Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/237072144/Jerman-v-Carlisle-Mcnellie-Scotus-No-08-1200-FDCPA-Foreclosure-Mills
Timestamp: 2015-05-04 22:22:36
Document Index: 701926432

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1692', '§1692', '§41', '§1692', '§45', '§1692', '§1692', '§1692', '§41', '§1692', '§45', '§1692', '§1692', '§1692', '§41', '§1692', '§45', '§1692', '§1692', '§1692', '§1692', '§1692', '§1692', '§1692', '§45', '§1692', '§1692', '§1640', '§1692', '§ 1715']

Jerman v. Carlisle, Mcnellie, Scotus No. 08-1200, FDCPA Foreclosure Mills
P. 1Jerman v. Carlisle, Mcnellie, Scotus No. 08-1200, FDCPA Foreclosure MillsJerman v. Carlisle, Mcnellie, Scotus No. 08-1200, FDCPA Foreclosure MillsRatings: (0)|Views: 5|Likes: 0Published by Neil GillespieJERMAN v. CARLISLE, MCNELLIE, SCOTUS No. 08-1200, FDCPA foreclosure millsNo. 08–1200. Argued January 13, 2010—Decided April 21, 2010The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U. S. C. §1692 et seq., imposes civil liability on “debt collector[s]” for certain prohibited debt collection practices. A debt collector who “fails to comply with any [FDCPA] provision . . . with respect to any person is liable to such person” for “actual damage[s],” costs, “a reasonable attorney’s fee as determined by the court,” and statutory “additional damages.” §1692k(a). In addition, violations of the FDCPA are deemed unfair or deceptive acts or practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act(FTC Act), §41 et seq., which is enforced by the Federal Trade Com-mission (FTC). See §1692l. A debt collector who acts with “actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances that such act is [prohibited under the FDCPA]” is subject to civil penalties enforced by the FTC. §§45(m)(1)(A), (C). A debt col-lector is not liable in any action brought under the FDCPA, however, if it “shows by a preponderance of evidence that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error.” §1692k(c).JERMAN v. CARLISLE, MCNELLIE, SCOTUS No. 08-1200, FDCPA foreclosure millsNo. 08–1200. Argued January 13, 2010—Decided April 21, 2010The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U. S. C. §1692 et seq., imposes civil liability on “debt collector[s]” for certain prohibited debt collection practices. A debt collector who “fails to comply with any [FDCPA] provision . . . with respect to any person is liable to such person” for “actual damage[s],” costs, “a reasonable attorney’s fee as determined by the court,” and statutory “additional damages.” §1692k(a). In addition, violations of the FDCPA are deemed unfair or deceptive acts or practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act(FTC Act), §41 et seq., which is enforced by the Federal Trade Com-mission (FTC). See §1692l. A debt collector who acts with “actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances that such act is [prohibited under the FDCPA]” is subject to civil penalties enforced by the FTC. §§45(m)(1)(A), (C). A debt col-lector is not liable in any action brought under the FDCPA, however, if it “shows by a preponderance of evidence that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error.” §1692k(c).More info:Categories:Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsPublished by: Neil Gillespie on Aug 18, 2014Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reservedAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/237072144/Jerman-v-Carlisle-Mcnellie-Scotus-No-08-1200-FDCPA-Foreclosure-Mills08/18/2014pdftextoriginal 1 (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2009 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as isbeing done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has beenprepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States
200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus JERMAN v
. CARLISLE, M
