Eighth Circuit Declines to Follow Crawford Proof of Claim Analysis

The Eighth Circuit has taken the middle ground in the debate as to whether the mere filing of a proof of claim outside the statute of limitations violates the FDCPA.  Gatewood v. CP Medical, LLC, Case No. 15-6008 (8^th Cir. Jul. 10, 2015).  In Gatewood, the creditor filed a proof of claim for medical debt.  The debtors filed an adversary proceeding asserting that the debt was time barred and that by filing a proof of claim on time barred debt, the creditor had engaged in a “false, deceptive, misleading, unfair and unconscionable” debt collection practice.  Slip Op. at 2-3.  In separating itself from the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion in Crawford v. LVNV Funding, the court held that while the filing of a proof of claim was debt collection, not all debt collection violates the FDCPA.  Instead, the court took a more moderate position, noting that the FDCPA “simply prohibits false, misleading, deceptive, unfair or unconscionable debt collection practices.  Filing in a bankruptcy court an accurate proof of claim containing all the required information, including the timing of the debt, standing alone, is not a prohibited debt collection practice.” Slip Op. at 10 (emphasis supplied).