacy-policy/" aria-label="see privacy policy">privacy policy</a> available on our website. If you have any questions or comments about our website or our Privacy Policy please contact us at <a href="mailto:info@wnj.com">info@wnj.com</a> or 616.752.2000. 

Proof of Claim on Stale Debt Does Not Violate Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

professionals