# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 5- 29 84

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Dom ic k Nel so n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Mi dl an d C red it Man ag em en t, In c.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Nati on al Ass oc ia ti on of C on su m er Ba nk ru pt cy Att or ne y s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Amicu s o n Beh al

f o f Ap pe ll an t(s )

ACA In te rn at io na l

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Amicu s o n Beh al

f o f Ap pe ll ee(s )

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 5, 2 01 6 Fil ed : J ul y

11 , 20 16

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, BENTON, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

In N ov em

be r 20 06
, Dom ic k R. Nels on de fau lt ed on a co ns um er de bt of $7 51 .87

. On Feb ru ary 25
, 20 15
, sh e fil ed a Ch ap te r 13 pe ti ti on in ba nk ru pt cy co ur t. Mi dl an d Cred it Man ag em en t, In c., as ag en t fo r th e cred it or , fil ed a pr oo f of cl ai m in ba nk ru pt cy co ur t fo r th e am ou nt of th e de bt

. Acco rd in g to th e pr oo f of cl ai m , Nels on

m ad e no pa y m en t on th e de bt aft er Nov em be r 20 06

. Nels on ob

jecte d to th e pr oo f of cl ai m , arg ui ng i t w a s t im e-b arre d. Se e § 51 6.1 20 (1 ) RSMo 20 00 ; Dis co ver y Grp

. LLC v. Cha

pe l Dev., LLC
, 5 7 4 F

. 3 d 98 6, 99 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (rec og ni zi ng th at Mi ss ou ri st at ut es of li m it at io ns are pr oc ed ur al
, no t su bs ta nt iv e, an d m erel y su sp en d th e rem ed y wit ho ut ex ti ng ui sh in g th e rig ht ). The ba nk ru pt cy co ur t a g r eed
, di sa ll owi ng Mi dl an d’s cl ai m

. Se e 11 U.S.C. § 55 8 (in cl ud in g s ta tu te s o f li m it at io n

as a de fen se for a ba nk ru pt cy est at e).

Nels on th en su ed Mi dl an d, al le gi ng th at , by fil in g th e pr oo f of c l ai m on th e ti m e-b arre d de bt
, Mi dl an d vi ol at ed th e Fai r Deb t Co ll ect io n Prac ti ces Act (FDCP A). The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d fo r fai lu re to st at e a cl ai m , ho ld in g th at th e FDCPA is 1

no t im pl ic at ed by a de bt co ll ect or fil in g an accu rat e an d co m pl et e cl ai m on a t i m eba rred de bt

. Nels on ap pe al s. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 12 91
, th is co ur t affi rm s.

Thi s co ur t rev ie ws de no vo t h e R u le 12 (b )(6 ) di sm is sa l of Nels on ’s cl ai m s. Co x v. Mo rt ga ge El ec. Reg is tr at

io n Sys ., In c. , 68 5 F.3 d 66 3, 6 6 8 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 12 ). Thi s co ur t as su m es as tru e al l fact ua l all eg at io ns in th e pl ead in gs , in te rp ret in g th em

m os t fav or ab ly to Nels on , th e no nm ov in g pa rty. Bel l v. Pfiz er , In c. , 71 6 F.3 d 10 87
, 10 91 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). “ [A] co m pl ai nt m us t co nt ai n su ffi ci en t fact ua l m at te r, acce pt ed

The Hon or ab le E. Ri ch ard W eb be r, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-as tru e, to st at e a cl ai m to rel ie f th at is pl au si bl e on it s face .” As hcr of t v. Iq ba l
, 55 6 U.S. 66 2, 6 78 (20 09 ).

