Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Volume 2

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze, interpret, and apply provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Volume 2 of the casebook covers the Sixth through the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. * * * Congress enacted the FDCPA in 1977 "to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses." 15 U.S.C. 1692(e). The FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from collecting "any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law." Id. 1692f(1). Debt collectors are strictly liable for FDCPA violations, Donohue v. Quick Collect, Inc., 592 F.3d 1027, 1030 (9th Cir. 2010), and a debt collector who violates the FDCPA is liable for actual damages, attorney's fees and costs, and additional damages not to exceed $1,000 per violation. 15 U.S.C. 1692k. The FDCPA is "broadly remedial," and should be liberally construed in favor of consumers. McAdory v. M.N.S. & Assocs., LLC, 952 F.3d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 2020). * * * To avoid liability, debt collectors may raise the limited affirmative defense that their conduct was "not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error." 15 U.S.C. 1692k(c). The burden is on the debt collector to prove this defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Id.; McCollough v. Johnson, Rodenburg & Lauinger, LLC, 637 F.3d 939, 948 (9th Cir. 2011). * * * The bona fide error defense requires a showing that the debt collector: (1) violated the FDCPA unintentionally; (2) the violation resulted from a bona fide error; and (3) the debt collector maintained procedures reasonably adapted to avoid the violation. Id. Urbina v. National Business Factors Inc., (9th Cir. 2020).