Crawford v. LVNV Funding LLC

Question

what was the reasoning behind Justice Goldberg's decision in Crawford v. LVNV Funding LLC? Identify the issue, rule of law and analysis the court used to get to the judges reasoning. Also, explain how Justice Goldberg has jurisdiction over this case

Answer 1

Issue: Does a proof of claim to collect a stale debt in Chapter 13 bankruptcy violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act?

Rule (holding): A proof of claim to collect a stale debt in Chapter 13 bankruptcy does violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

Analysis: in simple terms (you'll have to re-write this)... Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings allows a creditor to submit a proof of claim so that creditor's debt is paid (in whole or in part) along with the debtor's other debts. These proof of claims are considered valid unless they are objected to by the debtor or the bankruptcy trustee.

Debt collectors would commonly file these proofs of claim on debts that were uncollectible because the statute of limitations had passed on the original debt. They would do this because many times the Trustee would mistakenly not object to the proof of claim and just pay the old debt. The court said that the FDCPA was meant to protect unsophisticated consumers and the proofs of claim were deceptive (in that it implied that the debt was valid).

Jurisdiction...well it's a federal question (bankruptcy) and an appeal from a US district court so where else would it go besides to a US court of appeals?