Karen L. Jerman v. Carlisle, Mcnellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich Lpa, et al. (559 U.S. 573)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided April 21, 2010 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 559 U.S. 573 · 130 S. Ct. 1605
- Decided
- April 21, 2010
- Term
- October Term 2009
- Vote
- 7–2
- Majority author
- Justice Sotomayor
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Sotqmayor delivered the opinion of the Court. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA or Act) imposes civil liability on “debt collector[s]” for certain prohibited debt collection practices. Section 813(c) of the Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1692k(c), provides that a debt collector is not liable in an action brought under the Act if she can show “the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error.” This case presents the question whether the “bona fide error” defense in § 1692k(c) applies to a violation resulting from a debt collector’s mistaken interpretation of the legal requirements of the FDCPA. We conclude it does not. I A Congress enacted the FDCPA in 1977, 91 Stat. 874, to eliminate abusive debt collection practices, to ensure that debt collectors who abstain from such practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent state action to protect consumers. 15 U. S. C. § 1692(e). The Act regulates interactions between consumer debtors and “debt collector[s],” defined to include any person who “regularly collects ... debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another.” §§1692a(5), (6). Among other things, the Act prohibits debt collectors from making false representations as to a debt’s character, amount, or legal status, § 1692e(2)(A);…
Excerpt of a 64,166-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.