A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit suggests that debt collectors who rely in good faith on erroneous information provided by creditors are at risk for liability under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

In Owen v. I.C. System, Inc., issued on January 7, 2011, the 11th Circuit held that the FDCPA's bona fide error defense did not shield the debt collector from liability when it relied on information from the creditor in sending collection letters demanding payment of interest charges that were not properly owed. That defense requires a debt collector to show that its FDCPA violation was "not intentional," resulted from a "bona fide error," and occurred despite the collector’s "maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error."

As a threshold matter, the 11th Circuit did not treat the creditor’s mistake as a mistake of law that falls outside the bona fide error defense under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Jermaine v. Carlisle. In reaching this conclusion, the Court found that there was no evidence that the debt collector exercised any legal judgment as to the charges; instead, it “indiscriminately accepted the [creditor’s] interest charges as factually accurate and proceeded to collect them.”

The debt collector argued that it had a procedure reasonably adapted to avoid FDCPA errors, and thus was entitled to the benefit of the bona fide error defense because it had obtained a contractual representation from the creditor that the debts placed for collection were "validly due and owing." Although it acknowledged that the FDCPA does not require a debt collector to independently investigate and verify the validity of a debt to qualify for the bona fide error defense, the 11th Circuit rejected the debt collector's argument because the errors in question did not require an investigation of the validity of the charges; they were apparent from a "cursory review" of the documents provided by the creditor. Because the debt collector had no "internal, error-correction procedures to avoid miscalculation of debt amounts, such as interest on past-due interest or extra fees beyond the debtor’s unambiguous written agreement," its "procedure [was] to outsource its oversight task to its creditor." This did not suffice.

Debt collectors have two choices in addressing situations of this type:

  • Rely upon creditor representations and indemnities (preferably after evaluating the creditor’s integrity, competence, and financial strength).
  • Periodically review their procedures for avoiding FDCPA violations with counsel and have counsel periodically audit their compliance with those procedures to ensure the successful assertion of a bona fide error defense.

Ballard Spahr lawyers regularly consult with their clients engaged in consumer debt collection on compliance with the FDCPA and state debt collection laws.

Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group is nationally recognized for its guidance in structuring and documenting new consumer financial services products, its experience with the full range of federal and state consumer credit laws throughout the country, and its skill in litigation defense and avoidance (including pioneering work in pre-dispute arbitration programs). For more information, please contact group Chair Alan S. Kaplinsky, 215.864.8544 or kaplinsky@ballardspahr.com; Vice Chair Jeremy T. Rosenblum, 215.864.8505 or rosenblum@ballardspahr.com; John L. Culhane, Jr., 215.864.8535 or culhane@ballardspahr.com; Barbara S. Mishkin, 215.864.8528 or mishkinb@ballardspahr.com; or Mark J. Furletti, 215.864.8138 or furlettim@ballardspahr.com.




Copyright © 2011 by Ballard Spahr LLP.
(No claim to original U.S. government material.)


All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission of the author and publisher.

This alert is a periodic publication of Ballard Spahr LLP and is intended to notify recipients of new developments in the law. It should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own attorney concerning your situation and specific legal questions you have.