“ Ena ct ed to eli m in at e ab us iv e d eb t co ll ect io n pr act ic es , t he FDCPA im po se s

c i v il li ab il it y on de bt co ll ect or [s ] fo r cert ai n pr oh ib it ed de bt co ll ect io n pr act i c e s

. ”
Hem m in g

s e n v . M es se rl i & Kr am er

, P.A.
, 67 4 F.3 d 81 4, 81 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (al te rat io n in or ig in al ). Ne l s o n al le ge s th at Mi dl an d’s cl ai m vi ol at ed th ree
pr oh ib it io ns in th e FDCPA: “ en ga g[ in g] in an y co nd uc t th e na tu ral co ns eq ue nc e of whi ch is to ha ras s, op pr es s, or ab us e an y pe rs on in co nn ect io n wit h th e co ll ect io n of

a de bt ,” 15 U.S.C. § 16 92 d ; “ us [in g] an y fal se , de cep ti ve , or m is le ad in g
rep res en ta ti on or m ean s in co nn ect io n wit h th e co ll ect io n of an y de bt ,” § 16 92 e ; an d

“ us [in g] un fai r or un co ns ci on ab le m ean s t o c ol le ct or a tt em pt to co ll ect an y

de bt ,” § 16 92 f

. Bec au se each of th es e al le ga ti on s st em fro m th e sa m e co nd uc t— th e fil in g of th e pr oo f of cl ai m

—t h i s c o u r t m ay co ns id er th e pr ov is io ns to ge th er. Se e Hem m in gs en , 67 4 F .3d at 8 17

.

Mo re sp eci fic al ly, un de r th e F D C P A
, a de bt co ll ect or m ay ne it he r fal se ly

rep res en t “ th e ch arac te r, am ou nt , or le ga l st at us of an y de bt ,” 15 U.S.C. §
16 92 e(2 )(A) , n or th reat en “ to ta ke an y act io n th at can no t le ga ll y be ta ke n o r t ha t is

no t in te nd ed to be ta ke n,” id

. § 16 92 e(5 )

. Nels on arg ue s th at Mi dl an d, by su bm it ti ng it s cl ai m , rep res en te d th at th e cl ai m was va li d an d en fo rcea bl e

. S e e 11 U.S.C. §
50 2( a) (“ A cl ai m or in te res t

. . . is de em ed al lo wed
, un le ss a pa rty in in te res t

. . . ob jects .”). Eve n if— as he re— th e de bt co ll ect or do es no t m ak e ex pr es s mi s r ep res en ta ti on s, th e FDCPA ba rs a de bt co ll ect or fro m fil in g or th reat en in g a la wsu it to co ll ect a ti m e-b arre d de bt

. Se e Fr eyer m ut h v. Cr ed it Bur ea u Ser vs ., In c. , 24 8 F.3 d 76 7, 77 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (“ [I]n th e ab se nc e of a th reat of li ti ga ti on or act ua l li ti ga ti on , no vi ol at io n of th e FDCPA ha s oc cu rred whe n a de bt co ll ect or at te m pt s to

co ll ect on a po te nt ia ll y

ti m e-b arre d d eb t t ha t i s o th erwi se va li d.” ).

-3

-Nels on ur ge s th is co ur t to fo ll ow th e Elev en th Ci rcu it an d ex te nd to ba nk ru pt cy

cl ai ms t h e ru le ag ai ns t act ua l or th reat en ed li ti ga ti on on ti m e-b arre d de bt s. Se e Cr aw fo rd v. LV

NV Fun d

in g, LLC
, 75 8 F.3 d 12 54 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 14 ); se e al so Jo hns on v. Mi dl

an d Fund

in g, LLC
, 20 16 W L 29 96 37 2, a t * 3 ( 11 th Ci r. May 24
, 20 16 ) (cl ari fy in g Cr aw

fo rd by h ol di ng th at th e Ban kr up tc y Co de do es no t pr eem pt th e FDCPA). In Cr aw

fo rd , t he Elev en th Ci rcu it he ld th at kn owi n g l y f i l i n g a ti m eb a rred pr oo f of cl ai m vi ol at ed th e FDCPA’s pr oh ib it io ns ag ai ns t un f a i r ,
un co ns ci on ab le
, de cep ti ve , or m is le ad in g co nd uc t. 75 8 F.3 d at 12 61

. The Cr aw fo rd

c ou rt reas on ed th at th e sa m e co nc ern s un de rlyin g th e ru le ag ai ns t li ti ga ti n g o r th reat en in g to li ti ga te ti m e-b arre d de bt s— th e de bto r’ s fa de d m em or y an d los t reco rd s,
po ss ib le ig no ran ce of th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns , an d ex pe ns e to co nt es t t h e st al e de bt —ap pl y

eq ua ll y to a de bt co ll ect or fil in g a cla im on a st al e d eb t. Id

.

