Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 01/11/2018 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    So as I get ready to file the opposition to the motion I receive in the mail that the court denied their motion stating the contract does not provide for the relief their seeking and it’s not in the courts ability to rewrite the provision to favor one side or the other.
  2. 1 point
    As Fist has said, you are over-thinking this. They are the ones that sued on a specific type of CC. You will provide a copy of an agreement for that CC from CFPB website along with and affidavit from you saying it applies to best of your knowledge. OK rules follow federal standard and are very clear that arbitration must happen if an agreement exists - which it does. Fist already explained your fear of admission - just say you have had cards from that bank, but there's no proof that Midland even owns this one, or whatever. If that even comes up. Arbitration with a debt buyer follows three steps: 1) You compel 2) They lie in an attempt to scare you 3) They fold
  3. 1 point
    i know i'm necroing my post, but i forgot to give an update. Met with lawyer, won case. Mutual resolution? i think it was.
  4. 1 point
    First and foremost go-to the FTC website and search for identity theft. There should be a big packet you can download. In there will be some template forms you can fill out. Fill them out and bring them to the local police department along with any information you may have about the possible suspects. Once you file the complaint the police will generate a report. Then contact an attorney to help with the court matter. With the complaint from the police and the additional affidavits in the FTC identity theft packet that should be able to grant you some time with the court case. Now bear in mind it will take time however I think that will be the best course of action to get this resolved.
  5. 1 point
    Your attorney is actually right. Cap1 is an original creditor. They are VERY aggressive in pursuing accounts in litigation and then garnishing. Settlement is the best option with a situation like this. Because Cap1 sent it to collections first. When that didn't work to get payment they sued. None. They are the law firm representing Cap1. As long as the creditor has retained them they can represent them.
  6. 1 point
    I found this on the web, thought it might be timely since these CAs are getting more crafty: So... you've requested validation of a debt and the Collector has only sent you a screenshot of your name and some unrecogized amount due? And they say that's good enough, because Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo says so? Is that what's troubling you, Bucky? It really was a "nothing" of a case- an appeal over a billing dispute heard in the 4th US district court of Appeals. The amount of the debt itself was never in question in the Chaudhry case, the dispute was over additional charges for Attorney fees. The case decided that an Itemization of Attorney's fees was confidential, protected by Attorney-Client privilege, therefore in this case- not available to the debtor. Verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the debt being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed. The debt collector is not required to keep or provide detailed evidence of the alleged debt. That's the snippet you'll find quoted to you by debt collectors. On it's face, it appears clear-cut. In context, it isn't applicable to everyday debt collection. Interestingly, it does appear to require that the information come directly from the Creditor: the debt being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed. Therefore, unless the documentation the CA provides has clearly originated with the original creditor, the Collector hasn't complied with their own supposed standard. Controlling Argument. Not a lesson from the Collector's Handbook, but a legal concept regarding applicability of case law. Chaudhry was decided in the 4th District Court of Appeals and holds no real weight outside of that district. Outside the 4'th, it is only useful as a Persuasive argument- meaning it can be introduced, but carries no absolute weight of precedent. In fact, introducing it outside of the 4th may be a bad idea entirely as judges can and do resent being told that they are expected to decide exactly as another judge (not their superiors- that is different!) have decided. Unless your case is exactly identical to Chaudhry- expect introducing the Chaudhry case to do nothing other than raise the judge's blood pressure. That's a good thing as it essentially precludes a CA from using Chaudhry to defend their lack of documentation validating a debt. Oh yeah? well..Take that then... Should the judge allow Chaudhry, you can produce your copy of Spears V. Brennan, which aside from being newer, directly contradicts Chaudhry: specifically, Brennan claims that a copy of the consumer credit contract between Spears and American General attached to the notice of claim provided sufficient verification of the debt within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(. We cannot agree. The contract in no way provides sufficient verification of the debt. A review of the document reveals that it identifies only the terms of Spears’ loan, including a 17.99% annual interest rate and the original loan amount of $2,561.59. The loan agreement contains no accounting of any payments made by Spears, the dates on which those payments were made, the interest which had accrued, or any late fees which had been assessed once Spears stopped making the required payments. Now we're reduced to a foreign decision standoff, with Chaudhry saying one thing, and Spears saying quite another. Result? Neither one trumps the other. The judge is going to decide based on other factors- and is probably slightly annoyed with the Collector for even bringing the Chaudhry case up. The Federal Trade Comission, the federal agency charged with maintainting and interpreting the FDCPA, has in past years issued opinion letters further clarifying the subject of debt validation. While these also carry no authoritative legal status, they may be useful as an additional persuasive argument for more thorough documentation. Because I said so, that's why. With Chaudhry out of the way, what then is sufficient validation? It's a fair assumption that the end of the line for debt collection is the courtroom. Because I said so (which includes affidavits of debt, a subject of an upcoming article) just doesn't cut it. The legal standard is "reasonable". Do the documents provided clearly and without doubt establish you as the debtor? Do they clearly show payments and charges leading up to the claimed amount? Does the collector have legal authority to accept payment on behalf of the original creditor? Are the documents believable? Provided by the OC, not created by the third-party collector? If a "reasonable" person -be it a judge, juror or mediator can answer "yes" to those questions based on the documents provided- you will likely be the proud owner of a new, shiny judgement! If not.... perhaps Mr. Chaudhry has some explaining to do