• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by h8spleadingpaper

  1. Maybe it's time to send one if it's not too late...

    I had considered sending RFAs and ROGS on my last case, but never did.  I think maybe some of the other members and I decided that they weren't ultimately worth it, but my memory's fuzzy on the matter (I was under a lot of stress at the time).  


    Not sure what the deadline is on sending these or the strategy behind them, since the Plaintiff will never admit to any wrongdoing or employing criminals.  @calawyer and @Anon Amos, do you happen to have any thoughts on the matter?  To give you an idea of my timeframe, my trial on this case is very early in 2016, so I'll be able to send the CCP96 request in a few weeks time.  Thanks.  

  2. I don't see anything wrong with that tactic.

    Had Midland previously sent you any collection letters?

    Indeed they had.  Many, in fact.  But I never responded in any way.


    Interestingly, what appears to maybe be an off-shoot of their law firm (Resurgence Financial, LLC?) appears to have pulled my credit report early in 2015 and Absolute appears to have done so just a few days ago as well.  Not sure what that might imply.

  3. Thanks again, 'Cheese.


    I don't think I have any traction with the phone number, as I would have had my current number around the time that Citi alleged (in older CRs) that I had an account with them.  Any other examples of what Midland could do that would be violations?  


    Good info about the amount listed on my CR as being off even by a penny.  I'll definitely give it some thought, though again, I'm a little nervous about having something on record that could be interpreted as an admission of the alleged debt (disputing only the amount).

  4. Hi, 'Cheese.



    Thanks so much for your input.  I had a few questions, if you wouldn't mind?



    First, I would NOT send a C&D.  In fact, I want Midland sending letters and calling me as much as possible.  I would welcome them with open arms because I want to documents all the ways they will violate FDCPA and TCPA.


    If I haven't actually sent a C&D letter and Midland hasn't sued on an alleged debt that would be beyond the SOL, how are they committing FDCPA and TCPA violations by contacting me?


    Second, I would send a simple dispute letter to the CRAs.  My letter would say something like this "I am writing to dispute an account appearing on my credit report as Midland Funding Account #xxxxx.  This account has been re-aged and is reporting an incorrect amount. Please remove."


    Can you explain a little more about how their reporting is considered re-aging an alleged debt?  Also, if I state that they are reporting an incorrect amount, doesn't that make it look as though I'm admitting that the alleged debt is, in principal, valid? I know that if they (or another JDB) were to try to sue, I'd have a stellar defense in the form of the SOL.  But I still don't really like the idea of having something on record stating that I acknowledge the alleged account as being mine.


    I would also want to see if I had an old credit report or statements from the OC to see what Citi was reporting as the balance at or around the time of charge off.  I would want to see if Midland is reporting a different amount on my CR.  If they are, there is potential for violations there too.


    I pulled an old CR from when the OC was still reporting.  There is a discrepancy of about a dollar between the amount Citi listed and the amount Midland lists.  Seems like they could easily argue that they're just rounding the balance up to the nearest dollar amount, while Citi rounded down.


    If you are up for suing, you may have the potential for getting a little bonus check out of the headache they have caused you on top of getting rid of them from your credit reports. 


    I kind of like this idea and hope that my questions above don't seem argumentative.  Just want to make sure that I have things right.  Thanks!

  5. Here's a link to the TCPA if you want to go thru it, see if there is a violation. https://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/policy/TCPA-Rules.pdf. I'm not very familiar with it.


    Regarding a cease & desist - If this is past the SOL, and if it were me, I'd do a full cease & desist on it. I'd rather they receive a strong and definite communication to not bother me at all. And if they do bother me, be it telephone or even better with a letter that I can use as evidence, then I'll consider action against them. My guess is they'd disappear if you send them a full C&D.


    What I have sent to creditors once an account goes beyond the SOL:


    To whom it may concern,


    I am in receipt of your correspondence dated [date] (copy enclosed). I do not owe [your company] anything; I refuse to pay this alleged debt. Per section 805c of the FDCPA, you are instructed to cease further communication - do not contact me again.



    Warmest regards,




    Some might have different suggestions on the language. I make copies and send CMRRR.

    Thanks, RyanEX.  I waited a little longer on this, just to be sure there'd be no problems with the SOL.  I'm now getting ready to send them a C&D letter containing the language you suggested, while also disputing their tradeline with the CRAs (on the off-chance that they choose to give up and stop reporting).  Out of curiosity, does sending them a full Cease & Desist letter like this absolve them of any responsibility to notify me if they choose to go ahead with a lawsuit anyway?  

