Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

<p><span style=color: rgba(0 41 102 1)>THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze discuss and interpret provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Volume 1 of the casebook covers the District of Columbia Circuit and the First through the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.</span></p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><span style=color: rgba(0 41 102 1)>Attempting to collect on a time-barred debt does not per se violate the FDCPA. </span><em style=color: rgba(0 41 102 1)>Manuel</em><span style=color: rgba(0 41 102 1)> 956 F.3d at 829; </span><em style=color: rgba(0 41 102 1)>see also Mahmoud v. De Moss Owners Ass'n Inc</em><span style=color: rgba(0 41 102 1)>. 865 F.3d 322 333 (5th Cir. 2017) (holding it was not a violation of the FDCPA to collect a partially time-barred debt when only a small portion was subject to the statute of limitations); </span><em style=color: rgba(0 41 102 1)>Holzman v. Malcolm S. Gerald & Assocs. Inc</em><span style=color: rgba(0 41 102 1)>. 920 F.3d 1264 1273-74 (11th Cir. 2019) ([C]ourts generally have recognized that the FDCPA does not impose a bright-line rule prohibiting debt collectors from attempting to collect on time-barred debt.). But a debt-collector can run afoul of the FDCPA by threatening judicial action while completely failing to mention that a limitations period might affect judicial enforceability. </span><em style=color: rgba(0 41 102 1)>Manuel</em><span style=color: rgba(0 41 102 1)> 956 F.3d at 831 (emphasizing that disclosure of a potential limitations problem might give a consumer at least some inkling that the debt might be too old to be legally enforceable). As we have explained:</span></p><p><span style=color: rgba(0 41 102 1)>When a collection letter creates confusion about a creditor's right to sue that is illegal. The FDCPA singles out as unlawful the false representation of the character amount or legal status of any debt. Whether a debt is legally enforceable is a central fact about the character and legal status of that debt. A misrepresentation about the limitations period amounts to a straightforward violation of § 1692e(2)(A).</span></p><p><br></p><p><em style=color: rgba(0 41 102 1)>Daugherty v. Convergent Outsourcing Inc.</em><span style=color: rgba(0 41 102 1)> 836 F.3d 507 512 (5th Cir. 2016) (quotation omitted).</span></p><p class=ql-align-center><br></p><p><br></p>