Supreme Court Case Study
Justin Borne
Professor Preston
May 10, 2014
BUSI 2301-4005
Karen L. JERMAN, Petitioner,
v.
CARLISLE, McNELLIE, RINI, KRAMER & ULRICH LPA, et al.No. 08-1200.
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided April 21, 2010.Page(s) 890-891
Karen L. Jerman had a mortgage with Countrywide Home Loans and was contacted by the law firm Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, on behalf of Country Wide, seeking a foreclosure on Jerman’s property.
The notice from Carlisle stated that, unless dispute was made in form of writing, the debt would be assumed valid. Jerman’s attorney followed up the notice with letter stating that the debt had already been paid in full. Carlisle contacted …show more content…
Carlisle claimed defense of being shielded by Section 1692k(c) stating they were not liable because the violation was not intentional.
The District Court that initially handled the lawsuit determined that the violation made by Carlisle was a “bona fide” error and sided with Carlisle stating the act was not intentional resulting in judgment in favor of the defendant. The lawsuit was appealed by Jerman and escalated to The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, who affirmed The District Court’s decision. The appeal was decided in favor of the defendant and no damages were rewarded to the plaintiff.
Jerman claimed that a debt collector’s misinterpretation of the legal requirements of the FDCPA can ever be “not intentional” under Section 1692k(c). Due to the general rule that mistake or ignorance of law is no defense, Jerman contends that Carlisle’s misunderstanding of what Act requires should not clear them of wrongdoing. On the other hand, Carlisle argued that nothing in the text excludes legal errors from the category of “bona fide error[s]” covered by Section 1692k(c). Furthermore, Carlisle contends that Congress’ intent was to impose liability only when party knows its conduct is unlawful. The expansive reading of Section 1692k(c) was declined by Judge with evidence that mistake-of-law defense
Professor Preston
May 10, 2014
BUSI 2301-4005
Karen L. JERMAN, Petitioner,
v.
CARLISLE, McNELLIE, RINI, KRAMER & ULRICH LPA, et al.No. 08-1200.
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided April 21, 2010.Page(s) 890-891
Karen L. Jerman had a mortgage with Countrywide Home Loans and was contacted by the law firm Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, on behalf of Country Wide, seeking a foreclosure on Jerman’s property.
The notice from Carlisle stated that, unless dispute was made in form of writing, the debt would be assumed valid. Jerman’s attorney followed up the notice with letter stating that the debt had already been paid in full. Carlisle contacted …show more content…
Carlisle claimed defense of being shielded by Section 1692k(c) stating they were not liable because the violation was not intentional.
The District Court that initially handled the lawsuit determined that the violation made by Carlisle was a “bona fide” error and sided with Carlisle stating the act was not intentional resulting in judgment in favor of the defendant. The lawsuit was appealed by Jerman and escalated to The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, who affirmed The District Court’s decision. The appeal was decided in favor of the defendant and no damages were rewarded to the plaintiff.
Jerman claimed that a debt collector’s misinterpretation of the legal requirements of the FDCPA can ever be “not intentional” under Section 1692k(c). Due to the general rule that mistake or ignorance of law is no defense, Jerman contends that Carlisle’s misunderstanding of what Act requires should not clear them of wrongdoing. On the other hand, Carlisle argued that nothing in the text excludes legal errors from the category of “bona fide error[s]” covered by Section 1692k(c). Furthermore, Carlisle contends that Congress’ intent was to impose liability only when party knows its conduct is unlawful. The expansive reading of Section 1692k(c) was declined by Judge with evidence that mistake-of-law defense