Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer, & Ulrich LPA (2009)
- Docket
- 08-1200
- Decided
- 2009-01-01
Summary
Question: Does a debt collector's mistake in law qualify for the FDCPA bona fide error defense? Conclusion: No. The Supreme Court held that the bona fide error defense in the FDCPA does not apply to a violation resulting from a debt collector's mistaken interpretation of the legal requirements of the FDCPA. With Justice Sonia Sotamayor writing for the majority, the Court reasoned in part that "ignorance of the law will not excuse any person, either civilly or criminally." Moreover, the Court did not find that Congress intended otherwise. Justice Antonin G. Scalia wrote separately, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. He disagreed with the majority opinion in that it traced the actions of Congress outside of the FDCPA context to determine that Congress did not intend the bona fide error defense to apply to legal errors. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, joined by Justice Samuel A. Alito, dissented. He disagreed with the majority opinion rejecting the straightforward and reasonable interpretation of the FDCPA that the bona fide error defense applies to legal errors.