4th Cir. Holds No FDCPA Violation For Filing Proof of Claim on Time-Barred Debt

In Dubois v. Atlas Acquisitions, LLC, a majority panel of the Fourth Circuit recently held that, while the filing of a proof of claim in a borrower’s bankruptcy proceeding constitutes “debt collection”, filing a proof of claim in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy based upon a time-barred debt does not violate the FDCPA or state collection laws so long as the statute of limitations itself does not extinguish the debt.  The Court noted that under Maryland law, the statute of limitations does not extinguish the debt itself, but merely bars the remedy. 

Consequently, the Fourth Circuit rejected the Eleventh Circuit’s holding in Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 758 F.3d 1254, 1259-60 & n.6 (11th Cir. 2014), noting that the “[t]he Eleventh Circuit in Crawford is the only court of appeals to hold that filing a proof of claim on a time-barred debt in a Chapter 13 proceeding violates the FDCPA.”

A copy of the opinion can be found here. 

 Discussion

At the outset, the Court determined that filing a proof of claim is debt collection activity subject to the FDCPA.  The Court explained that “[d]etermining whether a communication constitutes an attempt to collect a debt is a ‘commonsense inquiry’ that evaluates the ‘nature of the parties’ relationship,’ the ‘[objective] purpose and context of the communication[],’ and whether the communication includes a demand for payment.”  Op. at 9 (citations omitted).

In the bankruptcy context, the “only relationship between [the parties] [is] that of a debtor and debt collector. . . . [and] the ‘animating purpose’ in filing a proof of claim is to obtain payment by sharing in the distribution of the debtor’s bankruptcy estate.” Op. at 9-10.  Consequently, “[p]recedent and common sense dictate that filing a proof of claim is an attempt to collect a debt.  The absence of an explicit demand for payment does not alter that conclusion, . . . nor does the fact that the bankruptcy court may ultimately disallow the claim.” Op. at 10.

Nevertheless, in an explicit departure from the Eleventh Circuit’s holding in Crawford, the Court determined that filing a proof of claim based on a debt that is beyond the applicable statute of limitations does not violate the FDCPA. 

To that end, the Court considered whether a time-barred debt fell within the definition of a claim in the bankruptcy context.   The Court observed that “while the Bankruptcy Code provides that time-barred debts are to be disallowed, see, e.g., 11 U.S.C § 558, the Code nowhere suggests that such debts are not to be filed in the first place.”  Op. at 16.  Rather, recent amendments to Rule 3001 suggest that “the Code contemplates that untimely debts will be filed as claims but ultimately disallowed.”  Op. at 16-17.  As such, they fall within the definition of a claim within the bankruptcy context.

Further, the Court determined that excluding time-barred debts from the scope of bankruptcy “claims” would frustrate the Code’s intended effect to define the scope of a claim as broadly as possible, and provide the debtor the broadest possible relief.  The Court also observed that under applicable Maryland law, the statute of limitations does not extinguish the debt, but merely bars the remedy.  Accordingly, the Court concluded that “when the statute of limitations does not extinguish debts, a time-barred debt falls within the Bankruptcy Code’s broad definition of a claim.”  Op. at 17.

Moreover, the Court noted a unique consideration in the bankruptcy context: “if a bankruptcy proceeds as contemplated by the Code, a claim based on a time-barred debt will be objected to by the trustee, disallowed, and ultimately discharged, thereby stopping the creditor from engaging in any further collection activity.”  Op. at 18.  Alternatively, “[i]f the debt is unscheduled and no proof of claim is filed, the debt continues to exist and the debt collector may lawfully pursue collection activity apart from filing a lawsuit.”  Op. at 19. 

The Court rejected the borrower’s claim that trustees and creditors fail to object to time-barred debts, noting that “for most Chapter 13 debtors, the amount they pay into their bankruptcy plans is unaffected by the number of unsecured claims that are filed.”  Op. at 20.  “As additional claims are filed, unsecured creditors receive a smaller share of available funds but the total amount paid by most Chapter 13 debtors remains unchanged.  Thus, from the perspective of most Chapter 13 debtors, it may in fact be preferable for a time-barred claim to be filed even if it is not objected to, as the debtor will likely pay the same total amount to creditors and the debt can be discharged.”  Op. at 20-21 (emphasis in original).

