On Monday, it is ruled by a divided Supreme Court that no one can sue the debt collection companies if they attempt to recover credit card debt of years old from those who look for bankruptcy protection. To be more specific, according to the Supreme Court, no debt collection companies can be sued while trying to recover their years-old debt of credit card from people seeking bankruptcy protection. The justices ruled this verdict 5 – 3 in favor of the Midland funding. Though the fast cash online seems to be a great solution to get quick cash, still, with this new verdict being ruled, the consumer groups have received a terrible blow.
Yes, the 5- 3 ruling is nothing less than a shock or a serious blow to the consumer groups, who often complain about the debt collection companies to mislead people unfairly into repaying the old debts, even though the consumers are not required to do so under the law.
The court finally sided with the Midland Funding on Monday. Midland Funding is a debt collection company that was trying to recover a debt of around $1879, which have incurred by an Alabama woman for more than around 10 years ago. The name of the Alabama woman is Aleida Johnson who had argued that the debt collection company named Midland Funding was totally wrong to try to collect the debt. She also stated a reason behind her claim. According to her, the company has wronged because as per the law of Alabama, there is a six-year limitation statute for a creditor for collecting the overdue payments.
Based on this very reason, Aleida Johnson had successfully avoided paying the debt of $1879. According to a federal appeals court, Aleida could have sued the debt collection company for attempting to collect the debt, based on the existence of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. It is based on this Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in Alabama that a money collection company can be sued as according to the Act, all the money collection companies are strongly prohibited from making any misleading, deceptive and false representation in any way or trying to recover the debt by any unconscionable or unfair mean. This particular law prohibits any attempt of the collection companies in trying to collect the debts outside the statute of limitations, which is, in this case, is around six years.
However, according to Justice Stephen Breyer, this Act doesn’t apply in case of bankruptcy proceedings. Yes, writing for the majority, and breaking with his liberal colleagues, Justice Stephen Breyer confirms that any effort made in order to recoup years old debt during bankruptcy do not violate the law or the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in any way. He said that the attempts made by the money collection companies were neither misleading nor false as technically the bankruptcy law supports such claims.
Breyer also added that the attempt of recovering the debt by the money collection companies, such as in the case of Midland Funding, was neither unconscionable nor unfair, as a bankruptcy trustee definitely can object to claims which are so much old that they no longer have to be repaid. And it is exactly what happened in the case of Johnson’s, which also reduces the concerns of that of the consumers might unwillingly pay a years-old debt.
Justices Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas along with Chief Justice John Roberts also joined the opinion of Breyer. Though, Justice Sonia Sotomayor considered the practice to be both unconscionable and unfair.
According to Sotomayor, professional debt collectors and providers of fast cash online, have built a business out of filing unfair claims in bankruptcy proceedings to collect the debt and buying stale debt, assuming that no one noticed it. The dissent passed by her was also joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, while Justice Neil Gorsuch preferred not to participate in the case.