Ketterman v. I.C. System, Inc., 4:18-cv-01136

Ketterman was contacted by I.C. Systems about an unpaid Ameren electric bill for a house he previously lived in; the call notified him the $449.81 balance could be paid by check or card and that a $24.74 third‑party card‑processing fee would apply if he paid by card.
Ketterman alleges (1) I.C. Systems tried to collect an unauthorized processing fee in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1), and (2) I.C. Systems attempted to collect a debt that was not his (opened by his ex‑wife in his name) in violation of § 1692e(2)(A).
The only contact between the parties was the recorded April 11, 2018 phone call; account records from Ameren listed Ketterman as the account holder.
I.C. Systems presented uncontested affidavits showing the processing fee was collected and retained entirely by the third‑party processor (PNS Partners) and that I.C. received none of the fee.
Ketterman’s claim that the debt was his ex‑wife’s rests on his own conclusory testimony, which contradicts his prior admissions that he lived at the address and had paid Ameren while living there.
Alternatively, I.C. Systems produced evidence that any mistake resulted from reasonable reliance on Ameren’s records and that it maintained policies reasonably adapted to avoid errors (bona fide error defense under § 1692k(c)).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether charging a card‑processing fee violated § 1692f(1)	Ketterman: fee was an unauthorized charge tied to the debt	I.C.: fee is paid to third‑party processor (PNS) and I.C. receives none; card payment was optional	Fee did not violate § 1692f(1); summary judgment for I.C.
Whether attempting to collect a debt that was not Ketterman’s violated § 1692e(2)(A)	Ketterman: ex‑wife opened account in his name; debt belonged to her	I.C.: Ameren listed Ketterman as account holder; no red flags to suggest error; Ketterman’s testimony is conclusory	No genuine dispute; summary judgment for I.C.
Whether any asserted FDCPA violation is excused by bona fide error defense (§ 1692k(c))	Ketterman: (argues error)	I.C.: reasonably relied on Ameren records and maintained policies to prevent errors	I.C. met bona fide error defense; summary judgment affirmed on alternative ground
Procedural: Plaintiff’s late summary judgment filing and motions to strike	Ketterman sought leave for late filing; moved to strike evidence	I.C.: opposed lateness; opposed motions to strike	Court denied plaintiff’s late‑file leave and denied motions to strike; considered the late filing but ruled for I.C. on the merits

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (summary judgment standard)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden allocation)
Strand v. Diversified Collection Serv., Inc., 380 F.3d 316 (unsophisticated‑consumer standard under FDCPA)
Weast v. Rockport Fin., LLC, 115 F. Supp. 3d 1018 (discussing § 1692f(1) at motion to dismiss stage)
Kojetin v. C U Recovery, Inc., 212 F.3d 1318 (8th Cir.) (collector charging fee was at issue)
Lee v. Main Accounts, Inc., 125 F.3d 855 (6th Cir.) (third‑party card fee not FDCPA violation where optional)
Shami v. Nat’l Enter. Sys., 914 F. Supp. 2d 353 (E.D.N.Y.) (summary judgment where independent processor retained fee)
Lewis v. ABC Bus. Servs., Inc., 911 F. Supp. 290 (summary judgment where processor retained fee)
Wilhelm v. Credico, Inc., 519 F.3d 416 (bona fide error defense under § 1692k(c))
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment / genuine dispute standard)