If you’re a potential employer of Carol Shuler or Roger Shuler you might want to read the last few blog posts…and BEWARE my friend! They love to sue people for no good reason!
Case and point: http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/unpub/ops/201014509.pdf
A very interesting and somewhat entertaining read. They’re your basic deadbeats. Got sued by their neighbor, went bad on some debt and as a result, like most deadbeats that cost us decent hard working taxpayers billions, found themselves in litigation. So what’s a scumbag deadbeat to do? Sue of course! They sued NCO Financial and their attorney for (get this) fraud, invasion of privacy, defamation, violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and wanton failure to train and supervise employees.
I’ve put together a few choice excepts which I think you will enjoy:
Thus, the Shulers judicially admitted the facts that Mr. Shuler had a debt with American Express, that American Express placed the debt with NCO for collection, that NCO referred the past due debt to Ingram, a debt collector, and that American Express retained Ingram as legal counsel.
Under the FDCPA, a debt collector is prohibited from “causing a telephone to ring or engaging any person in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called number.”
However, Ingram’s five telephone calls to the Shulers, including one successful contact with Mr. Shuler that lasted for less than five minutes and two voicemail messages, do not amount to repeated or continuous attempts to annoy, abuse, or harass the Shulers. Moreover, Ingram did not violate the FDCPA by calling Mr. Shuler after Mr. Shuler had told Ingram not to do so. As the record shows, Mr. Shuler effectively nullified this prior instruction when he subsequently called Ingram to speak about the debt, thereby giving Ingram a reasonable basis to call the Shuler’s again.
In this case, the district court properly found that Ingram did not invade the Shulers’s privacy because Ingram had the right to make reasonable efforts to collect the debt and the single telephone conversation with Mrs. Shuler about payment arrangements and the legal consequences of not paying the debt did not exceed the bounds of reasonableness. Although Mrs. Shuler became hysterical during the call, the Shulers offered no specific facts showing that Ingram was attempting by harassment to coerce her into payment arrangements or to frighten her with the prospect of selling the Shulers’s house. Thus, the Shulers failed to show how this conversation wrongfully would cause mental suffering or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities.
(**I’ll let you draw your own conclusions about Carol Shuler’s mental stability here.)
As far as the Roger Shuler’s four year tirade over the injustice of the Alabama Judicial System for “railroading him” – the findings are quite contrary:
First, we reject the Shulers’s argument that the district court procedurally erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants. For starters, because Rule does not require an oral hearing, the district court did not procedurally err in failing to hold a hearing. Nor were the Shulers railroaded by a premature summary judgment motion. As the record shows, the Shulers initially filed suit in July 2008, the discovery period closed on October 30, 2009, and both defendants filed summary judgment motions by November 30, 2009.
More than enough time for the Shuler’s to take rightful legal action, if they actually had a “rightful” leg to stand on. Here again, Carol Shuler and Roger Shuler are living in a fantasy of a corrupt system and conspiracies.
We have several upcoming articles on the long storied history of Carol and Roger Shuler’s frivolous lawsuits. Stay Tuned!