beuter vs canyon state

[henry1018]

I found this case and IMHO, think this may be a very solid tool to convey the responsibility that is on CA's. It reinforces the fact that THE CA is responsible for bringing validated information to court and not simply rely on the information afforded them by the assignor/subrogor/OC. And the claim that any incorrect/invalidated information provided by the OC is 'unintentional' does not exonerate the CA from being held liable per the FDCPA.

[Lecasbas]

Here's a link to that case: http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/redir?src=websearch&s_req=8bea5f12a1d8ad68&s_cr=3&s_cq=beuter+vs+canyon+state&s_cid=329958279108638256402382330195814970303&s_cim=1226109298886&s_cu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tradewatch.org%2Fdocuments%2Fbeuter_brief.pdf&s_cd=web&s_cm=matchingsites.M.xml&s_ct=No.+05-16840+IN+THE+UNITED+STATES+COURT+OF+APPEALS+FOR+THE+NINTH+%3Cb%3E...%3C%2Fb%3E&s_cp=1&s_cpr=3

Everyone should have a copy on their computer.

[nascar]

The Appellee's Brief makes for good reading, but be careful not to cite from it. Since it's not a published opinion, don't cite from the case either, without submitting a copy of the opinion (see Rule 32.1). The actual opinion, below, is very short and is available free from LexisOne. Looks like Canyon State could have won this if they were smarter.

2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 29665,*;261 Fed. Appx. 14

Before: ROTH***, THOMAS, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Canyon State Professional Services, Inc. and Ronald Wilson appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Beverly A. Beuter and denial of summary judgment in favor of [*2] Canyon State and Wilson. Canyon State and Wilson attempted to collect legal fees from Beuter, on behalf of a creditor, in excess of the amount to which the creditor was legally entitled. The district court held that their actions violated §§ 1692e and 1692f of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692. Without contesting the fact that the creditor was not legally entitled to the extra fees, Canyon State and Wilson argue that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because §§ 1692e and 1692f of the FDCPA both require knowledge or intent and the record below did not establish that Canyon State and Wilson acted with either knowledge or intent.

However, we recently decided Clark v. Capitol Credit Services, 460 F.3d 1162, 1175-76 (9th Cir. 2006), which holds that the FDCPA imposes strict liability on debt collectors. Under Clark, Canyon State and Wilson are liable for even unintentional violations of the FDCPA. Because Canyon State and Wilson did not raise the "bona fide error" affirmative defense provided under § 1692k© of the FDCPA and do not contest the fact that their actions constituted "unintentional" violations of §§ 1692e and 1692f, the district [*3] court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Beuter was entirely proper.

AFFIRMED.

[Lecasbas]

nascar, at LexisOne, I did a few searches of terms relating to Beuter v Canyon State but the results were nothing similar to what you posted. I also searched by way of Google. Nada.

What exactly do I need to do to download the opinion you posted?

[nascar]

What exactly do I need to do to download the opinion you posted?

Beuter v. Canyon State

[henry1018]

With all due respect Nascar, I think the point the court makes is that canyon state must validate the debt and not rely on the information handed them by their client. The only thing that "being smarter" would have done for them is affirm that they aquired their information by "bona fide error". Which would have provided them a defense against an FDCPA claim but it still wouldn't make their claim substantiated with respect to the appeal.

[Methuss]

The only thing that "being smarter" would have done for them is affirm that they aquired their information by "bona fide error".

The bona fide error defense requires that the collector have procedures in place to prevent the error from occuring. In admitting they had no such procedures, that defense was unavailable to them.

The point being, debt collectors cannot blindly rely on just the work order they get from the OC when the amount is disputed. The collector must verify that the amount is correct or cease collections entirely. That's not new case law. That's been the standard for decades.

[henry1018]

That's not entirely true if Clark vs. Capitol Credit has any merit in a courtroom Methuss.

[Lecasbas]

Original quote by: Methuss

The bona fide error defense requires that the collector have procedures in place to prevent the error from occuring. In admitting they had no such procedures, that defense was unavailable to them.

We could assume that Canyon State did not raise the bona-fide-error affirmative defense because it was not available to them. The Opinion simply said that the affirmative defense was not raised.

The point being, debt collectors cannot blindly rely on just the work order they get from the OC when the amount is disputed. The collector must verify that the amount is correct or cease collections entirely. That's not new case law. That's been the standard for decades.

The problem is that JDB's and CA's are continuously scaring debtors into making payments by theatening court action which is in itself is not available to the collectors since they have not verified the accuracy of the debt.

The small losses ($1,000 and court costs) the collectors take from the few cases that do go to court are not an incentive for them to read and abide by the FDCPA.

Original post by: henry1018

That's not entirely true if Clark vs. Capitol Credit has any merit in a courtroom Methuss.

What exactly is not true? I haven't read the case yet but my understanding is that Clark v Capitol Credit substaniates the FDCPA as a "strict liability statute".

[henry1018]

It is my understanding that the court ruled in that case that it would be unnecessary to require the CA to provide any more validation beyond what was provided to them by the OC since, in their view, any further requirements would unfairly expand the intent of the original purpose of the legislation. Also, as I understand it, the 'bona fide' error arguement was accepted to be implied- encompassed 'errors' that were far beyond 'clerical' errors. (other court cases have deemed acceptable 'errors' to be 'clerical' in nature, non-recurring, and capable of being rectified in a system that is pre-emptive in preventing such errors in order to be compliant.) This is just a non-lawyer's take on what I read. Forgive me if I have misinterpreted any of the facts in this case.

[henry1018]

Also, I believe that by calling the CA's attorney after the CA was DV'd, the court ruled that the consumer therefore waived his right to have telephone contact 'cease and desisted' which is contrary to other rulings that reasserted that those rights were not able to be waived.