cshot37

Members
  • Content Count

    62
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

cshot37 last won the day on September 28 2016

cshot37 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About cshot37

  • Rank
    CIC Member

Profile Fields

  • Location
    texas

Recent Profile Visitors

671 profile views
  1. If you live in Dallas,Tx, a debt buyer can not win if you know this secret.Lawyers are not telling!

  2. If you are being sued by a debt buyer! I can show you the law that will kill their suit.214-794-2091.

     

  3. For those of you that wanted to know the outcome....Please read the following attachments One is a copy of an email from Jerry telling me he has never lost a case on the wrong venue, and the other is a copy of the Non-Suit that was filed by Midland's attorneys. Yes, the Non-Suit is without prejudice and they can file again, but at that piont it would no longer be cost effective for them. They would have more tied up in legal fees than they would get from us as a judgement. And when Jerry does file his suit for us, they will have even more money tied up. NS redacted.pdf email.docx
  4. For the amount we are being sued for he said it wasn't worth it for them to want to fight him. It seems as if he is drafting documents to file, and sending them to the attorneys representing Midland. From what he has told us over the phone, he REALLY does not like the attorney Midland is using and loves making him look bad. I haven't talked to him today, but did receive an email from him stating that he was writing up and sending a federal filing for venue today. As for Jerry, he is a great guy and wants to help us. Anyone who has dealt with him will tell you that. He called me at 6:30 in the evening and spent a half hour on the phone with us walking us through what was needed.
  5. In Suesz v. Med-1 Solutions, LLC, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the "judicial district or similar legal entity" in which a consumer debt collector must file its debt collection lawsuit under § 1692i of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) is the smallest geographic area that is relevant for determining venue in the court system in which the case is filed. The law is the law. There is no way around it. The question now is whether Midland and its attorneys want to continue the fight. Much like what you say about arbitration, at some point it gets to be too expensive and not worth it.
  6. This is from the FTC website. § 811. Legal actions by debt collectors (a) Venue Any debt collector who brings any legal action on a debt against any consumer shall -- (1) in the case of an action to enforce an interest in real property securing the consumer's obligation, bring such action only in a judicial district or similar legal entity in which such real property is located; or (2) in the case of an action not described in paragraph (1), bring such action only in the judicial district or similar legal entity -- (A) in which such consumer signed the contract sued upon; or (B) in which such consumer resides at the commencement of the action. (b) Authorization of actions Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to authorize the bringing of legal actions by debt collectors. 15 USC 1692j and then there is this: Per the Second Circuit, the FDCPA was enacted “to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses.” Among those abuses is “the problem of ‘forum abuse’, an unfair practice in which debt collectors file suit against consumers in courts which are so distant or inconvenient that consumers are unable to appear, hence permitting the debt collector to obtain a default judgment. As a result, Congress adopted venue provisions to ensure that a debt collector who files suit [does] so either where the consumer resides or where the underlying contract was signed.” The "spirit and intent" of the FDCPA does not matter. If the decision has already been made and has been approved by Congress, there is a clear violation. In this case it would be up to Midland's attorneys to explain why they filed in the wrong court and hope that the judge believes them. No matter the "spirit and intent", the law is the law.
  7. Of course we knew where to respond. It's on the Petition that we received. Responding and providing an answer doesn't matter. You have to do that, otherwise you lose via a default judgement. How you respond is a different matter, and being pro se, if we do end up back in court and this isn't resolved with the Federal Pleading regarding the Venue all we have to say is "A Federal Pleading has been filed because this case was brought about in the wrong venue according to the FDCPA and the Texas Debt Collection act. We were not aware of the issue of this case being filed in the wrong venue until it was brought to our attention by a consumer attorney we contacted to help us with this case"
  8. My previous case with the correct JP was simple. He granted me Discovery and the Plaintiff never responded. Granted the Plaintiff a continuance to finalize Discovery and they still didn't provide anything. He read my Discovery Requests to the "Rent-a-Lawyer" and asked them if they knew anything, which they didn't, and then dismissed my case on a lack of evidence. It was that simple. It wasn't a bunch of nonsense. It was a JDB that refused to provide anything more than a business records affidavit and refused to follow an Order for Discovery. Absolutely no nonsense at all. I just followed the rules. And apparently you aren't smart enough to understand sarcasm. BTW we never hired Jerry, but he is filing a Federal Pleading for us today on the matter of venue and asking for a $1000 penalty.
  9. @Clydesmom whenever someone doesn't agree with you, you have to become a defensive whiner. At our first hearing, the JP for Precinct 1 (where we live) was sitting in the gallery. He even stopped to say Hello to me because he knew me from a different case. It sure in the he!! wasn't his wife's hamster derby day.
  10. All communications up to the filing of the suit were from MCM and Midland Funding was never mentioned As for the legal fees, etc... We received 2 letters from the MCM "Legal Department" with claims that fees could and would be added on
  11. FINANCE CODE TITLE 5. PROTECTION OF CONSUMERS OF FINANCIAL SERVICES CHAPTER 392. DEBT COLLECTION SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 392.304. FRAUDULENT, DECEPTIVE, OR MISLEADING REPRESENTATIONS. (a) Except as otherwise provided by this section, in debt collection or obtaining information concerning a consumer, a debt collector may not use a fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading representation that employs the following practices: (2) failing to maintain a list of all business or professional names known to be used or formerly used by persons collecting consumer debts or attempting to collect consumer debts for the debt collector; He said this was a longshot but a possibility (4) failing to disclose clearly in any communication with the debtor the name of the person to whom the debt has been assigned or is owed when making a demand for money; All of the original letters and mailings were from MCM, yet a different entity Midland Funding filed the suit. It is the same parent company, but they show now transfer of the debt and all original mail only used the name MCM (12) representing that a consumer debt may be increased by the addition of attorney's fees, investigation fees, service fees, or other charges if a written contract or statute does not authorize the additional fees or charges; (13) representing that a consumer debt will definitely be increased by the addition of attorney's fees, investigation fees, service fees, or other charges if the award of the fees or charges is subject to judicial discretion; (16) using a communication that purports to be from an attorney or law firm if it is not; We received letters from Midland's "legal department" with these claims
  12. Today is Primary day in Texas. I am only allowed to vote for JP in Precinct 1. Not Precinct 2. I do not live in that precinct, I have never lived in that precinct.
  13. It is possible, he also noted violations of the Texas Finance Code and as I looked into that this morning each of those violations, if awarded are subject to penalties of $100 to $500 per violation.
  14. We never noticed, but the case was filed in the wrong JP Court, it should have been precinct 1 but was filed in precinct 2. a clear FDCPA violation Texas has its own finance code with its own rules and regulations and penalties. The attorney found violations there as well. Several violations of Texas finance law were found as well.
  15. Well, I talked to a Texas Consumer attorney about my wife's case. We gave him all of the correspondance between us and Midland. After looking at it for less that 10 minutes he asked us if we want $3000 from Midland. He immediatelty noted 3 separate FDCPA violations and told us our case was already won. Of course the man we spoke with was Jerry Jarzombek, probably the leading consumer attorney in the state. We were told that for the most part we did everything right as a pro se defendant and that there were only a couple of things he would have done differently, namely hitting them for their violations at the very beginning instead of dragging this out for almost 4 months. Goes to show you that some people on this forum not familiar with Texas Law should not be commenting on cases in Texas.