Moreover, the Court noted various other considerations that differentiate filing a proof of claim on a time-barred debt from filing a lawsuit to collect such debt.  Op. at 21-23.  Consequently, the majority concluded that “filing a proof of claim in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy based on a debt that is time-barred does not violate the FDCPA when the statute of limitations does not extinguish the debt.”  Op. at 23.  Accordingly, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the Debtor’s FDCPA and state law collection claims.

Md. App. Holds Collection Agency License Not Required for Insurance Company Pursuing Subrogation Rights Against Consumer

In Old Republic Insurance Company v. Gordon, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland determined that an insurance company under a credit insurance policy was not required to hold a collection agency license when it sued a consumer to enforce its subrogation rights under the policy.   At issue was the interpretation of the Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act, Md. Code, Bus Reg. § 7-101, et seq. (“MCALA”), which defined “collection agency” to include any person engaged directly or indirectly “in the business of” collecting a consumer claim if the claim was in default when the person acquired it.  See Md. Code, Bus. Reg. § 7-101(c).  The Court concluded that the term “in the business of” was ambiguous, and, relying upon the legislative history of MCALA, determined that an insurance company pursuing subrogation rights under its credit insurance policy did not fall under the definition of “collection agency.” 

A copy of the opinion is located here. 

Background

Insurance Company issued a credit insurance policy to Lender to insure payments due under a mortgage loan made to Borrower.  Following Borrower’s default, Insurance Company paid Lender pursuant to the policy.  Insurance Company then sought repayment from Borrower under subrogation rights provided in the policy.  After Borrower’s failure to pay, Insurance Company ultimately sued Borrower. 

Borrower challenged the lawsuit, claiming that Insurance Company could not obtain a judgment against her because it had acted as an unlicensed collection agency under § 7-101(c) of MCALA, rendering any possible judgment against her void pursuant to the Court of Special Appeals’ ruling in Finch v. LVNV Funding LLC, 212 Md. App. 748 (2013).  Borrower claimed that, because Insurance Company obtained the right to collect the debt after her default, it constituted a “collection agency,” which under Section 7-101(c).

The trial court agreed with Borrower, holding that under MCALA’s plain language, Insurance Company was acting as a collection agency because it was asserting a consumer claim related to a debt that it acquired while the debt was in default.  The trial court found immaterial that Insurance Company acquired the debt through a subrogation agreement rather than a debt purchase.  Consequently, the trial court granted summary judgment to Borrower and dismissed Insurance Company’s lawsuit with prejudice.  This appeal followed. 

Discussion

Noting its prior holding in Finch that “a judgment entered in favor of an unlicensed debt collector constitutes a void judgment,” the Court determined that resolution of the appeal hinged on whether Insurance Company, in pursuing its subrogation rights against borrower, was a ‘collection agency’ under MCALA and required to hold a license.  Op. at 13.  Notably, the exclusions under Section 7-102, were not applicable.  Op. at 13, n. 4 (“[MCALA” specifically excludes certain persons, such as a bank and a mortgage lender.  BR § 7-102. . . . “[A]n insurance company pursuing subrogation rights is not included in this list.”).

The Court considered the language of § 7-101(c), which defined “collection agency” to include persons engaging “in the business of” collecting a consumer claims if the claim was in default when the person acquired it.  Op. at 18.  The Court determined that § 7-101(c)’s phrase “in the business of” had been interpreted differently by courts:  some considered the nature and extent of the activity, while others interpreted the phrase more broadly.   Consequently, the appellate court concluded that the phrase was ambiguous.  Op. at 18-20. 

The Court then examined MCALA’s legislative history and determined that the Legislature did not intend § 7-101(c) to target insurance companies pursuing subrogation rights.  Op. at 22.  Specifically, the expansive definition of collection agency was the result of an amendment in 2007.  The Court observed that the 2007 amendments of MCALA were specifically intended to regulate debt purchasers, who purchase debts at a discount or are otherwise compensated on a contingent basis.  Op. at 20-21.  

Given that Insurance Company was not a “debt purchaser” that purchased Borrower’s debt at a discount, the Court determined that it did not constitute a “collection agency” under the purview of MCALA.  Moreover, the Court noted that “[b]ecause an insurance company pursuing subrogation claims does not qualify as a collection agency, there wasneed to include an insurance company in the list of exclusions [from the definition of ‘collection agency’] found in BR § 7-102.”  Op. at 22, n. 9.   Accordingly, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court.

