Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich, L.P.A.
Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich, L.P.A., 559 U.S. 573 (2010)
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Decided
- 2010-04-21
- Docket
- 08-1200
What happened
A law firm filed a foreclosure against Ms. Jerman and sent a notice saying she had to dispute the debt in writing. She sued, and the firm said its mistake was an honest legal error.
What the court decided
The Supreme Court held that the FDCPA's "bona fide error" defense does not cover a debt collector's mistaken reading of the law.
In the court's words
“the bona fide error defense in § 1692k(c) does not apply to a violation of the FDCPA resulting from a debt collector’s incorrect interpretation”
Why it may matter to you
A collector cannot escape the rules by saying it misunderstood them. It came out of a foreclosure case.
Why it might not apply
It applies to FDCPA debt collectors; many non-judicial foreclosure actors are outside the Act (Obduskey).
Most useful when
- A foreclosure firm's letter told you that you must dispute the debt in writing
How to cite it
The full citation for the first time you mention it, a short form for later, and a sample sentence you can adapt.
Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich, L.P.A., 559 U.S. 573 (2010)Short formJerman, 559 U.S. 573Draft — check it with free legal aid before you file or say it in court.
In Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich, L.P.A., 559 U.S. 573 (2010), the court held that the FDCPA's bona fide error defense does not excuse a debt collector's incorrect interpretation of what the Act requires. Here, [say in one sentence what happened in your case]
Ask Techy about this case
Techy explains the case in plain words, why it may matter to you, its limits, and how to prepare. It only uses this case record.
Related cases
- Homeowner wonBinding
Heintz v. Jenkins
514 U.S. 291 · Decided 1995
A lawyer collecting a car-loan debt sent Ms. Jenkins a letter demanding charges she said were not owed. The lawyer argued lawyers who litigate are not "debt collectors."
Read the case - Homeowner lostBinding
Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP
586 U.S. 466 · Decided 2019
Mr. Obduskey disputed his debt with the law firm hired to foreclose his Colorado home non-judicially. The firm went ahead without verifying the debt, and he sued under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Read the case - Homeowner lostBinding
Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson
581 U.S. 224 · Decided 2017
In Ms. Johnson's Chapter 13 case, a debt buyer filed a claim for a debt that was obviously too old to collect. She sued under the FDCPA.
Read the case