## Facts

- A law firm, acting for a mortgage creditor, filed an Ohio foreclosure action against Karen L. Jerman.
- The foreclosure complaint included an FDCPA validation notice stating the debt would be assumed valid unless Jerman disputed it **in writing** within 30 days.
- Jerman, through counsel, disputed the debt in writing within 30 days.
- The creditor later acknowledged the debt had been paid, and the law firm dismissed the foreclosure action.
- Jerman sued in federal court, alleging the “in writing” requirement violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a) because the statute does not require written disputes.
- The district court found a statutory violation but granted summary judgment to the law firm under the FDCPA’s bona fide error defense, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(c).
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding the bona fide error defense extends to mistakes of law; the Supreme Court granted review to resolve a circuit split.

## Issues

1. Whether the FDCPA’s bona fide error defense, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(c), shields a debt collector from liability for violations caused by a mistaken interpretation of the FDCPA’s legal requirements.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held that § 1692k(c)’s bona fide error defense does **not** apply to violations resulting from a debt collector’s mistaken interpretation of the FDCPA.

## Legal Principles

- Under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(c), the bona fide error defense does not excuse legal mistakes about the FDCPA’s requirements.
- The defense is limited to unintentional violations arising from errors more naturally addressed by “procedures reasonably adapted to avoid” them (commonly factual or clerical errors), not misinterpretations of substantive law.
- Absent clear statutory language, the traditional rule that ignorance or misunderstanding of the law is no excuse is not displaced in FDCPA civil liability.

## Conclusion

The Court held that debt collectors may not avoid FDCPA liability by characterizing an erroneous legal interpretation of the statute as a bona fide error; the statutory safe harbor in § 1692k(c) excludes mistakes of law.


Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich L.P.A., 559 U.S. 573 (2010)