During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

CEB Prac. Guide § 2A.59 -- Defenses -- Statutory Safe Harbor for Bona Fide Errors -- Mistakes of Fact or Law

Subscribe to Consumer Finance

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Consumer Finance Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Holds Plaintiff Need Not Prove Debt Collector Knew Debt Was Time-Barred When Collection Suit Filed, But Debt Collector Can Invoke Bona Fide Error Defense as to the Statute of Limitations

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Kaiser v. Cascade Capital, LLC, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 6754, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of the District Court for the District of Oregon that granted a motion to dismiss where the District Court reasoned the debt collector did not violate the FDCPA prohibitions on attempting to collect on a time barred debt because the… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Says Medical Debt is “Consumer Credit Transaction” Under Rosenthal Act; that Bona Fide Error Must Be “Reasonable”; that FDCPA and Rosenthal Act Combine to Permit Three Penalties

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Hanrahan v. Statewide Collection, Inc., No. 19-cv-00157-MMC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 242290 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2020), Judge Chesney granted partial summary judgment to a Rosenthal Act Plaintiff.  She held that the bond fide error rule can apply to mistakes of fact, but not where the mistake occurred with respect to a well-publicized error made by the debt collector.… Read More

9th Cir. Says Debt Collector Cannot Outsource FDCPA Obligations in Order to Rely on Bona Fide Error Defense

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Mercedes v. Nat'l Bus. Factors, No. 19-16055, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 25996 (9th Cir. Aug. 17, 2020), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected application of the bona fide error defense where the debt collector outsourced its compliance obligations through a boilerplate agreement with the creditor. The parties do not dispute that NBF unintentionally violated the FDCPA… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Says Debt Collector Can Use Reasonable Policies and Procedures Defense to Establish that It Did Not Receive Debtor’s Dispute Letter

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Williams v. Enhanced Recovery Co., LLC, No. 18-cv-03699-HSG, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137631 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2019), Judge Gilliam granted summary judgment to a debt collector. The Court finds that ERC has carried its burden to establish an entitlement to the bona fide error defense, and the Court thus does not consider whether there is a material dispute… Read More

3rd Cir. Extends Douglass “Glassine Window” FDCPA Case to QR Codes on the Outside of Envelopes

by Scott J. Hyman |

In DiNaples v. MRS BPO, LLC, No. 18-2972, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23937 (3d Cir. Aug. 12, 2019), the Court of Appeals extended its Douglass decision to QR codes. There is no dispute that that provision plainly prohibits the QR code. Still, as other courts have observed, § 1692f(8) is rather expansive when read literally. It would seemingly prohibit including… Read More

District Court (Mich.) Grants Motion in Limine Precluding Debt Collector From Asserting Bona Fide Error Premised on Misinterpretation of Underlying State Law Regarding the Debt

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Verburg v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A., 2018 WL 346834, at *2–3 (W.D.Mich., 2018), Judge Jonker granted an FDCPA Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to exclude a debt collector's reliance on the bona fide error defense. Lacking binding authority directly on point, the Court concludes that an affirmative defense based on mistake of state law is not available to… Read More

3rd Circuit Says Medical Debt Servicer Failed to Meet its Burden that TCPA Plaintiff Consented to Receive Calls; No “Bona-fide” Error Defense Was Available Under the FDCPA for a “Glassine Window” Violation Because the Error was an Error of Law

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Daubert v. NRA Group., LLC, 2017 WL 2836808, at *4–5 (C.A.3 (Pa.), 2017), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that a medical debt servicer did not meet its burden of demonstrating that it or its assignor received consent. The Sixth Circuit found prior express consent where the plaintiffs gave their cell numbers to a hospital-intermediary in… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Says Debt Collector Violated “Meaningful Disclosure” By Not Giving (Partial) Mini-Miranda in V/M Messages, But Was Entitled To Bona Fide Error Protection

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Pasquale v. Law Offices of Nelson & Kennard, 2013 WL 1618020 (N.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Spero held that a debt collection law firm violated the FDCPA by failing to identify in subsequent voicemail messages to a debtor that it was a debt collector under 15 USC 1692e(11), but that its failure to do so was entitled to protection under the… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Grants MSJ on Debt Collector’s Bona Fide Error Defense where Debt Collector Continued to Collect on Satisfied Account

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Engelen v. Erin Capital Management, 2012 WL 12680 (S.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Benitez found applicable the debt collector’s affirmative defense of ‘bona fide’ error when the debt collector continued to collect on an obligation that already had been satisfied due to garnishment.  The facts were as follows.  On December 5, 2007, Erin, with Eltman acting as legal counsel, brought a… Read More

District Court (Tex.) Holds FDCPA Affords Limited Protection to Non-Consumers; Might Not Protect Transient Telephone Number Against Out-of-Time-Zone Calls

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Coleman v. Credit Management, here, Judge Lynn held that section 1692c of the FDCPA – related to communications with consumers at inconvenient times or places – does not apply to non-consumers.   Even though §1692d – related to harassing any person -- does apply to non-consumers, the section is not violated where the debt collector only makes fourteen phone calls in… Read More

1 2