Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/14/2021 in all areas

  1. Unfortunately, Indiana does not have a “borrowing statute” that allows for the use of another state’s statute of limitations. In Smither v. Asset Acceptance, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled the Indiana SOL applied to a credit card account. “It is well-settled, however, that contractual choice of law provisions govern only the substantive law of any claims arising out of the contract; the law of the forum state where the suit is filed still governs procedure. A statute of limitation is a procedural constraint on when suit may be filed. Additionally, the prevailing authority indicates that, unless the parties expressly agree to apply the statute of limitations of another state, general choice of law provisions in contracts incorporate only substantive law and do not displace the procedural law of the forum state." Smither v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 919 N.E.2d 1153, 1157-58 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). Since Indiana views the SOL as procedural law, then the forum state where the lawsuit was filed, which was Indiana, governs the SOL.
    1 point
  2. Never call a JDB (or their attorney's office) for any reason and do not answer your phone if they call you. Also ignore any letters from them.
    1 point
  3. One thing to keep in mind when playing in "small claims" type courts is that the law may not matter. When you are going pro se anything can happen depending on what the judge wants to do. Different strategies will or will not work depending on where you are. This is not just state specific or county specific, but it really depends on exactly where your trial takes place. I have been successful mainly because the other side knows I will be a pain until the end. They may not be afraid of me, but they do realize I will waste their precious time when they could be going after easier prey. Once again this depends on where you are playing and also the arrangement that the attorneys have with the JDBs. One thing I have observed over the last few years is that most that can afford an attorney rarely ever have to go beyond the initial hearing. Once again this also comes down to taking up too much of the other sides time. They understand if they have to deal with another attorney that it may take away from their easy money. If you can't afford an attorney then you need to see if you can find any FDCPA violations involving your case. This may be changing but about every case I have reviewed has at least one clear FDCPA violation, if not more. Then you "hire" (give the attorney most of the money that can be obtained) an attorney to sue the other side in Federal Court. This is probably the most effective way assuming the other side has committed the violations, and you can find an experienced attorney. Nothing is a 100% guarantee. Just realize if you do nothing that you are gong to lose. You might still lose if you fight, but it is usually worth trying if you are willing to put in the time.
    1 point
  4. What is your specific question after reading this thread and the others I posted for you. Myself and others can beat Midland with one hand tied behind our back, but we refuse to be your attorney. You have to help yourself. What are your specific questions?
    1 point
  5. If you live in California, try this..... http://www.creditinfocenter.com/forums/there-lawyer-house/314722-generic-steps-fighting-jdb-ca.html
    1 point
  6. Texasrocker, This real life example might help you, hope it does. In a case of mine, I sued a junk debt buyer (JDB) for violating the FDCPA. The JDB argued since they bought the account from the original creditor, they stepped into the shoes of the original creditor (which is actually true) and the FDCPA does not apply to original creditors (OC), another fact which is 100% true. They then made a fancy pleading full of relevant case law, quotes from the courts, citations, and even made the argument that if congress wanted OC'S to be bound by the FDCPA they would have clearly written the law that way. They used the old congressional intent and a bunch of fancy jargon, somewhat like you posted. In honesty, it looked good. Your first impression would have been dang, they got a ton of law on their side. And to be honest again, they were 100% right. Not a word they wrote was not correct, I found zero wrong with their argument. But here was the problem, they took they position they were the OC, but never made an argument they were the OC. They simply took they position they were the OC and ran with it like the fact had been ruled on 9-0 by the supreme court. So their arguments, case law, and theory was 100%. However, they still lost. They never proved they were the original creditor (because they were not of course is the reason) so all the fancy arguments, although dead one, were irrelevant. My only argument was they are not an original creditor, but for the record, I agree 100% with every one of their arguments that an original creditor is not bound by the FDCPA. That is what these guys are doing to you. They are hitting you with fancy sounding case law and jargon, and their arguments are right. However, right for the set of facts for the case they cited. If your case is not the same as the case they cite, then they can be 100% right in their arguments, but who cares. It's all irrelevant since the set of facts in the two cases are different.
    1 point
  7. Just got out of court. My lawsuit was against Arrow. They did not show. I argued my case to the Judge. I get $2000.00 plus court costs
    1 point
  8. I didn't actually win any money on my case against the Buy Here Pay Here that sued me for a deficiency balance on an auto loan but I did make them turn tail and run. They got SQUAT from me and lost $170 filing fee.. HA HA HA to them!!
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.