Supreme Court Decision in Jerman v Carlisle, et al. Strikes a Win for Consumers
This week, the Supreme Court issued an opinion on whether the “bona fide error” defense applies to a mistake of law by the debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Among other things, the Act prohibits debt collectors from making false representations as to a debt’s character, amount, or legalstatus, §1692e(2)(A); communicating with consumers at an”unusual time or place” likely to be inconvenient to theconsumer, §1692c(a)(1); or using obscene or profane language or violence or the threat thereof, §§1692d(1), (2).See generally §§1692b–1692j; Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U. S. 291, 292–293 (1995).
In this case, a foreclosure notice of default required the homeowner to contest the debt “in writing,” a mandate not authorized by the Act.
