[hannah]

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted summary judgment in favor of a law firm that sued a debtor in a foreclosure suit without following up with a second communication identifying the debt, finding that the firm's failure to follow up with the initial communication was a bona fide error.

The law firm of Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer, & Ulrich filed a complaint in state court, on behalf of Countrywide Home Loans Inc., to initiate foreclosure proceedings against Karen Jerman. After the complaint was sent, the lawyer who filed the action, Adrienne Foster, did not make any other communication with Jerman. Five days after Jerman received the complaint, Jerman's attorney sent Foster a letter indicating that Jerman disputed the debt alleged. Foster verified with Countrywide that the debt had been paid in full.

Jerman brought a proposed class action against the law firm alleging violations of the FDCPA. Jerman claimed that the firm failed to follow up with her after sending an initial communication regarding the debt as required under the FDCPA. The defendants moved to dismiss, asserting that the complaint was not an initial communication under the FDCPA, and their failure to follow up was a bona fide error.

The FDCPA requires that a debt collector who sends an initial communication about a debt to a consumer send a debtor a written notice identifying the amount of the debt and the name of the creditor within five days of the initial communication if the debtor disputes the validity of the debt. The district court found that a complaint is an initial communication under the FDCPA and that the law firm was required to verify the debt within five days as required by the FDCPA.

The FDCPA allows a debt collector to plead an affirmative defense of bona fide error. The district court found that bona fide error includes mistake of law and may be shown if it was made in good faith. The district court found that the law firm's mistake was bona fide, as the law on the matter was unclear at the time of the initial communication.

The district court found that, although the law firm violated the FDCPA, the violation was an excusable bona fide mistake of law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the law firm.

Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer, & Ulrich, No. 06-1397 (N.D. Ohio June 20, 2007) attached.

Also attached is their first go around from 2006. Good info and perhaps she will appeal.