Opinion ID: 2816600
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Avoiding Surprise and Undue

Text: Prejudice Another factor for our consideration in categorizing an exception as an affirmative defense is the need to avoid unfair surprise and undue prejudice. See Sterten, 546 F.3d at 285; see also Ingraham v. United States, 808 F.2d 1075, 1079 (5th Cir. 1987). In examining this concern, we consider, given what a plaintiff is “already required to show” to prove its case, whether a defendant’s failure to raise the specific issue 10 In support, Green Tree cites to the Fourth Circuit’s unpublished, per curiam opinion in Worsham v. Accounts Receivable Management., Inc., 497 F. App’x 274, 277 (4th Cir. 2012). Worsham, however, did not address the burden of proof under § 1692b but only the standard for reasonableness under § 1692b(3), concluding “[t]he use of the word ‘reasonably’ indicates that this is an objective standard that the debt collector must meet to avoid liability under the FDCPA.” Id. Moreover, albeit in dictum, the court’s reference to the objective standard as one “the debt collector must meet,” would appear, if anything, to undermine Green Tree’s position. 17 would otherwise “deprive[] [a plaintiff] of an opportunity to rebut that defense or to alter her litigation strategy accordingly.” Sterten, 546 F.3d at 285. In Sterten, a consumer brought a case pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1601, et seq., alleging that a creditor failed to accurately disclose finance charges in connection with a home mortgage. 546 F.3d at 281. We found no unfair surprise when a defendant, referencing a general denial in its answer to the complaint, later sought shelter in TILA’s “tolerances provision,” a section of the statute that specifies the extent to which a lender may miscalculate a finance charge before incurring liability.11 See id. at 285-87 (examining 15 U.S.C. § 1605(f)). In concluding there was no undue prejudice to the plaintiffconsumer as a consequence of the defendant’s failure to raise the tolerances provision as an affirmative defense, we reasoned that the very same analysis that a consumer would undertake to prove that a disclosure was inaccurate would also reveal whether the inaccuracy fell within the tolerances provision. Id. at 285. In other words, proving the claim would necessarily disprove the defense, and the consumer therefore would neither have sought different discovery nor altered her trial strategy had the defendant affirmatively pleaded the defense, rather than a general denial. Id. 11 In Sterten, we addressed the burden of pleading rather than the burden of proof at trial, a distinction without a difference for purposes of today’s analysis. See Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 907 (2008) (stating that when a party seeks shelter in an affirmative defense it is “[o]rdinarily . . . incumbent on the defendant to plead and prove such a defense”). 18 The exception we consider here stands in stark contrast. If a debt collector acknowledges that it made a generally prohibited call, but contends it did so based on a purpose or reasonable belief that would exempt it from liability, a diligent consumer will need to explore the debt collector’s knowledge and intent. Thus, a consumer faced with the assertion that a call was made pursuant to the FDCPA’s location-information exception would reasonably change her discovery and trial strategy to prove that the debt collector was not seeking location information, or, in a follow-up call, did not have a reasonable belief that the earlier information was incorrect and likely to be corrected. Accordingly, considerations of unfair surprise and undue prejudice also counsel in favor of finding that § 1692b is an affirmative defense.