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.
Attempting to collect on a time-barred debt does not per se violate the FDCPA. Manuel, 956 F.3d at 829; see also Mahmoud v. De Moss Owners Ass'n, Inc., 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); Holzman v. Malcolm S. Gerald & Assocs., Inc., 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. Manuel, 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:
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).
Daugherty v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., 836 F.3d 507, 512 (5th Cir. 2016) (quotation omitted).
