The Supreme Court of Montana has affirmed a lower court’s ruling against a plaintiff’s attorney who filed suit against a debt collector, another attorney who was hired to collect on a judgment against the plaintiff’s attorney, and a law firm that had agreed to have its offices used for a deposition after a judgment was entered against the plaintiff’s attorney for his actions in an underlying Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Wallace v. Law Office of Bruce Spencer, LPH, and Geiszler Steele can be accessed by clicking here.
The debt collector — LPH — filed a collection suit against an individual for an unpaid medical debt. Wallace was tapped to be the individual’s attorney and filed counterclaims, accusing the medical practice and the collector for violating the FDCPA and state law in Montana. A court ruled in favor of the collector and the practice and imposed sanctions on Wallace. The collector hired Bruce Spencer to collect on the sanctions against Wallace and was unable to locate him. Wallace turned around and sued the collector, Spencer, and a firm that allowed its offices to be used to depose Wallace’s son for abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy.
The defendants were awarded summary judgment, which Wallace appealed.
The Supreme Court made short work of Wallace’s arguments, ruling that “[i]t is clear from Wallace’s briefs that it is not abuse of process to which Wallace objects, but simply ‘the process’ legally proscribed for executions of judgments,” the panel wrote.
The Supreme Court also upheld a vexatious litigant ruling against Wallace, saying the lower court’s “decision was appropriately tailored to address Wallace’s documented penchant for disrespect toward litigants and tribunals.”
