#SummaryJudgement #DeclaratoryJudgement Elements of "Summary Judgement" as to include in "Declaratory judgement"... The only one with a right to collect [be a debt collector] is a creditor...!!! ;) I. Summary Judgment Summary judgment is appropriate if the record shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). A genuine issue for trial exists only when "evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all inferences in the nonmovant's favor. Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Flanders Elec. Motor Serv., Inc., 40 F.3d 146, 150 (7th Cir. 1994). However, if the evidence is merely colorable, or is not sufficiently probative, summary judgment may be granted. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 249-50. Congress enacted the FDCPA in 1977 "to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors." 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e). To this end, § 1692e of the Act provides, inter alia, that A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section: (3) The false representation or implication that any individual is an attorney or that any communication is from an attorney. (10) The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer. The Seventh Circuit evaluates communications from debt collectors "through the eyes of an unsophisticated consumer." Jang v. A.M Miller Assocs., 122 F.3d 480, 483-84 (7th Cir. 1997); Avila v. Rubin, 84 F.3d 222, 226 (7th Cir. 1996). The unsophisticated consumer is a hypothetical consumer whose reasonable perceptions will be used to determine if collection messages are deceptive or misleading. Gammon v. GC Servs. Ltd. P'ship, 27 F.3d 1254, 1257 (7th Cir. 1994). This standard presumes a level of sophistication that "is low, close to the bottom of the sophistication meter," Avila, 84 F.3d at 226, and "`protects the consumer who is uninformed, naive, or trusting,'" Jang, 122 F.3d at 483-84 (citingGammon, 27 F.3d at 1257). Still, the standard "admits an objective element of reasonableness," which "protects debt collectors from liability for `unrealistic or peculiar interpretations of collection letters.'" Id.
Posted by El Hotepsekhemwy Pero at 2020-11-25 05:39:52 UTC