Page 18 - John Hundley 2012
P. 18

violation  was  innocuous  will  not  thwart  a  judgment,  it  may  be  considered  in  mitigating  liability.    §
          1692k(b)(1).  The $1,000 in statutory damages permitted is per proceeding, not violation.  The statutory
          damages have sometimes been characterized as punitive (Veach v. Sheeks, 316 F.3d 690, 692 (7th
          Cir. 2003)), although the $1,000-per-case rule diminishes the force of that characterization somewhat.

             In class actions, the court may award the statutory damages to each named plaintiff and an amount
          for all other class members, without regard to a minimum individual recovery, not to exceed the lesser
          of $500,000 or 1% of the net worth of the debt collector.  § 1692k(a)(2)(B).  In Sanders v. Jackson, 209
          F.3d 998 (7th Cir. 2000), our court of appeals determined that net worth for purposes of this
          cap was book value net worth, excluding goodwill.  Subject to such cap, in determining the
          amount  of  an  award  in  a  class  action  the  court  is  to  consider,  among  other  things,  the
          frequency  and  persistence  of  noncompliance  by  the  debt  collector,  the  nature  of  such
          noncompliance,  the  resources  of  the  debt  collector,  the  number  of  persons  adversely
          affected,  and  the  extent  to  which  the  debt  collector’s  noncompliance  was  intentional.    §
          1692k(b)(2).  All class actions under the FDCPA are actions for money damages requiring notice to
          (and an opportunity to opt-out by) absent class members.  Crawford v. Equifax Payment Services, Inc.,
          201 F.3d 877 (7th Cir. 2000).

             “Bona Fide Error” Defense.  FDCPA § 1692k(c) provides that a debt collector “may not be
          held  liable  in  any  civil  action  brought  under  this  subchapter  if  the  debt  collector  shows  by  a
          preponderance  of  evidence  that  the  violation  was  not  intentional  and  resulted  from  a
          bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to
          avoid any such error.”  Usually the successful defense involves a clerical-type error or a
          lack of knowledge.  See Ross v. RJM Acq. Funding LLC, 480 F.3d 493 (7th Cir. 2007).
          The defense does not apply for mistakes of law as to the act’s requirements.  Jerman v.
          Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich, __ U.S. __, 130 S.Ct. 1605 (2010).  Moreover,
          our circuit is fairly strict in requiring significant preventative procedures.  See Ruth v. Triumph P’ships,
          577 F.3d 790 (7th Cir. 2009); Seeger v. AFNI, Inc., 548 F.3d 1107 (7th Cir. 2008); but see Ross v.
          RJM, cited above.

             Reliance on FTC.  The act provides that no provision of its civil-liability section (§ 1692k) “shall
          apply to any act done or omitted in good faith in conformity with any advisory opinion of the [FTC].”  §
          1692k(e).  This provision has not been liberally applied.   See Gulley v. Markoff & Krasny, 664 F.3d

          1073 (7th Cir. 2011); Carter v. AMC, LLC, 645 F.3d 840 (7th Cir. 2011).

             Attorney Fees For Defendants.  Upon a finding that an action was brought in bad faith and
          for harassment, the court may award the defendant attorney’s fees reasonable in relation to the work
          expended and costs.  § 1692k(a)(3).  However, to recover under this provision defendant apparently
          must show that the entire suit, and not just a part of it, was brought in bad faith.  Horkey v. J.V.D.B. &
          Assoc.,  333  F.3d  769  (7th  Cir.  2003).    If  the  case  was  brought  in  federal  court,  sanctions  may  be
          available under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 even if § 1692k(a)(3) is not met.   Similarly, they
          presumably could be available under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 if a bad faith suit were brought in
          state court.


                                                                         -- John T. Hundley, 618-242-0246, Jhundley@lotsharp.com
          John\SharpThinking\#64.doc

          ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
                                           THE  SHARP  LAW  FIRM,  P.C.

                    1115 Harrison, P.O. Box 906, Mt. Vernon, IL 62864 • Telephone 618-242-0246 • Facsimile 618-242-1170

           Business Transactions • Litigation • Financial Law • Problem Finances • Real Estate • Corporate • Commercial Disputes • Creditors’ Rights •
                                        Arbitration • Employment Matters • Estate Planning • Probate

            Terry Sharp: Tsharp@lotsharp.com; John T. Hundley: Jhundley@lotsharp.com; Bentley J. Bender: Bbender@lotsharp.com.

                                                        Advertising Material
   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23