In an unpublished decision, the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of a debt collector defendant, finding that the bona fide error defense applied to the debt collector’s efforts to collect a debt that may have been overstated.

            In Watson v. Hornecker Cowling Hassen & Heysell, LLP,  the plaintiff alleged the defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Oregon law when it sent a collection letter and filed suit for a debt owed on a used car and overstated the amount due.  The district court granted the defendant’s summary judgment motion based on the bona fide error defense, and the plaintiff appealed.

            The Ninth Circuit determined it need not decide whether the defendant violated the FDCPA because even if it did, the bona fide error defense under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(c) applied.  To prevail on this defense, the debt collector must show an unintentional FDCPA violation, that the violation resulted from a bona fide error, and that the debt collector maintained procedures reasonably adapted to avoid the violation.  The plaintiff argued that the defendant did not show it had reasonable procedures to avoid the violation, so the appellate court considered only that element.  The court considered the defendant’s procedures to avoid overstating debts, which included reviewing an account ledger from the creditor and the contract signed by the plaintiff and verifying that all charges listed in the ledger matched charges provided for in the contract.  The Ninth Circuit held that because the defendant went beyond merely relying on the creditor’s representations, the bona fide error defense applied.  The court also noted that prior to filing suit, the defendant had not received a dispute from the plaintiff in response to the validation letter and had obtained an affidavit verifying the debt from the creditor.  Again, that demonstrated procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any violations and the bona fide error defense applied. Because the defendant demonstrated procedures reasonably adapted to avoid violations, the defense barred the FDCPA claim. The plaintiff had waived his state law claims, so the court did not consider them.