Let’s say you follow every procedural rule to the letter, read all of the applicable precedents and scrupulously follow them; and unerringly follow every appropriate procedure and policy in filing your action. What would you think if the Court of Appeals were to throw out your case because you should have anticipated that after you filed the case, the procedural law would change so you would have needed to start the process over. How would you feel? Angry, shocked, mortified by the insanity of it all?
To find out all you have to do is ask Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC of Cook County, Illinois. The law firm filed a debt collection action against Ronald Oliva on behalf of a credit card company to collect on the debt owed by Oliva and won in the first municipal district of the Cook County, Illinois Circuit Court.
Thereafter, Oliva filed a federal suit against the law firm in which he claimed the firm had violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act since it had sued him in the first municipal district of the Cook County Circuit Court and he did not reside in the first municipal district. The law firm had relied on then valid Circuit Court precedent in effect at the time that was later overturned. The firm claimed that the filing under the prior precedent was the result of a bona fide error in the firm’s reliance on the then controlling law and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act provided for a safe harbor for bona fide mistakes. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois considered cross-motions for summary judgment, denied Oliva’s Motion and granted the law firm’s Motion on the basis that the now wrong choice of venue under the Act for the underlying action was a bona fide error by the law firm that entitled it to the safe harbor set forth in the Act. Oliva appealed.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded. It determined that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act’s safe harbor provision did not apply to mistakes of law even if reliance on a court’s mistaken precedent was reasonable.
Thus, summary judgment in favor of the law firm was reversed and Oliva was allowed to further pursue actual damages, statutory damages up to $1000 per violation, and attorney fees under the Act based on the now, in retrospect, improper venue.
To quote William S. Burroughs – “As one judge said to another judge: be just. And if you can’t be just, be arbitrary.”
The information presented is not intended to be, and does not constitute, “legal advice.” Because each situation varies, and only brief summary information is provided here, you should not use this information as a basis for action unless you have independently verified with your own counsel that it applies to your particular situation.
Leave a Reply