Managers and the Legal Environment 7th Edition by David Madsen, Constance Bagley

Exercise 6

In April 2006, the law firm Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer Ulrich filed a complaint in Ohio state court on behalf of its client, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., seeking foreclosure of a mortgage held by Countrywide on real property owned by Karen L. Jerman. The complaint included a "Notice," later served on Jerman, stating that the mortgage debt would be assumed to be valid unless Jerman disputed it in writing. Jerman's lawyer sent a letter disputing the debt, and Carlisle sought verification from Countrywide. When Countrywide acknowledged that Jerman had, in fact, already paid the debt in full, Carlisle withdrew the foreclosure lawsuit. Jerman then filed a lawsuit seeking class certification and damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), because Carlisle stated that her debt would be assumed valid unless she disputed it in writing. Is there a violation? If so, is ignorance of the law's requirements an affirmative defense? [Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer Ulrich LPA, 130 S. Ct. 1605 (2010).]