NELLIE, RINI, KRAMER & ULRICH LPA ET AL
. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 08–1200. Argued January 13, 2010—Decided April 21, 2010 The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U. S. C. §1692 et seq.,
imposes civil liability on “debt collector[s]” for certain prohibiteddebt collection practices. A debt collector who “fails to comply withany [FDCPA] provision . . . with respect to any person is liable tosuch person” for “actual damage[s],” costs, “a reasonable attorney’sfee as determined by the court,” and statutory “additional damages.” §1692k(a). In addition, violations of the FDCPA are deemed unfair or deceptive acts or practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act(FTC Act), §41 et seq
., which is enforced by the Federal Trade Com-mission (FTC). See §1692
. A debt collector who acts with “actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective cir-cumstances that such act is [prohibited under the FDCPA]” is subjectto civil penalties enforced by the FTC. §§45(m)(1)(A), (C). A debt col-lector is not liable in any action brought under the FDCPA, however, if it “shows by a preponderance of evidence that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such er-ror.” §1692k(c). Respondents, a law firm and one of its attorneys (collectively Car-lisle), filed a lawsuit in Ohio state court on behalf of a mortgage com-pany to foreclose a mortgage on real property owned by petitionerJerman. The complaint included a notice that the mortgage debt would be assumed valid unless Jerman disputed it in writing. Jer-man’s lawyer sent a letter disputing the debt, and, when the mort-gage company acknowledged that the debt had in fact been paid, Car-lisle withdrew the suit. Jerman then filed this action, contending that by sending the notice requiring her to dispute the debt in writ-
2 JERMAN v.
CARLISLE, M
NELLIE, RINI, KRAMER & ULRICH LPA Syllabus ing, Carlisle had violated §1692g(a) of the FDCPA, which governs the contents of notices to debtors. The District Court, acknowledging adivision of authority on the question, held that Carlisle had violated§1692g(a) but ultimately granted Carlisle summary judgment under §1692k(c)’s “bona fide error” defense. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the defense in §1692k(c) is not limited to clerical or fac-tual errors, but extends to mistakes of law. Held: The bona fide error defense in §1692k(c) does not apply to a viola-tion resulting from a debt collector’s mistaken interpretation of the legal requirements of the FDCPA. Pp. 6–30.(a) A violation resulting from a debt collector’s misinterpretation of the legal requirements of the FDCPA cannot be “not intentional” un-der §1692k(c). It is a common maxim that “ignorance of the law willnot excuse any person, either civilly or criminally.” Barlow
, 7 Pet. 404, 411. When Congress has intended to provide amistake-of-law defense to civil liability, it has often done so more ex-plicitly than here. In particular, the administrative-penalty provi-sions of the FTC Act, which are expressly incorporated into theFDCPA, apply only when a debt collector acts with “actual knowledgeor knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances” that the FDCPA prohibited its action. §§45(m)(1)(A), (C). Given the absence of similar language in §1692k(c), it is fair to infer that Con-gress permitted injured consumers to recover damages for “inten-tional” conduct, including violations resulting from a mistaken inter-pretation of the FDCPA, while reserving the more onerous administrative penalties for debt collectors whose intentional actionsreflected knowledge that the conduct was prohibited. Congress alsodid not confine FDCPA liability to “willful” violations, a term more of-ten understood in the civil context to exclude mistakes of law. See, e.g., Trans World Airlines, Inc.