  6. BOOM goes the dynamite!!  Congratulations, jrome!  Another win against H&H!!


    The only costs I know of that you should definitely be able to recoup are the filing and process server fees.  But still, that's not nothing.  And when I did mine, H&H were very snappy with cutting me a check right away, no questions asked.  But be aware, that you have to meet a tight deadline (I believe it has to be filed within 10 days of being notified by the court of the dismissal).  In my case, the court never bothered notifying me via mail like they're supposed to (hell, they never even updated their website to reflect the dismissal, which they were aware of before my trial, until two days after the trial, meaning that I went for nothing).  So I went down to the clerk and filed the MC-010 (Memorandum of Costs) form with them within 10 days after the trial.  The clerk didn't seem to know what was going on (no surprise here, since they screwed me through the whole process), so I mailed out a copy to H&H.  Some weeks later, the court's website indicated that they had mailed the MC-010 to H&H as well, so I think that's how it's usually done.  If I were you though, I'd get that sucker filed out, conformed by the clerk, and a copy dropped in the mail in the next week.


    I have a couple of questions for you that might help me strategize on my next case (as well as others):


    1.  When did you drop the CCP96 request in the mail?  On day 45 or day 36?  (if I read your original entry right, it was around day 45, yes?).


    2.  How did you know that your particular judge was a stickler on CCP 1271 in a previous case?


    Again, a heartfelt congratulations on the win!!!!   :clapper:  :banana:  :yahoo:


    That's not the reason the account is scheduled to remain on your CR until 2018.  The date the enty is removed is based on the OC's entry.  A negative account can remain on your CR for 7.5 years from the date it was either sent to collection or from the date of charge-off.   Any JDB or CA entry for that account will fall off at the same time as the OC's entry.


    Ah, I see.   Good to know.



    Is Citibank's entry still on the report? 


    Negative.  No tradeline from Citibank is currently on my reports.  Is this helpful to me?



    That could happen, so I'd dispute it. 


    By dispute, do you mean send the C&D letter?  Just want to clarify.



    The older a negative entry becomes, the less effect it has on your CR, especially if you have current accounts in good standing.


    Right.  So since the JDB tradeline is listed as "Opened" in 2014 (despite the fact that the charge off on the alleged account with the OC was 2010), I feel like this listing carries an undue amount of weight on my credit score, since it makes it appear as though the negative listing is in regard to something that supposedly happened last year instead of 2010.  Am I thinking about this incorrectly?  Again, thanks.

  8. Hi, BV80.  Not sure I really understand the above.  Perhaps to be more to the point, I should just talk about the situation with Midland for a moment.


    Midland is currently reporting on my CR for an alleged account purported to have originally been owned by Citibank.  Despite the fact that the alleged Citibank account was purportedly charged off in 2010, Midland didn't start reporting until 2014 (the supposed account passed through numerous JDB hands before Midland allegedly acquired it in 2014).  Because of this, the Midland tradeline is scheduled to stay on my CR until 2018 (!).  


    Citibank is no longer reporting on the account and I'm wondering if there's any way at all that I can use this fact to try to have the tradeline removed by disputing with the CRAs (I've read here that the 623 method might work).  Alternately, I'm wondering if sending C&D letter would give me any leverage at all in getting it removed (i.e. - if Midland were to choose to give up on the account because they can't expect to win due to the SOL and know from the C&D letter that I have no intention to give them anything, they might abandon it and remove the tradeline).  I realize that JDBs are unpredictable, so I'm just wondering if anyone has seen the above scenarios play out before. 


    Having this tradeline on my CR until 2018 is really going to hurt me, but I have no intention of settling with a JDB on an alleged account that is over a year past SOL in CA.  Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts or if I'm just stuck with it.  Thanks.

  9. Hey, folks.


    So I'm a few weeks out from sending my CCP 96 request and I received a packet of documents in the mail today from Plaintiff's attorney.  Essentially, he/she is telling me they are sending me new documents which the Plaintiff received after my previous rfPOD.  Mostly, the docs consist of under a year's worth of photocopied cc statements (they had previously only sent me one), which are no big deal, as I'll apply the same arguments as in my other case to them.  However, they also included a photocopy of the alleged credit application from the OC, which was not expected.


    I'm assuming that my argument for this document should be that there is no witness from the OC with personal knowledge to testify as to the application's authenticity and accuracy, and therefore it would be hearsay?  I should note that as yet, I have received no CCP 98 Declaration (though I expect I will soon), nor any Affidavits (with the possible exception of a Verification page from an employee of the Plaintiff, produced as part of the response to my rfPOD).


    Also, if anyone has a good defense for the "Breach of Contract" or "Indebtedness" Causes of Action cited in this Complaint, I'd be most grateful.  I think I'm covered on the "Account Stated" and "Open Book" causes from my other case.  Thanks!

