• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About lostinthewoods

  • Rank

Profile Fields

  • Location
  1. The letter states no earlier that 30 days, before they file suit,,,,,,give then their thirty days and file an fdcpa claim against them. ยง 807. False or misleading representations [15 USC 1962e] 5) The threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken. They threatened you and did not take the action they threatened to take. Of course they will argue that their intent was to file a suit but they just have not got around to it. But you would argue that if they really intended to take the action they would have worked on the case more and filed their suit. And the language is just a threat to get a least sophisticated consumer to pay up.
  2. It would be up to the opposing council to lay the foundation.
  3. First of all evidence should have a chain of custody. When evidence goes goes from point A to point B the receiving party has to verify the evidence and they have to document the transfer of the evidence, other wise it could be proven that it was tampered with or lost. If that same evidence was to go to another party the receiving party should verify the evidence and document how the evidence was transferred and what was done with it. If an attorney presents the same evidence to a court that attorney needs to be able to show every place that evidence has been and every place it has been it should be verified and documented. If they attorney cannot show how he obtained potential evidence and where that potential evidence has been since it was found or created it is inadmissible. The debt purchasers offer evidence to the court all the time that has not been verified or documented. The should know thhis, but they rely on most pro se to not know this and to not object to the evidence as not being verified and documented. If they can not show how they got the evidence and how reliable it is, hw would a court know whether or not the attorney, or someone else in the chain of custody proffered the evidence?
  4. How about an order to show cause. This will bring both parties in the court and they can explain to the judge why they have not followed the orders of the court.
  5. Indiana University student, bored from studying hope you do not mind me joining the convo. There is a lot going on with the mortgage industry, all the illegal selling of mortgages, splitting the note from the mortgage, securitizing the documents, the list gets long. It is a lot of work dealing with these mortgage foreclosures. Most of them are fraudulent. It takes a lot of work on the part of the person that was foreclosed on, but you can beat them. The really big issue is were the plaintiff in your case actually the owner of the note and mortgage. Every state seems to handle these issues differently. If your mortgage has a MERS number on it, chances are that you have one of these mortgages that are very hard to trace who really owns it.