In Patrick v. PYO, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by filing 2 proof of claims in plaintiff's bankruptcy case, when those claims were barred by the state's statute of limitations.  Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the FDCPA did not apply to cases brought under the bankruptcy code.  The court denied the motion, finding that the bankruptcy code did not preclude the simultaneous application of the FDCPA to debt collection efforts taken in the bankruptcy case.  The court also found that filing a proof of claim on a time barred debt creates the misleading impression that the debt can be legally enforced.

 

In Slick v. Portfolio Recovery, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA in a variety of ways while communicating with her through letters and phone calls.  The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, and the court denied defendant's motion while concluding that defendant had violated the FDCPA.  Plaintiff argued that defendant's letters violated the FDCPA because they implied that defendant could credit report the debt despite the fact that the time period for reporting the debts had expired as the debt had charged off more than 7 years prior to the sending of the letters.  The court granted plaintiff's motion, finding that the implication that the debt could be credit reported was both false and misleading, and also unlawfully suggested that defendant could take an action it was legally prohibited from taking.

 

In Mayo v. Bank of America, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FCRA by falsely reporting that the spouses of debtors were co-debtors on the underlying debts.  Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the credit reporting of plaintiff's account was proper because the account was treated and billed as a joint account and used by plaintiff as a joint account.  The court found that plaintiff was a co-debotr, and that the credit reporting was accurate, and therefore entered judgment in favor of defendant.

 

Back to News & Resources