  10. Hey, folks.


    Really sorry about this, but I now realize I misspoke and was actually referring to two different situations with two different JDBs.


    The first is Midland, who have been calling and sending me settlement offer letters with great frequency over the last few months, even though they failed to file a suit before the SOL was up in California.  I've been wanting to send them a C&D letter for a while now, as RyanEX suggested.  Anyone have any thoughts as to what their next move would likely be after receiving it (i.e. - selling the alleged account off to another JDB, asking how I know it's beyond the SOL since I haven't been given the particulars in a lawsuit, filing a suit as a scare tactic, which would of course be an FDCPA violation, etc)?  Also, would they still be able to list on my CR after receiving a C&D (I'm assuming so) and if so, would they have to list the tradeline as "disputed"?


    The other (and perhaps more pertinent) situation involves Absolute Resolutions, who are currently suing me over another alleged c.c. account (trial set for early 2016).  They are also listing on my CR and the tradeline is not listed as "disputed."  Since I denied the allegations of the suit in my Answer to the Complaint, shouldn't Absolute have to list it as "disputed," or is that only applicable if I've disputed it directly with the CRAs?


    Thanks for any insights you may be able to provide! 

  11. Thank you! Thank you all for helping me on short notice! My case was this morning and the rent-a-lawyer moved to dismiss. The dismissal was already approved by his boss before I handed him my Trial Brief.

    I was so excited that I had to share the news before driving home. I'll sign in tonight with all the details.

    Great job, So Cal Gal!


    Perfect example of the theory that JDBs go after low-hanging fruit and often fold in the face of defendants who choose to fight.  You really pulled your bacon out of the fire by choosing to go through with things, despite the late hour.  And you'll be much better prepared (and more confident) in your next showdown.  Now kick up your dogs, enjoy a favorite activity, and don't forget to post in the winner's thread on the site!   ::punk::  :yahoo:

    • Like 2

  12. Hi, SoCalGal.


    Here are my thoughts (note - I have a lot less experience than some of the other members, so please take them with a grain of salt):


    1.  Yes, it sounds like you're behind on this one.  But you're owning it and that's not nothing.  A lot of folks wait until the last minute, bury their heads in the sand, and lose by default.  Personally, I'd rather go down fighting than lose that way and have to face myself after not trying.  Also, anything you learn/get done on this one will undoubtedly help with the second case.  For me, falling behind lessens your ability to use your hard work strategically, to try to get the Plaintiff to dismiss before Trial.  Doesn't mean you can't still go in and fight them.


    2.  It sounds to me like they are trying to sidestep the rules set forth in CCP98, which states that in order to be admitted, the Declaration must provide the current address of the affiant.  Have you looked up the address they gave you in La Jolla?  My guess is that it may be where the attorney or JDB does business.  If so, then it is not the current address of the affiant, unless he/she works for one of them.  And if he/she does, then he/she is not a competent witness to testify as to the OC's records.  Who does the affiant claim to work for in your case?  Also, as Anon mentions, substitute service is not allowed.  The fact that they've mentioned leaving it with an attorney tips their hand that the affiant is not located at the given address, in my opinion.  And yes, if they have stated where the Declaration was executed, you should delete that line from your Objection.


    3.  Interesting that they sent you the Evidence and Witness list without it being requested.  I think you should look into the entry you mentioned regarding "the custodian of records for PRA via written declaration."  To my mind, that sounds less like a witness, and more like a statement of intent to use an affidavit, which is inadmissible, as I understand it (or perhaps the CCP 98 Declaration, which you will be objecting to).  Also, if PRA is the JDB and not the OC, then again, it is coming from an incompetent witness with no personal knowledge of the OC's business practices.  I'm curious to know Anon's or calawyer's thoughts on listing what sounds like a document as a "witness."


    4.  You mentioned a witness list.  How many are there?  I ask because you may want to consider using my M&C letter regarding the witness list in my case, if it seems applicable.  Also, feel free to use any of my other documents (Trial Brief, Objection to CCP 98, Declaration in Support of Objection to CCP98, etc).  Calawyer was extremely helpful in getting them where they are and I think they're pretty tight.  If you do, just make sure that everything in there applies to your case; if not take it out.  You can find them here (Post #106):




    If you want the M&C letter, shoot me a PM.  I've shared it with a few others here.


    4.  So far, the evidence in your case doesn't sound that all that different from mine.  If you have time, you may want to consider uploading redacted copies for others here to look at so they can better help you.


    Best wishes,



  13. I beat Midland in Court and the judge dismissed the case.  Do they have to remove the information from my credit report now?

    My understanding is also that they don't have to remove it, but when I beat Portfolio earlier this year, the collection tradeline disappeared from my CR shortly thereafter.  Might be worth checking (don't forget that you can get a free credit report from all 3 agencies, once per year).

