On February 22, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, 598 U.S. _____, 2023 WL 2023 WL 2144417 (Feb. 22, 2023), affirming the Ninth Circuit’s decision and resolving “confusion in the lower courts on the meaning of § 523(a)(2)(A).”1 Two Justices joined the opinion with the understanding that the Court was only addressing fraud in the context...
From the Editor – Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
Print This Article
Link to Post:
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired)
Debtor failed to state FDCPA claim. Granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Chapter 13 debtor’s complaint did not state a cause of action under the FDCPA when the defendants acquired the debt postpetition and the only action they had taken was to file a proof of claim. The complaint did not allege that the proof of claim was abusive or deceptive, distinguishing Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 758 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2014). Hanson v. Antio, LLC, et al., ___ B.R . . .
It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.
Or Sign In Below:
Related Articles
Fraud Imputed to Partner – Bartenwerfer v. Buckley
From the Editor – Confirmation
Covid-19 and the 7 Year Plan
Critical Case Comment – Listing a Debt “Just in Case”
Character Counts
ABI Commission on Consumer Bankruptcy – Post-Petition Changes in Value
Critical Case Comment – Pay the TAXES!
From the Editor – Claims
Avoidance Powers In Chapter 13 – Part 3 of 6
Critical Case Comment – Time is of the Essence