A District Court judge in Washington has granted a partial motion for summary judgment against a debt collector that issued and served a writ of garnishment against a consumer who no longer owed any money, ruling the company could not rely on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act’s bona fide error defense. The judge held the collector was liable under both the FDCPA and Washington’s Consumer Protection Act after the company admitted the garnishment was sent “in error.”
The background: The defendant issued a writ of garnishment in August 2025 that was served on plaintiff’s employer. The parties agreed that, at the time the garnishment was issued, the plaintiffs no longer owed any debt because the medical and utility balances had already been paid through cashier’s checks the previous month.
- The garnishment filing itself also contained confusing figures, listing a “Balance of Judgment” of $1.00, interest of more than $6,200, and a total allegedly owed of $2,145.61.
- The defendant admitted it violated the FDCPA but argued it should avoid liability under the statute’s bona fide error defense, which protects collectors from liability for unintentional violations resulting from bona fide errors despite procedures reasonably adapted to avoid such mistakes.
The ruling: Judge Thomas S. Zilly of the District Court for the Western District of Washington ruled the collector failed to establish the necessary elements of the bona fide error defense.
- Judge Zilly focused heavily on the defendant’s inability to explain how its procedures actually functioned to prevent improper garnishments or how employees failed to follow those procedures in this case. The opinion noted the company submitted a declaration from its Director of Client Services, but the declaration did not explain how the witness knew an unidentified collector failed to follow company procedures or why later legal review processes failed to catch the error.
- The judge also criticized the wording of the company’s procedures, describing them in a footnote as “so poorly worded” that they did not support the argument that they were reasonably adapted to prevent the violation at issue.
- The judge ultimately held the collector liable as a matter of law under both the FDCPA and Washington’s Consumer Protection Act. While liability has now been established, the amount of damages remains for trial unless the parties resolve the matter beforehand.