Md. App. Holds Judgment in Favor of Unlicensed Collection Agency Subject to Challenge "At Any Time"

In Jason v. National Loan Recoveries, LLC, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland determined that a borrower could challenge a district court judgment as void beyond the catch-all three-year statute of limitations, where it was obtained against him by an unlicensed collection agency.  Noting that prior case law determined such judgments to be void, the intermediate appellate court held that a void judgment was subject to attack “at any time,” but an open question remained as to what remedies were available, including whether they were subject to the defenses of laches and waiver.

However, the Court determined that a three-year statute of limitations applied to Borrower’s claims for unjust enrichment relating to amounts received in satisfaction of the judgment through garnishment of his bank account, as well as Maryland statutory consumer protection claims relating to unlicensed collection activity.  Because the record was not clear as to when Creditor had been allegedly unjustly enriched, i.e., the date it received the garnished funds, the Court reversed the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim for further proceedings.   However, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the statutory consumer protection claims on limitations grounds, noting that the Borrower was on inquiry notice of the alleged unlicensed collection activity more than three years before filing suit.

A copy of this opinion is available here.

Background

After acquiring a debt in default, Creditor sued Borrower, and subsequently obtained a judgment against him.   Thereafter, a writ of garnishment was served upon Borrower’s bank, and ultimately the judgment was satisfied through the garnishment proceedings. 

Three years after the original collection suit had been filed, Borrower filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration that the prior judgment against him was void because Creditor lacked a collection agency license, asserting a claim for unjust enrichment, and further asserting that Creditor’s unlicensed collection activity violated the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act, Md. Code, Comm. Law § 14-201 (“MCDCA”), and Maryland Consumer Protection Act, Md. Code, Comm. Law § 13-101 (“MCPA”).

Notably, Borrower alleged that Creditor constituted a collection agency because it acquired the loan when it was in default.  See Md. Code, Bus. Reg. § 7-101(c)(1)(ii) (defining a “collection agency” to include “a person who engages directly or indirectly in the business of . . . collecting a consumer claim the person owns, if the claim was in default when the person acquired it; . . .”).  Further, for purposes of the appeal, it was undisputed that at the time Creditor had filed suit against Borrower, it did not hold a Maryland Collection Agency license, nor did it obtain a license until after the writ of garnishment was issued.

Creditor moved to dismiss Borrower’s claims, which the trial court granted, determining that all of Borrower’s claims were barred by the three-year statute of limitations under Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings (“CJP”) § 5-101.  This appeal followed.

Discussion

Addressing Borrower’s claims for declaratory relief, the Court noted that in Finch v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 212 Md. App. 748 (2013), it previously held that “a judgment entered in favor of an unlicensed debt collector constitutes a void judgment as a matter of law.”  Op. at 6.  Recognizing that Finch did not address the applicability of the statute of limitations, the Court nevertheless concluded that although “it is possible that the passage of time could limit the remedies available to the judgment debtor who is subject to a void judgment, there appears no time limit for asserting that a judgment is void.” Op. at 8 (Emphasis in original). 

Thus, although the Court reversed the dismissal of the claims for declaratory relief, it explicitly expressed no opinion regarding the remedial relief that the Borrower could ultimately obtain, and whether such relief was subject to defenses of laches or waiver.  Further, the Court noted that comments to the Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment indicated that payment on an invalid judgment resulting from valid debt does not create unjust enrichment.  See Op. at 8-9 n. 4.

The Court then determined that “a claim for unjust enrichment that seeks the remedy of restitution of money is subject to the general three-year statute of limitations” set forth in Maryland Code, CJP § 5-101.  Op. at 13.  Applying the discovery rule to Borrower’s unjust enrichment claim, the Court noted that it could not ascertain when Creditor obtained the funds from its judgment against Borrower.  Op. at 15.  Therefore, the Court could not determine whether the unjust enrichment claim was timely filed, and accordingly reversed the trial court’s dismissal of such claim for further proceedings.  Op. at 17.

Finally, the Court held that the three-year statute of limitations also applied to Borrower’s statutory consumer protection claims under the MCDCA and MCPA.  Op. at 18.  The Court rejected Borrower’s assertion that Creditor had a duty to disclose its lack of licensure.   Rather, the Court determined that Borrower was on inquiry notice of Creditor’s collection activities against him at least three years prior to filing his lawsuit, and was on inquiry notice to investigate potential claims against Creditor when it sought and obtained the judgment against him.  Thus, the Court held that Borrower’s statutory claims under the MCDCA and MCPA were time-barred, and affirmed the dismissal of such claims.  Op. at 18.