Consumer Bankruptcy Journal Summer 2015 | Seite 43

Debt Collection Practices Act

They include:
1. The consumer has suffered
no injury or damages and
therefore lacks standing to
bring the FDCPA claim.
2. The consumer has not
objected to the proof of claim
in the bankruptcy court (if
applicable).
3. The proof of claim was directed
at the bankruptcy estate, not at
the consumer.
4. The
consumer
was
represented by an attorney in
the bankruptcy case; therefore,

5.
6.

7.
8.

National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys

a more sophisticated standard
of review applies.
The filing of a proof of claim is
not a debt collection activity.
Subjecting
the
filing
of
proofs of claim to the FDCPA
undermines the primacy of the
bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction
in addressing the claims of a
debtor.
The debt remained valid, even
if the debt buyer could not sue
on it.
The debtor is further protected
by the trustee, who has an
obligation to review proofs of

Summer 2015

claim and object to any that are
invalid.
9. Nothing about the proof of claim
itself is false or misleading.
Our firm has filed a notice
of appeal in the Owens case, so this
issue is now before the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals on f acts very similar
to those in the Eleventh Circuit’s
Crawford opinion. We look forward
to the developments to come in this
interesting intersection of bankruptcy
law and consumer rights litigation.

CONSUMER BANKRUPTCY JOURNAL

43