Cr aw fo rd , h owe ve r, ig no res th e di ffer en ces be twee n a ba nk ru pt cy cla im an d

act ua l or th reat en ed li ti ga ti on

. In Frey er mut h
, th is co u r t h e l d th at a de fen da nt ’s FDCPA li ab il it y tu rn s on “ whe th er an un so ph is ti cat ed co ns um er wou ld be ha ras se d,

m is le d or de cei ve d by” th e de bt co ll ect or ’s act s. Fr eyer m ut h
, 24 8 F.3 d at 77 1. The ba nk r u p t c y pr oc es s pr ot ect s ag ai ns t su ch ha ras sm en t an d de cep ti on

. Unl ik e de fen da nt s faci ng a co ll ect io n la wsu it
, a ba nk ru pt cy de bt or is ai de d by “ tru st ees who

owe f i d u c i a r y du ti es to al l pa rti es an d ha ve a st at ut or y ob li ga ti on to ob ject to

un en fo rcea bl e cl ai m s.” In re Gat ewo od
, 53 3 B.R. 90 5, 90 9 (8t h Cir. B.A.P. 20 15 );

s e e 11 U.S.C. §§ 70 4( a) (5 )
, 13 02 (b)( 1) (o ut li ni ng tru st ees ’ du ti es , in cl ud i n g ob jecti ng “ to th e al lo wan ce o f an y cla im th at is im pr op er”)

.

Defen di ng a la wsu it to r e c o v e r a ti m e-b arre d de bt is m or e bu rd en so m e th an ob jecti n g to a ti m e-b arre d pr oo f of cl ai m

. “ [T]he Ban kr up tc y Co de pr ov id es fo r a cl ai m s res ol ut io n pr oc es s in vo lv in g an ob jecti on an d a he ari ng to as se ss th e am ou nt

an d va li di ty of th e cl ai m

. . . [th at ] is ge ne ral ly a m or e st ream li ne d an d le ss un ne rv in g
pr os pe ct fo r a de bt or th an faci ng a co ll ect io n la wsu it .” In re Gat ewo od
, 53 3 B.R. at 90 9

. Bec au se a pr oo f of cl ai m do es no t ex pa n d t h e p o o l of av ai la bl e fu nd s in

-4

-ba nk ru pt cy , de bt or s ha ve le ss at st ak e th an a c o l le ct io n de fen da nt

. Rat he r, an

un se c u red cred it or li ke ly sh ares on ly “ pr o rat a in th e di st rib ut io n of th e po ol of

av ai la bl e fu nd s an d s ee[s ] th e u np ai d p or ti on of i ts cla im di sc ha rg ed .” Id

.

The se p r o t e c ti on s ag ai ns t ha ras sm en t an d de cep ti on sa ti sf y th e rel ev an t

co nc ern s of th e FDCPA. “ The re is no ne ed to pr ot ect de bt or s who are al read y un de r
t h e p r o t e ct io n of th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t, an d th ere is no ne ed to su pp le m en t t h e

rem ed ie s affo rd ed by ba nk ru pt cy it se lf.” Si m m on s v. Ro und

up Fund in g, LLC
, 62 2
F.3 d 93
, 96 (2 d Ci r. 20 10 ) (s o st at in g whi le reject in g an FDCPA su it ev en whe re th e
pr oo f of cla im was i na ccu rat e an d i nf

la te d)

.

Thi s co ur t re

je c t s ex te nd in g th e FDCPA to ti m e-b arre d pr oo fs of cl ai m

. An

accu rat e an d co m

pl et e pr oo f of cl ai m on a ti m e

- ba rred de bt is no t fal se , de cep ti ve ,
m is le ad in g, un fai r, or un co ns ci on ab le un de r th e FDCPA. The di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y di sm is se d fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m

.

* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-5

-