By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired)
Inconsistency on proof of claim negated prima facie validity and preemption of state law. Examining whether secured creditor was “debt collector” under California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and concluding that Act’s definition was broad enough to include the creditor, the debtor’s complaint under that Act was preempted by the Bankruptcy Code’s claim objection procedures. Also, the debtor’s RESPA claim was similarly preempted. However, the proof of claim contained inconsistencies on its face as to the amount of the claim, negating the prima . . .
It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.
Or Sign In Below: