honour's this appeal arises from carrington's breach of a settlement agreement that was intended to resolve credit reporting and collection errors as well as violations of the fair credit reporting act the f c r and the florida consumer collections practices act f the court correctly found that kept the carrington had breached the settlement agreement at least four ways however the court granted so summary judgment to carrington based on his erroneous finding that the plant marches yos had found had shown no damages in fact the march's yo showed both monetary damages in their new car financing terms and emotional damages from their severe stress and its physical many manifestations on the stand they mostly damages come into play with some of the license but as to the breach of contract you are relying primarily on the financial damages in terms of being creased interest right in the car financing are you also relying on the emotional damage of emotion debt both your honor well the court said that in the commercial contract you couldn't recline klein emotional damages and that would be what this was a breach of contract what is your well your honor in chile versus m r i this court held that when the nature of the contract is such that emotional damages quote foreseeable emotional damages will lie and surely concerned the violation of a statute which the court analogize to a contract and then found the plaintiff was a third for party beneficiary of such contract here no analogizing is necessary because we actually have the actual breach of an actual contract sheely also noted that emotional distress that is predictable is thus foreseeable here it was predictable and thus foreseeable that emotional damage distress would be a consequence of breaching the very agreement intended to resolve the federal rights violations of remedial statute that specifically allowed for emotional distress damages in fact this court found that or sorry the trial court found that one of the contracts fundamental purposes was to correct this misreported simming that we don't accept your argument or emotional damages could you talk to us about the financial damages that you suffered as a result of the breach of contract as opposed to the statutory college yes your honor the court had found that by the by the time of the financing carrington had already breached the nine disparag noted that the that the are the adverse car financing terms occurred after that specific fine well the court noted the disparagement and separately noted the car financing terms but when it came to actually ruling on the breach of contract the court just ignored the actual damages from the car financing terms so that would have minder standing is the cell they sent up the report settlements in january they send out this incorrect report now reporting a second line is pending which of course is not true and then nineteen days later your clients attempt to finance a car and then they get these extremely high interest right now a big know within the very outside within the ninety days but he said as soon as reasonably possible and he said time was of the essence and then later you could see that when the employee was directed to do  he was did eventually and resolve those issues that happened the same day so it could have happened the same day and since time was of the essence it should have rather than sending out more disparaging and untrue  you're also relying on the fat the specific settlement agreement that that it would be corrected as soon as possible my letter the ninety days in that sending something out nineteen days later that's absolutely wrong that's the opposite of a correction even without the agreement as to the f c are a violation the court entered summary judgment correctly in favor of the march's e o s finding that the investigation of the ac dispute was unreasonable its conduct was willful and that there was a causal link to the r verification however the court erred in denying act the motion of distress and punitive damages entering only the maximum statutory damages because the court incorrectly found that the emotional distress damages were preexisting to the november seventh two thousand and thirteen violation but with a motion to stress damages first of all the record shows that they have actually h distressed had improved in two thousand and thirteen because mrs march's c e o specifically said in her declaration that because of his heart attack and his other issues dealing from all the stress that they were going to she wasn't to talk about it he actually got better he had improved and then they get this november that they find out that they're still in correct verification in the ember two thousand and thirteen after it started to feel better and the record showed that it actually exacerbated whereas if they had complied with the agreement rather than exacerbating his symptoms as you say that is an issue of fact as to motional damages  on as to the f c c p a a violations the court erred in granting summary judgment to carrington on its bona fide error defense the court found that the lp i letters occurred in the context of corrective act action that's the wrong legal standard the requirement is to avoid not correct after the fact the statute says that when a defendant is not isn't is not liable when it shows when the defendant shows by a prompt propounder in some of the evidence that the violation was not intentional and resulted from bonafide error despite the maintenance of reasonable procedures here the the they they did not have these reasonable procedures in effect to stop this these l p i the lender place insurance letters they had no procedures to to tell their vendor s w b c who sent out these letters that you know no don't send this out because we've already settled with this person the only procedures were to correct again correct the error after the fact which is what the court found that they did but it was was applying the wrong legal standard error was not intentional is bona fide and quote occurred despite the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid the specific error at issue and in the own cases court addressed that last point the third point and specifically said you know there were two steps to that one is maintaining the the procedures and the second was that these procedures must be reasonably adapted to the specific error and here did they didn't have those procedures and then as to attorney fees we would rely on the argument in the briefs as to the court failing to provide any clear explanation of its reasons for this eighty five percent reduction in fees if you're honest have morning your honour's ernest wagner for carrington mortgage services if it please the court i'd like to start with the issues raised in our cross appeal specifically that the court eared in entering a summary judgment on the willful ficker cla willfulness or carelessness at the statutory damage time i am talking of no your honor excuse me i'm talking about the summary judgment that the court entered on the willful figure claim and yes awarding the three thousand when it's promptly rectified like it was here a few months later a single error is often not later in maine and april two thousand and thirteen correct i actually believe in november seventh april twenty three twenty thirteen is a few months later think became a little confused about was that the settlement agreement was not uploaded into the system that the response agent looked at however c m s was not reckless here for a number of reasons first of all the settlement agreement alone wouldn't have changed anything even if you had access to it which is something they never point out the settlement agreement said that carrington had to report the loan in the same manner as the prior loan which is basically zero right i mean that's not in dispute between any of the parties carrington did that the mistake that it made is that left a balloon at the bottom of the fic bridges in a different place looking at the settlement agreement wouldn't help mr wynn in responding any differently it simply said it had to be zero he looked at it and saw that is zero that was reported consistently the mistake was in leaving a balloon you don't need to look at a settlement agreement that doesn't talk about the bill limits it was a mistake you just say at one wall absolutely your honor he didn't make a mistake the balloon should not have been there because it's inconsistent with my remembering is this is complicated it's not only that the bloom was left but there was also something indicating they were behind on a payment or something  that was corrected in april when it was reported as hero and it was reported consistent with the first song i just showed unfortunately it was supposed to be on the i think twenty nin occurred before i got that ok but but that is a maternally to me willful false reporting i don't want to stand your argument why it's not it's not because it was a mistake your honor the size of the air call so a mistake means it's faults right a mistake means it's incorrect to judge i mean ok and how question is after all this is gone on between the parties whether it was willful correct whether it was willful to leave the balloon payment on there and the law is very clear the valve ok's the smith case out of the sixty's for one mistake such as this this is all really just one mistake i mean granted in this might be a different case if the only thing that ever happened in this case was there was this balloon payment and nothing else but this occurs in the context of literally years of errors and litigation in settlement agreements i mean why isn't it appropriate to consider the context in which this occurs and believe it's appropriate to consider in terms of the reasonableness of the investigation but we're still talking about one investigation there's no evidence here that it happened a second time that a second why does it need to happen a second time in light of the record that we violation but there were other violations prior to this right that were the subject of the first settlement agreement that was settled it was just an fan but when we look at this subsequent timeframe you  saying you don't look at what happened before but let's look at that what happened before is there was a settlement agreement the head of the let's look at what happened before there was a first settlement going i don't think that you do your honor because we're not doesn't because it doesn't relate to whether  separate suit and you settle and the tenth time that this happens you say well the a c d view only related to the tenth time that it happened and we settled all the rest and it only happened once why would we not look at the ten times or the nine times it happened before that in that scenario you might because you're talking about the same thing happened over and over again that's not what happened here though with all due respect in this particular situation we're looking at whether or not the response to the dispute at issue was was so reckless that you can defer that it was willful as opposed to simply careless why why in light of all the other things that happened why does it matter that in my hypothetical it's all violations that are exactly the same verses all violations that are very similar because it is that you could in your hypothetical i'm assuming that there were prior a c d disputes that they were investigated by or furniture and that investigation was consistently on a reasonable and found the wrong conclusion versus in this particular situation we're not dealing with any prior disputes this is the first one the fact of the parties have other disagreements is not material that's all about boss aimed transactions so you say it's the first just big this is all about the same house mom for sake of a better word say mortgage the same two loans first mistake but when and when deciding whether or not the furnishers investigation procedure into a fix for dispute is on a reasonable you don't look at whether or not that that defendant or furniture previously breach the contract or had a prior lawsuit with you so what if what if the next thing they do is they put in a third phantom loan i mean it's a different violation now they result now they resolve it whatever i mean it's going to judge paul's point it's the exact same transaction that we're talking about why did they get a clean slate every time they make a new er in it's not never a later release particular transaction it's not necessarily a clean slate judge i'm not saying you have to put the fact pattern of in a vacuum but i am saying what you need to evaluate is the court and what the district court got wrong is carrington's investigative procedures in responding to disputes through fick are right the fact that it may have reached a contractor not breach of contract isn't part of the investigative process and the investigative process here was not so careless or reckless that it could be found to be reasonable the only reason the court found that it was supposedly the settlement agreement let's not just an argued the cross motion for summary judgment that he wanted summary judgment on this and you're do that i think i mean there we've got this one so i think you need to go back to the breach of contract ok ok and it seems to me that they have a viable climb under the breach of contract and they have proven part of side emotional damage financial damages and we should reverse the summary judgment grant in favor of your class i think you're going to argue about yes what they argue of the agreement your honor or first of all there were several recent think we point out in the in the brief what we can see it was wrong it should've been done in ninety days we did it in ninety two it should have had a zero balance of every twenty nine nine instead of every ninth that was in the stake and the balloon payment should've been all right in addition you also sent out in that time period between january and february three more reporting showing wrong you  out saying to lake one hundred eighty days three times and you've admitted that we say well we had ninety days those to may actually same new violations new maybe not new cause of action but new material breaches join that period of time in addition to what the district court found again with respect judge i would disagree that's when we don't concede and the reason is that the laws of contract in florida which controls very clear a specific contractual provision controls over more general provisions they're relying on the facts as soon as reasonably possible it gave i'm i'm saying you agreed in this contract and i'm not in the you reported it as not having a zero loan balance and you reported it three times barbara live on march eleventh and april eleventh as being delinquent one hundred eighty plus days right your honor the provision again required first of all did you report it during that period not only fagor to correct and report it right you reported it three more times wrong is that correct there were three more reports and that  arrows forget and forget about whether the contract was a bridge loan is that correct you're reciting the fact that there were reports judge remember this is a settlement that we agreed to reduce it to zero i just want to answer my ninety day provision controls are required here and to do that by fair also said as soon as reasonably possible it did lease there is an issue of fact is what that means because district court said that later on when you get prodded you know you could do things in a day or two says isn't there at the least an issue of a dispute issue that is whether or not you could have done that done at the least i think the issue of law the correct was just correct to find a lower level was  specific provision controls over the job but there's a good faith requirement in every contract is there not there is just ok and so if you have in the contract as soon as reasonably possible but in no case more than ninety days don't you have an obligation to at least make a good faith effort to comply with this you know is reasonably possible regardless of whether it says but in no case more than ninety days there is always a good faith provision of every contract jobs but i would again reiterate that a specific provision controls they could have negotiated different language so if you have to do it in five days or and what went with ninety why would it hurt you just to fix it immediately go back to that we settled the agreement let's don't have any more litigation guys don't send out any more now why would that have been something that you want in a perfect world just say have done it the next day but that's not what we're dealing with here we did do it the next day when somebody told them what to do they did it two days later just nobody ever told there was waiting for an inquiry from somebody trying to sing every month you're sending out a report so those are two different things but i can explain are i just correct there for sure like my client will send what's known as a tape for all of their loans every month to  contract scuse me the statutory damages recovery and as i understood it it was like four hundred eighty five thousand and you asked them said look it should be cut to nine thousand is that right in our in our brief to the district or below we did say they originally raised six claims one ok and so that's how you proceed on a one six thing that's going to came less and less assume then tell me why this would be correct that if we are firm that claim is a statutory damages ok so they got the attorney's fees that there's no problem so if they have other claims that get remanded to reverse for trial because there are issues of fact or whatever then they would get more attorneys fees ok because that's how you perceive it saying they get that one six five that that would be the floor in this case if we are firm on that count if you are firm on just that count we would argue it's not the floor simply because it's still unconscionable and more than they could charge their clients for to tell the district court to give them ninety thousand we also argued that that much was unconscionable you make several arguments it should at least go down to ninety and we're hopefully a good