v. Thurston
, 469 U. S. 111, 125–126. Section 1692k(c)’s requirement that a debt collector maintain “proce-dures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error” also more natu-rally evokes procedures to avoid mistakes like clerical or factual er-rors. Pp. 6–12. (b) Additional support for this reading is found in the statute’s con-text and history. The FDCPA’s separate protection from liability for “any act done or omitted in good faith in conformity with any [FTC] advisory opinion,” §1692k(e), is more obviously tailored to the con-cern at issue (excusing civil liability when the FDCPA’s prohibitionsare uncertain) than the bona fide error defense. Moreover, in enact-ing the FDCPA in 1977, Congress copied the pertinent portions of the bona fide error defense from the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), §1640(c). At that time, the three Federal Courts of Appeals to haveconsidered the question interpreted the TILA provision as referring 3 Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) Syllabus to clerical errors, and there is no reason to suppose Congress dis-agreed with those interpretations when it incorporated TILA’s lan-guage into the FDCPA. Although in 1980 Congress amended the de-fense in TILA, but not in the FDCPA, to exclude errors of legal judgment, it is not obvious that amendment changed the scope of the TILA defense in a way material here, given the prior uniform judicialinterpretation of that provision. It is also unclear why Congress would have intended the FDCPA’s defense to be broader than TILA’s, and Congress has not expressly included mistakes of law in any of the parallel bona fide error defenses elsewhere in the U. S. Code.Carlisle’s reading is not supported by Heintz
, 514 U. S. 291, 292, which had no occasion to address the overall scope of theFDCPA bona fide error defense, and which did not depend on the premise that a misinterpretation of the requirements of the FDCPA would fall under that provision. Pp. 13–22.(c) Today’s decision does not place unmanageable burdens on debt-collecting lawyers. The FDCPA contains several provisions expressly guarding against abusive lawsuits, and gives courts discretion in cal-culating additional damages and attorney’s fees. Lawyers have re-course to the bona fide error defense in §1692k(c) when a violationresults from a qualifying factual error. To the extent the FDCPA im-poses some constraints on a lawyer’s advocacy on behalf of a client, itis not unique; lawyers have a duty, for instance, to comply with thelaw and standards of professional conduct. Numerous state con-sumer protection and debt collection statutes contain bona fide error defenses that are either silent as to, or expressly exclude, legal er-rors. To the extent lawyers face liability for mistaken interpretationsof the FDCPA, Carlisle and its amici
have not shown that “the result [will be] so absurd as to warrant” disregarding the weight of textualauthority. Heintz, supra
, at 295. Absent such a showing, argumentsthat the FDCPA strikes an undesirable balance in assigning the risks of legal misinterpretation are properly addressed to Congress. Pp. 22–30. 538 F. 3d 469, reversed and remanded. S
OTOMAYOR
, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which R
, C. J., and S
, JJ., joined. B
, J., filed a concurring opinion. S
CALIA , J., filed an opinion con-curring in part and concurring in the judgment. K ENNEDY , J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which A LITO
, J., joined. Activity (0)FiltersAdd to collectionReview Add NoteLikeShowingAllMost RecentReviewsAll NotesLikesYou've already reviewed this. Edit your review.Rating 0/5Post notePost reviewPost replyPost note and likeNo activity yetLoad more
