Holding:
The filing of a proof of claim that is obviously time barred is not a
false, deceptive, misleading, unfair or unconscionable
debt-collection practice within the meaning of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Midland
Funding filed a proof of claim in Johnson’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy
case. It asserted that Johnson owed Midland debt on a credit card.
The last time any charge appeared on Johnson’s account was more
than 10 years ago. The relevant statute of limitations under Alabama
law is six years. Johnson objected to the claim, and the Bankruptcy
Court disallowed it.
Johnson
sued Midland, claiming that its filing a proof of claim on an
obviously time-barred debt was “false,” “deceptive,”
“misleading,” “unconscionable,” and “unfair” within the
meaning of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U. S. C.
§§1692e, 1692f. The District Court held that the Act did not
apply and dismissed the suit. The Eleventh Circuit reversed. The
Supreme Court reversed, holding the filing of a proof of claim on a
time barred debt is not a false, deceptive, misleading, unfair or
unconscionable debt collection within the meaning of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
While
the decision has not been published yet, the Syllabus containing the
decision can be viewed at
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-348_h315.pdf
