William G. Born, Sr., Barbara Johnson, Billy W. Nabours, Cindy Miller, and Nathan Scoggins, Each Individually and On…

Summary

The court affirmed the dismissal of the debtors’ claims against the law firm, holding that the attorney-immunity statute barred claims arising from the firm’s professional representation and that the remaining claims were inadequately pleaded or legally unsupported. The court also held that the FDCPA claims failed because the alleged underlying debt was not time-barred, certain claims were untimely, and the complaint did not identify a specific statutory violation or plead actionable misrepresentations. The dismissal was modified to be with prejudice because the debtors elected to appeal rather than plead further.