Court Expands Debtor Protections

January 6, 2016 at 8:52 am Leave a comment

A decision issued Monday by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit serves as yet another reminder of why collecting debt isn’t as easy as it used to be.  As a matter of fact, if you are not careful, it can be downright treacherous. 

First, some background.  As I am sure most readers of this blog know, once a debtor files for bankruptcy an automatic stay goes into effect and creditors must cease debt collection activities.  In Garfield v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, Miss Garfield obtained a mortgage that was subsequently taken over by Ocwen.  She fell behind on her payments and filed for a Chapter XIII bankruptcy in the Western District of New York.  As part of the bankruptcy settlement, she paid the arrears on her monthly loan payment and was discharged from her personal obligation on the mortgage loan.  But she also agreed to pay $938 per month to prevent foreclosure on the mortgaged property.  She subsequently made only one of those payments after her bankruptcy was discharged.  Ocwen contacted Garfield and demanded that she not only pay what she owed in her post bankruptcy arrears, but also the amount that had been discharged in the bankruptcy. 

I hope that last part of the sentence got your attention.  Where a debt collector demands payment for a debt discharged in bankruptcy, it has violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).  This brings us to yesterday’s decision.  The aggrieved debtor filed a lawsuit seeking damages under the FDCPA.  Ocwen argued that, if anything, it had violated the bankruptcy code.  It argued that Miss. Garfield’s only remedy was to seek a fine for Ocwem’s violation of the automatic stay.  This may seem like a minor distinction, but our debt collector correctly assumed that a violation under the FDCPA cost a lot more than a contempt citation under the bankruptcy code.  A lower court agreed that the bankruptcy code provided Garfield’s only remedy and dismissed the case.

But, yesterday the Second Circuit revived the lawsuit.  It concluded that the two provisions could coexist in legal harmony.  This case is certainly one to be mindful of, but keep in mind that the federal FDCPA does not apply to creditors such as credit unions seeking to collect on their own debt.  From a practical standpoint, keep in mind that this entire situation would have been avoided had the debt collector not sought to collect on the debt that was discharged in bankruptcy.

Entry filed under: General, Legal Watch, Mortgage Lending, New York State. Tags: , .

Just How Bad Is It For Credit Unions? Court Denies Pot Credit Union Access To Banking System

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Authored By:

Henry Meier, Esq., General Counsel, New York Credit Union Association.

The views Henry expresses are Henry’s alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Association.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 462 other followers

Archives