Similar to Jerman v. Carlisle, Mcnellie, Scotus No. 08-1200, FDCPA Foreclosure...Federal Trade Commission Letter, Richard Cordray, FDCPANeil GillespieMortgage Fraud USAB 5803Neil GillespieFair Debt Collections Practices Act, CFPB Annual Report 2013Neil GillespieShapiro Fishman v Florida Attorney General, Order-DENIED ...Neil GillespieEthical Settlement Negotiations ABANeil GillespieAffidavit of Residential HomesteadNeil GillespieHewitt v Law Office David J Stern, Class Action Complaint...Neil GillespieRequest E-Filing Support Florida E-PortalNeil GillespieHUD-FHFA Inspector Generals Joint Report May 2013Neil GillespieDefendants’ Answer to Verified HECM ComplaintNeil Gillespie88 Order Setting Hearing on TRO, Brumfiel v. U.S. BankNeil Gillespie93 Courtroom Minutes, Brumfiel v. U.S. BankNeil GillespieMatter of Doar (Brunson) 2009 NY Slip Op 29549, OrDERNeil GillespieTranscript of Hearing Before Judge Stancil, Dec-18-2014 R...Neil Gillespie12 U.S.C. 1715z-20, Insurance of Home Equity Conversion M...Neil GillespieThe Honorable Ed Carnes-Reverse Mortgage Case 13-11585-BNeil GillespieAuthorization to CFPB-FOIA Section 1070.14(f)Neil GillespieUS Congressman Cummings Letter to FHFA IGNeil GillespieEmail BofA Investor Relations Shareholder US Judge Wm Ter...Neil GillespieDefenses and Claims in Recoupment Section 673.4051(1)(a),...Neil GillespieHewitt v Law Office David Stern-09-CA-036046 Docket ReportNeil GillespieFINAL JUDGMENT, Hewitt v Law Office David J Stern-Jan-24-...Neil GillespieReverse Mortgage Solutions, Reply to Annual Year-End Stat...Neil Gillespie114 Withdrawal of Foreclosure, Brumfiel v. U.S. BankNeil Gillespie1 Complaint, Brumfiel v. U.S. BankNeil GillespieLetter to Authur Lee Bentley III 42-2013-CA-000115Neil GillespieMcCalla Raymer LLC Portal Received 2 Bounce BacksNeil GillespieMotion to Reconsider-Vacate-Modify Order, C.a.11 No.13-11...Neil GillespieResponse to CFPB FOIA May 09 2014Neil GillespieHUD Inspector General on BofA Mar-12-2012Neil Gillespie
More From This UserLetter to the AmeriFace Board of Directors Mar-31-2015Neil GillespieVocational Rehabilitation College PaperNeil GillespiePhoto Journal Habilitation of Congenital Craniofacial Dis...Neil GillespiePresident Gutmann U-PENN re Fellowship Dr. Ningy Li, ChinaNeil GillespieWhat are some psychosocial implications of congenital cra...Neil GillespieORDER Found Indigent $300 Fee waived 5D15-0341Neil GillespieImplications of Freud's Theory of Infantile Sexuality for...Neil Gillespie2009, 07-14-09, Motion Financial Obligation Agreement 200...Neil Gillespie2009, 05-28-09, Order of Modification of Probation, $350 ...Neil Gillespie2009, 05-28-09, Order Dismissing Violation of Probation.pdfNeil Gillespie2009, 01-07-09, Motion to Convert Remaining Probation to ...Neil Gillespie2008, 10-23-08, Affidavit Violation of Probation, by Mich...Neil Gillespie2008, 07-01-08, Order Approving Report of Receipts and Di...Neil Gillespie2005, 02-23-05, Amended Order Recusal, Judge Philip Feder...Neil Gillespie2005, 02-15-05, Order Recusal, Judge Philip Federico.pdfNeil Gillespie2004, 08-31-04, Order GRANTING Motion to Amend Conditions...Neil Gillespie2004, 08-30-04, Motion to Amend Conditions of Probation.pdfNeil Gillespie2004, 03-31-04, notice of appearance, Gregory L Olney, II...Neil Gillespie1993, 11-08-93, Order of Probation, Judge Claire Luten, F...Neil Gillespie1993, 11-08-93, Order of Probation, Judge Claire K. Luten...Neil Gillespie1993, 11-08-93, Judgment, Grand Theft, Dennis Dale Correa...Neil Gillespie1993, 11-08-93, Judgment, Grand Theft, Correa, opt.pdfNeil Gillespie1993, 11-08-93, Felony Information for Dennis Correa, sca...Neil Gillespie1993, 11-08-93, Felony Information for Dennis Correa.pdfNeil Gillespie1993, 11-05-93, Memorandum, Downward Departure Sentencing...Neil Gillespie
