Judy N. Brock v. Resurgent Capital Services, L.P., 823 F.3d 1334

Two debtors (Johnson and Brock) filed Chapter 13 petitions; Midland and Resurgent (debt buyers/servicers) filed proofs of claim for debts the debtors alleged were time‑barred under state statutes of limitations.
Debtors sued under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), alleging that knowingly filing time‑barred proofs of claim is "false, deceptive, or misleading" conduct in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e and 1692f.
District Court dismissed/entered judgment for the claimants, concluding an irreconcilable conflict between the Bankruptcy Code (which permits creditors to file proofs of claim) and the FDCPA, and holding the Code implicitly repealed FDCPA claims in the Chapter 13 context.
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit considered whether Crawford v. LVNV Funding (which held filing a knowingly time‑barred proof of claim can violate the FDCPA) was reconciled with the Bankruptcy Code or whether the Code precluded FDCPA suits.
The Court held the statutes can coexist: the Code allows creditors to file claims (including ones that may be unenforceable), but debt collectors who knowingly file time‑barred proofs of claim can be liable under the FDCPA; the Code does not impliedly repeal the FDCPA.
Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings; noted FDCPA safe harbor for bona fide errors and limited scope of FDCPA (applies only to "debt collectors").

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Bankruptcy Code precludes FDCPA claims based on filing time‑barred proofs of claim in Chapter 13	Debtors: Code does not preclude FDCPA; Crawford controls — filing a knowingly time‑barred proof of claim can be misleading and violate FDCPA	Claimants: §501(a) of the Code (and definition of "claim") permits filing such claims; implied repeal of FDCPA in bankruptcy context	The Code and FDCPA can coexist; no implied repeal — FDCPA claims are not precluded
Whether filing a time‑barred proof of claim can violate the FDCPA	Debtors: such filings create a misleading impression that the debt is enforceable and may lead unsophisticated debtors to fail to object (Crawford)	Claimants: permitting filing under the Code means such filings are authorized and not subject to FDCPA liability in bankruptcy	Court: Crawford stands — a debt collector who knowingly files a time‑barred proof of claim may violate FDCPA; bankruptcy filing does not shield debt collectors from FDCPA liability

Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 758 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2014) (holding that knowingly filing a time‑barred proof of claim in Chapter 13 can violate the FDCPA)
In re McLean, 794 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2015) (Bankruptcy Code contemplates that creditors may file unenforceable claims)
Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 549 U.S. 443 (2007) (definition of "claim" under Bankruptcy Code creates entitlement to file proof of claim)
J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi‑Bred Int’l, Inc., 534 U.S. 124 (2001) (when statutes are capable of coexistence courts should give effect to both)
Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (2007) (repeals by implication are disfavored; must be clear and manifest)