Brown v. Brock & Scott, PLLC

In ongoing legal proceedings, the Court has recently granted Brock & Scott, PLLC’s motion summary judgment. Let’s delve into the details.

Factual Background

The case involves Brock & Scott’s attempt to collect two debts owed by the Plaintiff to Navy Federal Credit Union. Brock & Scott sent letters to the Plaintiff on March 2, 2023, regarding these debts, providing instructions on disputing them. Subsequently, on April 10, 2023, the Plaintiff responded, refusing to pay the debts due to financial constraints. Further correspondence followed, with the Plaintiff disputing one of the accounts and requesting validation of both debts.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Summary Judgment Standard

According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), summary judgment can only be granted if it’s evident that there is no genuine dispute pertaining to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. This means that all the evidence is examined in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, with any reasonable inferences drawn in their favor.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Discussion

The Plaintiff argued that the validation letters Brock & Scott, PLLC sent violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). However, the Court found that these letters did not contravene the Act. According to § 1692c(c) of the FDCPA, if a consumer informs a debt collector in writing of their refusal to pay a debt, the collector should cease further communication regarding the debt. Yet, exceptions exist, such as communicating specified remedies available to the debt collector.

In this case, the Defendant’s validation letters, sent after the Plaintiff’s dispute, were deemed permissible under the Act. Additionally, the Plaintiff’s subsequent requests for debt validation constituted a waiver of the protection provided by § 1692c(c). Therefore, the Court concluded that the evidence did not establish a violation of the FDCPA by the Defendant.

Conclusion

In light of the above analysis, the Court granted the Defendant’s summary judgment motion (ECF No. 15). This ruling emphasizes the intricate nuances of FDCPA and the importance of understanding its provisions in debt collection disputes.

Our team of debt attorneys in Georgia possesses significant expertise in managing legal actions and debt recovery attempts brought forth by Brock & Scott and numerous other debt collectors. Typically, we can either secure dismissal of the case or negotiate a settlement for your debt at a reduced sum, leading to considerable savings in contrast to the outstanding amount.

Brown v. Brock & Scott, PLLC,

Case No. 4:23-CV-138

United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Columbus Division.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Georgia Collection Defense Lawyers

Focusing on debt defense, Diwan Law, LLC is highly knowledgeable in the complexities of Georgia’s debt collection statutes and laws and is dedicated to advocating for you to secure the most favorable outcome possible.

* The information presented in this article does not constitute legal advice. All information, content, and materials presented on this website are for general informational purposes only. If you are being sued, we encourage you to contact Diwan Law before taking any action.

The case involves Brock & Scott’s attempt to collect two debts owed by the Plaintiff to Navy Federal Credit Union. Brock & Scott sent letters to the Plaintiff on March 2, 2023, regarding these debts, providing instructions on disputing them. Subsequently, on April 10, 2023, the Plaintiff responded, refusing to pay the debts due to financial constraints. Further correspondence followed, with the Plaintiff disputing one of the accounts and requesting validation of both debts.