this defense, a party must show “that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid such error.” Id. In the Supplemental Trial Petition filed in the state court action, Wolpoff admitted that the amount of recovery set forth in the Original Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award “consisted of the arbitration award ... and the filing fees incurred in the filing of this petition in this court, which at that point were in the sum of $225.00.” Def. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 2. Though Wolpoff amended the state court petition to reflect the accurate value of the arbitration award, it can still be held liable for violating the FDCPA. See Goins v. JBC & Assocs., P.C., 352 F.Supp.2d 262 (D.Conn.2005) (<HOLDING>). There is no indication that Wolpoff had
holding that the defendants violated the fdcpa by overstating the amount of debt due though they later clarified their misrepresentation holding that where the defendant obtained a nondefaulted debt under the mistaken belief that the debt was in default and where the defendants subsequent collection activities were based on that mistaken belief the defendant was a debt collector for purposes of the fdcpa holding that an entity engaged in collection activity on a defaulted debt acquired from another is a debt collector under the fdcpa even though it may actually be owed the debt holding that unpaid traffic fine is not debt under fdcpa holding that back rent is debt under the fdcpa