Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 07/16/2014 in Posts

  1. 2 points
    If you want to settle I have no experience with that. GE Capital is the company you borrowed the money from. If they still owned the debt then I could see why you would want to pay them back. I'm assuming you never borrowed money from Midland and the question is if they have the legal right to collect from you. Even if they could prove ownership can they prove how they legally added interest and fees to the original amount? If you don't at least do the basics of filing a sworn denial and attending the hearing they will get a default judgment against you. Then they will either garnish your wages and/or go after your bank account. On top of this they will keep adding interest and fees. If you don't feel like you can fight these by yourself I would at least get a free consultation from an experienced FDCPA attorney. Like I said an attorney might be able to work something out with you. I'm not trying to be difficult, but please realize the Midland attorneys will run over you if you are not prepared. They don't care what your personal situation is. You are just a number to them and every number they see is a potential commission check.
  2. 2 points
    You don't legally owe Midland Funding, LLC anything. You're being sued by Morgan & Pottinger out of Louisville, KY on a debt that Midland will not provide a chain of title for because they can't. In fact, they don't even have standing to legally sue you under the TCSA in Tennessee. I cannot solicit on these pages and I'm not. I will say that you'd be well advised to pay an attorney half of what you think you owe Midland.
  3. 2 points
    Because the alleged bill of sale references it, but it is not included, therefore the bill of sale is incomplete. It also references certain warranties about the accuracy of the pool of accounts.
  4. 1 point
    It sounds to me like they are violating a court order - and may be violatng the FDCPA. I would contact a consumer attorney.
  5. 1 point
    It is also the admission of a party opponent. See Evid. Code section 1220 et. seq. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=evid&group=01001-02000&file=1220-1228.1
  6. 1 point
    Read bmc100's thread pinned at the top of this forum, I believe that information is there.
  7. 1 point
    To start out you will want to fill out this form. http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/docs/final_-_sworn_denial_0.pdf (No need to fill out question #4) Find a notary at the court house and have them witness you sign it. Then turn it in at the county clerk's office. It should only cost a few dollars and you will need to pay in cash. Keep a copy for yourself and mail another copy to whoever is suing you. You will need to mail it using CMRR. (I think it cost $6.00) What this will do is keep them from getting a default judgment against you which is how they win 95%+ of their cases. Your first court appearance will just be a hearing where you will request a trial date. Between now and your hearing date you will want to figure out your next steps. 1. You can settle which I would never suggest when dealing with a JDB. Even if the original debt is your you never borrowed anything from Midland. 2. You can study your local court rules and procedure and fight them. This isn't for everyone but it can be done. 3. You can study up on how arbitration works and request arbitration instead of court. 4. You can hire an attorney which may be difficult because of the small amount of the debt. I would at least contact an attorney with FDCPA experience and get a free consultation. A good attorney might be able find some FDCPA violations and help you turn the table on them. An excellent FDCPA attorney in your area is @TNConsumerLawyer. Try to relax and not get any more upset right now. Then file the sworn denial and work on your next steps. Just do not procrastinate!
  8. 1 point
    VOID JUDGMENT ============== State v. Cramer, 962 P.2d 224, 192 Ariz. 150 (Ct. App. 1998) http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16160241548665679335&q=info:5-25YBG2ROAJ:scholar.google.com&hl=en&as_sdt=0&oi=scholarr ¶ 16 Furthermore, defendant's argument overlooks the distinction between a void judgment or order and one that is voidable. See In the Matter of the Adoption of Hadtrath, 121 Ariz. 606, 609, 592 P.2d 1262, 1265 (1979). A judgment or order is void if the court entering it lacked jurisdiction: (1) over the subject matter, (2) over the person involved, or (3) to render the particular judgment or order entered. Martin v. Martin, 182 Ariz. 11, 15, 893 P.2d 11, 15 (App.1994). A voidable judgment is one in which the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties but which is otherwise erroneous and subject to reversal. See Cockerham v. Zikratch, 127 Ariz. 230, 234, 619 P.2d 739, 743 (1980) (erroneous judgments are those which have been issued by a court with jurisdiction but which are subject to reversal on timely appeal). A judgment that is voidable is binding and enforceable and has all the ordinary attributes of a valid judgment until it is reversed or vacated. Farms v. Carlsbad Riverside Terrace Apartments, Inc., 102 N.M. 50, 690 P.2d 1044, 1046 (N.M.App. 1984); Thrift v. Bell Lines, Inc., 269 F.Supp. 214, 219 (D.S.C.1967). United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 130 S. Ct. 1367, 559 U.S. 260, 176 L. Ed. 2d 158 (2010). http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5924617924025725694&q=info:_jJ3p5x4OFIJ:scholar.google.com&hl=en&as_sdt=0&oi=scholarr *1377 A void judgment is a legal nullity. See Black's Law Dictionary 1822 (3d ed.1933); see also id., at 1709 (9th ed.2009). Although the term "void" describes a result, rather than the conditions that render a judgment unenforceable, it suffices to say that a void judgment is one so affected by a fundamental infirmity that the infirmity may be raised even after the judgment becomes final. See Restatement (Second) of Judgments 22 (1980); see generally id., § 12. The list of such infirmities is exceedingly short; otherwise, Rule 60((4)'s exception to finality would swallow the rule. "A judgment is not void," for example, "simply because it is or may have been erroneous." Hoult v. Hoult, 57 F.3d 1, 6 (C.A.1 1995); 12 J. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 60.44[1][a], pp. 60-150 to 60-151 (3d ed.2007) (hereinafter Moore's). Similarly, a motion under Rule 60((4) is not a substitute for a timely appeal. Kocher v. Dow Chemical Co., 132 F.3d 1225, 1229 (C.A.8 1997); see Moore's § 60.44[1][a], at 60-150. Instead, Rule 60((4) applies only in the rare instance where a judgment is premised either on a certain type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice or the opportunity to be heard.
  9. 1 point
    They are just different strategies. I myself would send a meet and confer and ultimately probably the MTC. I would keep constant pressure on them. I think they are far more likely to dismiss the case before trial if it is a thorn in their side, over a case that is dormant, and I would make them have to spend time on the case. ASTMedic's strategy is the opposite. Both work as long as you follow the next step: Both sides agree on sending the ccp 96 witness and exhibit list request, as well as objecting to their CCP 98 declaration and subpoenaing the declarant, and motions to strike evidence produced in response to your ccp 96 request. It doesn't really matter if it's account stated or open book etc; theses cases are all about economics to them. This Is one of the judgment calls you have to make.