    • Like 2

  14. Hi, All.


    Midland has been harassing me with phone calls and settlement offers regarding an alleged credit card debt for some time now.  I've never responded.  They're also reporting on my CR and I'd like to find a way to get it off, particularly since they entered the start date for the purported account 4 years after the alleged OC default.  


    I believe that they've avoided filing a lawsuit because in California, this alleged debt would now be about a year beyond the SOL.  I've read elsewhere on the site that reporting on my CR without listing it as "disputed" may be an FDCPA violation.  Can anyone confirm or disprove this?





  15. H-e-h-e-h-e-y, CONGRATULATIONS!  


    A dismissal without even sending them the brief and objections??  Awesome!!  Of course, as others have said, you should still show up at Trial if the Court's website doesn't reflect the dismissal before then.  And if it does, I'd take a screen shot and print it out just to preserve a record of it.  And by the way, there may still be costs you can recover.  Did you ever issue any subpoenas?   I submitted an MC-010 form for mine.  H&H paid them within a few weeks, no questions asked.


    Again, big congrats and good job, man!!   :yahoo:  :clapper:

    • Like 2

  16. You could always send them set # 2, now that you know.  You can ask for the same things again.You have to send a m&c letter and file the MTC no later than 45 days from their invalid response.

    Funny you should mention this.  I've had a post-it note on my desk for days now, reminding me to review what you said on my other thread about sending rfPOD Set #2.  In reviewing it, I have a few questions, if have time and would be so kind:


    1.  Can I really ask for exactly the same information again?  I feel like if I send the same request (in order to reset the clock and give me 45 days to initiate an M&C and MTC for their invalid responses), they will be able to cry "foul" or simply respond by stating that they already replied to this request months ago.  Thoughts?


    2.  In the Set #1 rfPOD I sent out for this case, I gave the Plaintiff 30 days to comply with my request, based on a template that I had found in another thread.  Since that time, I've seen others that only give 10 days.  Is the deadline for Plaintiff to comply different from state-to-state?  If the timeframe is only 10 days in CA, I can definitely get this going in time to follow up with an M&C and an MTC.  If they get 30 days, it's still doable, but might be a lot of work toward the end (since the Trial is just over 2 months away).


    3.  I know you mentioned adding a request for the Forward Flow Agreement to my fPOD previously.  Wondering what the motive is behind this.  Originally I had thought that the idea was that they wouldn't want to produce it because the Defendant could claim Unjust Enrichment, since the Plaintiff's actual alleged damages would be so little.  But the experience I've picked up so far seems to indicate that a JDB's business model is legally allowable.  Is the idea just to demonstrate to the judge that the Plaintiff is obstructing the legal process by being uncooperative when they don't provide it?


    4.  Finally, on my other case, I chose to adopt ASTMedic's "Fart in the Wind" approach and didn't ask for anything in between the dfBOP/1st rfPOD and the CCP96 (in part because of time constraints).  I'd like to try the 2nd fPOD/M&C/MTC approach outlined above on this case, but I do wonder if it gives the Plaintiff a heads up to come up with better evidence.  On the other hand my experience last time led me to believe that JDB attorneys put very little time and effort into individual cases, since they make most of their money off of default judgments and settlements.  This case is for half the amount that the other one was, so there may be even less incentive for them to work hard.  I realize that strategic choices are solely my responsibility, but I do wonder if you have an opinion on this?


    As always, thanks so much for your kind insights.    :)%

  17. Results of Discovery so far:


    Responses to Request for POD:


    Plaintiff responded with the same documents contained in the Complaint, adding only a POS form and a Verification page.  The affiant on the Verification page does not state his title, but includes CCP 2015.5 language and provides an a address that turns out to be for one of the offices of the JDB in San Diego, CA.  For the most part, my request for documents were objected to by the JDB attorney with the usual, "Request is overly broad, unduly vague, and ambiguous" and "Request seeks privileged and confidential documents that are irrelevant to the subject matter of the litigation" (which is not true) kind of nonsense.


    Responses to Demand for BOP:


    Plaintiff responded with the same documents contained in the Complaint, adding only an exemplar CC agreement (no mention of Defendant or the alleged account), an unofficial-looking (i.e. - not on company letterhead or signed by anyone) Statement of Account dated 2014, an equally unofficial Load Data document, a copy of the alleged collection notice purported to have been sent to Defendant by JDB back in 2014, and a POS form.  


    Note - Unfortunately, I didn't realize that I had the option to send an M & C letter or file an MTC for insufficient discovery responses until several months after I received the Plaintiff's replies.  So I missed the timeframe on these.