Tyler v. DH Capital Management, Inc.
- Citation:
- No. 13-5021, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 21353 (6th Cir. Oct. 22, 2013)
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- The judgment of the district court was affirmed. The claims asserted by the debtor are property of his bankruptcy estate and have not been abandoned by the trustee. All causes of action that hypothetically could have been brought pre-petition are property of the estate. The debtor's FDCPA claim could have been brought pre-petition because it arose upon the filing of the creditor's collection complaint, whether or not the collection complaint was ever served. The debtor's usury claim also could have been brought pre-petition because it arose no later than the first time the creditor made an allegedly usurious charge. Because the debtor never scheduled the FDCPA and usury claims, they could not be deemed abandoned by the trustee, and the trustee retains exclusive authority to pursue them.
- Procedural context:
- Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, from the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville.
- Facts:
- An individual debtor amassed credit card debt to a creditor. The creditor filed a lawsuit in state court to collect the debt. Three months later, the debtor filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. The debtor did not list the state court lawsuit or any counterclaims on his schedules. Eight days after the debtor received a discharge, the creditor served the debtor with process in its state court collection action. Six days later, after learning of the bankruptcy case, the creditor filed a voluntary notice of dismissal in the state court action. Thereafter, the debtor filed a lawsuit against the creditor in federal district court alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and state usury laws. The FDCPA prohibits, among other things, an "attempt to collect any debt" not permitted by contract or law and the false representation of the "character, amount, or legal status of any debt." The creditor filed a motion to dismiss, arguing, among other things, the debtor had no standing because the cause of action was property of the bankruptcy estate. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, finding (1) that the debtor's claims were "rooted" in the allegations of the creditor's state court complaint and thus part of the bankruptcy estate and (2) in the alternative, that the debtor's claims belonged to the bankruptcy trustee because the debtor failed to amend his schedules to include the creditor's collection action. The debtor appealed to the circuit court.
[This summary omits issues discussed in the opinion that are not relevant to bankruptcy law.]
- Judge(s):
- Boggs, Siler, and Dowd
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!
