Here is another instance in which you are proven to be a liar. This from the U.S.7th Circuit Ct of Appeals which is the same circut ct that rendered the famous Spears v. Brennan decision.

The district court denied the petition for attorney's fees. It took the view that the determination of an appropriate award of attorney's fees under the FDCPA (15 U.S.C. sec. 1692k(a)(3)) is governed by the same standard that has been used for determining attorney's fees awards pursuant to the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. sec. 1988. It then noted that, in the context of making that determination under sec. 1988, the Supreme Court has said that the nature of relief awarded to a prevailing party bears on the propriety of awarding fees. Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 114 (1992). Thus, reasoned the district court, in some circumstances, even a party who formally prevails should receive no attorney's fees at all. Accordingly, continued the district court, a victorious plaintiff may receive no attorney's fees if the plaintiff's recovery is merely technical or de minimis. The court then noted that, in applying Farrar, we have adopted a three-factor test to determine if relief is merely technical or de minimis: (1) the difference between the judgment recovered and the judgment sought; (2) the significance of the legal issue on which the plaintiff prevailed; and (3) the public purpose served by the litigation. See Johnson v. Lafayette Fire Fighters Ass'n, 51 F.3d 726, 731 (7th Cir. 1995). After a consideration of these factors, the district court concluded that the only reasonable fee was no fee.

All of your stupid brayings relate to situations that are merely technical or de minimis and therefore telling people that it award of attorneys fees is mandatory is dangerously false and misleading.

Normie, you are losing ground fast. Best you shut up, quit giving legal advice and take down your silly blog which only serves to convict you.


E. Normis wrote:

If you're in need of any further applicable case law, just axe me.

I'll be only too happy to axe you and here it is.

In Happy the United States Supreme Court ruled that in order for a plaintiff to prevail on a claim for attorneys fees the plaintiff must have received a judgment against the defendant which changed the behaviour of the defendant towards the plaintiff in some meaningful way.

Here is the decision of the United States Supreme Court.

JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

We decide today whether a plaintiff who receives a nominal damages award is a "prevailing party" eligible to receive attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed an award of attorney's fees on the ground that a plaintiff receiving only nominal damages is not a prevailing party. Although we hold that such a plaintiff is a prevailing party, we affirm the denial of fees in this case.

Now then, who are we to believe, The United States Supreme Court or a braying jackass?

The question hinges on whether a highly questionable suit such as you have dreamed about materially changes the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant in some meaningful way.

In your well brayed argument, the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant would not be materially affected because the plaintiff still owes the debt regardless of who is doing the collecting.

So the relationship is not materially affected and any such award as you might dream about getting would still be a de minimus amount and would not materially affect the right of the creditor to collect the debt. All it might accomplish is to affect his choice of debt collectors and the creditor would not have relinquished his right to collect simply because he chose the wrong collector to do his collecting for him.

So the reality is that you are nothing but a deadbeat trying to scheme some ludicrous way out of paying your debts and are attempting to teach other deadbeats how to do the same. Problem is that your braying is absolutely de minimums and even if you are right about being able to sue the debt collector it makes no diffenrence whatever and does not change the legal status of the debt. The debtor still owes the debt and your enormis deadbeat brayings are not going to change that fact in the slightest.

So once again, who are we to believe, the United States Supreme Court or an enormis braying deadbeat jackass?

Uncle Normie's new website.
http://www.geocities.com/enormis_debter

creditwrench-thetruth