Help pack a million meals for struggling seniors on 9-11. Volunteer today


Be part of the solution.

Help AARP Foundation win back opportunity for struggling Americans 50 and over.

Charity Rating

AARP Foundation earns high rating for accountability from a leading charity evaluator. Read


AARP Foundation is dedicated to serving vulnerable people 50+ by creating solutions that help them secure the essentials and achieve their best life. Read


Foundation Overview
Executive Leadership
Financial Information
Diversity Practices

Jerman v. Carlisle

Supreme Court Agrees: Ignorance of the Law Is No Excuse

The Supreme Court agrees with AARP that ignorance of the law does not excuse a debt collector for violating the federal fair debt collection laws. AARP joined with other advocates in filing a "friend of the court" brief on behalf of consumers challenging abusive and illegal debt collection practices, and was gratified by the ruling that debt collectors can not hide behind a mistaken understanding of the law in the face of statutory language protecting consumers from abusive collection practices.

The Dispute

In 2006, the law firm of Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich filed a complaint on behalf of Countrywide Home Loans to foreclose on Karen Jerman's home in Ohio. The paperwork the law firm forwarded explained that Carlisle would assume the debt to be valid unless Jerman disputed the debt in writing within 30 days of receipt of the notice. Jerman responded within that period that her mortgage had in fact been paid off, and once Countrywide confirmed that, the foreclosure complaint was dismissed.

But Jerman sued the law firm, alleging that the law firm had violated federal law by requiring her to dispute the debt in writing, despite clear language to the contrary under the federal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA). A trial court found that while clearly in error, the demand for a written dispute was not an intentional violation and resulted from a bona fide error about the law. Jerman appealed, arguing that a law firm's legal mistake about consumer rights under a law that is designed to protect people from harassment does not shield it from liability.

The appeals court upheld the trial court's ruling, and ruled against Jerman. This left a split in the Circuits, with federal courts ruling both ways on the issue of mistake of law under FDCPA. Jerman v. Carlisle was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where AARP Foundation Litigation attorneys filed AARP's brief.

AARP's Brief

Congress enacted the FDCPA to protect consumers by prohibiting abusive debt collections practices such as harassment, abuse of legal process, onerous dispute burdens, and other unscrupulous practices that effectively extort money from desperate people who may not understand their rights or be too frightened to defend themselves. If aggressive debt collectors can escape liability simply by claiming they did not know the law, they would be free to plead ignorance rather than actually complying with the law — gutting the very principles that protect people from the practices they use.

AARP's brief made these points and noted that allowing them to escape liability for a "mistake of law" turns the venerable legal principle that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" on its head. The brief pointed out that allowing mistake of law defense in debt collection is particularly troubling since debt collectors — unlike virtually every other private business that interacts with consumers — are by the nature of their business unconcerned with consumer goodwill and have every incentive to maximize collections at the expense of consumer protection. In fact, under the lower court's approach, debt collectors who actually learn about the law will leave themselves at a competitive disadvantage (in the words of the brief, "a race to the bottom" that will reward illegality, allow creditors to hire the least scrupulous collectors and drive ethical collectors out of business).

The brief also examined the legislative history of the FDCPA and points out to the court that mistake of law defenses were actually considered and explicitly rejected by Congress during enactment of the law.

Search Legal Advocacy

Legal Cases

Find the most recent cases in which AFL has advocated in courts nationwide for the rights of older persons, and filed AARP’s amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs that help courts decide precedent-setting cases.

Make a Difference. Donate.

Make a Difference — support programs that help vulnerable seniors who are struggling to make ends meet.