RecommendedFederal Trade Commission Letter, Rich...Neil GillespieFederal Trade Commission letter to Richard Cordray CFPB, FDCPAMortgage Fraud USAB 5803Neil GillespieThe United States Attorneys' Bulletin, May 2010, Volume 58, Number 3, publis...Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, ...Neil GillespieFair Debt Collections Practices Act, CFPB Annual Report 2013Shapiro Fishman v Florida Attorney Ge...Neil GillespieShapiro Fishman v Florida Attorney General, Order-DENIED REHEARING Judge Cox,...Ethical Settlement Negotiations ABANeil GillespieEthical Settlement Negotiations.ABA, the American Bar Association. I am a non...Affidavit of Residential HomesteadNeil GillespieAFFIDAVIT OF NEIL J. GILLESPIE OF RESIDENTIAL HOMESTEAD THIS IS NOT A COMMER...Hewitt v Law Office David J Stern, Cl...Neil GillespieHewitt v Law Office David J Stern, Class Action Complaint Oct-28-2009Request E-Filing Support Florida E-Po...Neil GillespieFlorida Courts E-Filing Portal Request E-Filing Support I need to file a ...HUD-FHFA Inspector Generals Joint Rep...Neil GillespieHUD-FHFA Inspector Generals joint report May 2013Defendants’ Answer to Verified HECM C...Neil GillespieDEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT TO FORECLOSE HOME EQUITY CONVERSION ...88 Order Setting Hearing on TRO, Brum...Neil Gillespie88 Order setting hearing on TRO, Brumfiel v. U.S. Bank.93 Courtroom Minutes, Brumfiel v. U.S...Neil Gillespie93 Courtroom minutes, Brumfiel v. U.S. BankMatter of Doar (Brunson) 2009 NY Slip...Neil GillespieMatter of Doar (Brunson) 2009 NY Slip Op 29549, ORDERTranscript of Hearing Before Judge St...Neil GillespieTranscript of Hearing before Judge Stancil, Dec-18-2014 RMS v Gillespie 42...12 U.S.C. 1715z-20, Insurance of Home...Neil GillespieThe HECM statute is 12 U.S.C. § 1715z-20, Insurance of home equity conversion...The Honorable Ed Carnes-Reverse Mortg...Neil GillespieThe Honorable Ed Carnes, Chief Judge U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ...Authorization to CFPB-FOIA Section 10...Neil Gillespie28 USC sec 1746, Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury Wherever, u...US Congressman Cummings Letter to FHF...Neil GillespieMcCalla Raymer LLC, a notorious foreclosure mill cited in the attached letter...Email BofA Investor Relations Shareho...Neil GillespieDear Bank of America, This is a conflict of interest inquiry to confirm the ...Defenses and Claims in Recoupment Sec...Neil GillespieDEFENSES AND CLAIMS IN RECOUPMENT Section 673.4051(1)(a), Fla. Stat. lack of ...Hewitt v Law Office David Stern-09-CA...Neil GillespieHewitt v Law Office David Stern-09-CA-036046 Docket Report 34 pagesFINAL JUDGMENT, Hewitt v Law Office D...Neil GillespieRory Hewitt vs. the Law Offices of David J. Stern Class Action Final Judgmen...Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Reply to ...Neil GillespieThe Annual Year-End Statement December 31, 2013 for Loan Number: 680110026158...114 Withdrawal of Foreclosure, Brumfi...Neil Gillespie114 Withdrawal of foreclosure, Brumfiel v. U.S. Bank1 Complaint, Brumfiel v. U.S. BankNeil GillespieComplaint, Brumfiel v US Bank, 1.12-cv-02716-WJM-MEHLetter to Authur Lee Bentley III 42-2...Neil GillespieNOTICE OF FILING LETTER TO ARTHUR LEE BENTLEY III, United States Attorney, Fl...McCalla Raymer LLC Portal Received 2 ...Neil GillespieMcCalla Raymer LLC Portal Received 2 Bounce Backs McCalla Raymer LLC Curt...Motion to Reconsider-Vacate-Modify Or...Neil Gillespie4. A Home Equity Conversion Mortgage, or HECM, is a Federal Housing Administr...Response to CFPB FOIA May 09 2014Neil GillespieFreedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, Privacy Act request, Consumer Fina...HUD Inspector General on BofA Mar-12-...Neil GillespieBank of America Corporation, Foreclosure and claims process review, Charlotte...Previous|NextPage 1 of 8