Sharp Thinking is an occasional newsletter of The Sharp Law Firm, P.C.

, P.C. addressing developments in the law which may be of interest. Nothing contained in Sharp
Thinking shall be construed to create an attorney-client relation where none previously has existed, nor with respect to any particular matter. The perspectives herein
constitute educational material on general legal topics and are not legal advice applicable to any particular situation. To establish an attorney-client relation or to obtain
legal advice on your particular situation, contact a Sharp lawyer at the phone number or one of the addresses provided on page 2 of this newsletter.
Sharp Thinking
No. 64 Perspectives on Developments in the Law from The Sharp Law Firm, P.C. May 2012

Liberal Damage Rules Apply in FDCPA Suits
Statutory Damages, Class Action Provisions, Bona Fide Error Doctrine Are Unusual

As noted in the last two issues of Sharp Thinking, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C.
1692 et seq.) (FDCPA) contains numerous provisions which threaten liability for debt collectors in
the collection of consumer debt. In this issue we address remedies for violations of that Act and
affirmative defenses which can allow collectors to prevail despite a violation.

Numerous Remedies. Under 1692l, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and certain other
agencies are given certain administrative enforcement powers. Such administrative proceedings can
lead to imposition of injunctions and significant civil penalties under the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 41,
45(m), 53(b). However, the major form of enforcement of the FDCPA has been through its civil liability
provisions, 1692k. A private cause of action lies in
federal court without regard to the amount in
controversy, or in any other court of competent
jurisdiction, if filed within one year from the date on
which the violation occurred. 1692k(d). Generally
the case will be brought by the debtor, but that is not
necessarily required. Where a person other than the
debtor is covered by one of the substantive provisions,
that person may be able to sue under 1692k(a). A single violation of the act is sufficient to give rise
to a lawsuit.

A collector who has failed to comply with the act generally will be held liable for any actual damage
sustained by the plaintiff as a result of such failure ( 1692k(a)(1)) plus court costs and a reasonable
attorneys fee ( 1692k(a)(3)) plus other relief varying with the circumstances.
Attorney fees usually are assessed using the lodestar method common in
other contexts. Gastineau v. Wright, 592 F.3d 747 (7th Cir. 2010). The
attorneys fees may be awarded to the prevailing plaintiff even if actual
damages are not. An award of fees generally is regarded as mandatory if the
plaintiff prevails on the merits. Schlacher v. Law Off. of Phillip J. Rotche &
Assoc., 574 F.3d 852 (7th Cir. 2009). However, to be entitled to fees the plaintiff must prevail on the
merits in some respect. Dechert v. Cadle & Co., 441 F.3d 474 (7th Cir. 2006).

If the case is brought by an individual, the court may award additional damages (often called
statutory damages) not exceeding $1,000. 1692k(a)(2)(A). The right to a
jury trial applies to both the actual and the statutory damages, if requested.
Statutory damages are available with or without proof of actual damages. In
determining the amount of statutory damages, a court is to consider, among
other relevant factors, the frequency and persistence of noncompliance by the
collector, the nature of such noncompliance, and the extent to which
noncompliance was intentional. 1692k(b)(1). Although the fact that the
Third of three issues on the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

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
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 collectors 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 acts 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 Pships,
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 attorneys 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