sasha0378

As for the Answer... send me a pm, I will provide a reference to a couple of cases in King County District Court. I wish I had them before I went this path. Ah, a word of advice, don't use the "graded sworn denial" in WA courts hehe Also, a few very important questions for those in community property states like WA: - are you married? - did you incur your debts prior to marriage, if married? - do you have any assets/property separate from your community property, if married? Your wages are community property, too, and are seemed to be exempt from collection on debts incurred prior to marriage. By the way, our esteemed member of this forum, Harry Seaward, managed to escape the liability because of his debt structure, as far as I recall. That would have been my plan, too, had I lost.

The following is certainly quite new: A debt collector seeking to enforce a written credit card agreement must prove the debtor's assent to the material terms of the agreement... from Unifund CCR, LLC v. Amy Elyse, 382 P.3d 1090, 195 Wn. App. 110 (WA Ct. App. Div. 1 2016) For us mortals: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/735101.pdf

RCW 19.16.270 Presumption of validity of assignment. In any action brought by licensee to collect the claim of his, her, or its customer, the assignment of the claim to licensee by his, her, or its customer shall be conclusively presumed valid, if the assignment is filed in court with the complaint, unless objection is made thereto by the debtor in a written answer or in writing five days or more prior to trial. In other words, if one simply objects that JDB has a valid assignment, isn't it sufficient to void the assumption? The law doesn't go into specifics as to how the objection should be made.

Though I have had a summary judgment against me reversed in my favor on appeal without an attorney in WA, I now know that going pro se was a mistake. By the way, SOL is not necessary 6 years in WA for credit cards but you need an experienced attorney to argue that for you: We also reject Unifund's argument that Washington's six-year limitations period for accounts receivable applies. Unifund did not argue in district court that Elyse's account was an account receivable governed by RCW 4.16.040(2). Advice: hire an attorney (I can recommend Guy Beckett from Seattle, who I monitored and who eventually won the case against Unifund in the Court of Appeals).

I have a piece of wonderful news for JDB defendants in WA state: Court of Appeals, 1st division, has ruled in favor of defendant, who successfully disputed her ascension to alleged debt and SOL of 3 years for credit cards as being partially oral contract (not 6 years for written contract). I strongly believe that a good deed cannot go unpublished and therefore am attaching the CoA's opinion. I have been monitoring this rare appeal case all the way from the district court (ruled in defendant's favor), reversed in superior court in plaintiff's favor (Unifund, represented by Suttell and Hammer), and reversed again in defendant's favor by CoA. The original amount of debt is just below 2k, but you should see the defendant's attorney fees just from the district court alone (big LOL) , which I hope the JDB will be paying in full Read on! COA decision.7.18.16.pdf

As described by the Washington State Supreme Court: Midland Funding purchases defaulted receivables, i.e., consumers’ unpaid financial commitments to credit originators such as banks, credit unions, consumer finance companies, commercial retailers, auto finance companies, and telecommunications companies. Midland Funding has no employees and is merely a holding company for the delinquent accounts it purchases. Midland Credit Management . . . services the defaulted accounts on behalf of Midland Funding. Pursuant to the “Servicing Agreement,” [MCMI] decides how to collect on the defaulted accounts purchased by Midland Funding. [MCMI’s] employees manage the collection process and perform the collection acts for these defaulted accounts. [MCMI] is licensed by the State of Washington as a collection agency. To fulfill its servicing duties, [MCMI] contracts directly with Suttell & Associates, a law firm, to file collection lawsuits in Midland Funding’s name. From 2005 to 2010, 1,081 cases were filed in Washington superior courts naming Midland Funding LLC as plaintiff.

Been going through some federal court records, just for everyone's information as to who owns what... sometimes not obvious: Midland Defendants’ Corporate Structure The following chart illustrates the relationships between Midland Funding and its parent companies: -Encore Capital Group, Inc. (publicly held corporation) ↓ Owns Midland Credit Management, Inc. (licensed collection agency) ↓ Owns Midland Portfolio Services, Inc. (owns 100% of Midland Funding) ↓ Owns Midland Funding, LLC (debt-buying entity that owns the accounts).

Are they no longer located at 10900 108TH AVE NE STE 605 BELLEVUE WA? Has the conversation of your settlement been recorded? Or can they say "thank your for your initial payment... when can we expected the rest of the amount?"

I take it such a refusal letter should be sent CMRRR, should it not?

Have you tried http://www.legalconsumer.com/bankruptcy/means-testto see whether you qualify for BK7 ? The means test suggests that child support arrears will have to be paid within 5 years. Student loans probably too. Both the obligation decrease your disposable income. The garnished account may be recovered during bankruptcy proceeding. You have to consult with a BK attorney (30-60 min is usually free of charge)

hm, if the fee is limited ($1500, for instance) and has been reached, why would JDB pursue any further?

Talk to a NACA attorney. It may be that the law firm suing and garnishing you in violation of FDCPA, then a NACA attorney may have your case on contingency.

at this phase of the process, you'll be lucky if you settle for anything less than the full amount.

$500 in bank accounts is exempt in WA, if one claims that on a special form, which they are supposed to send to the garnishee, after they got a judgment

if it is a community debt, and only one spouse is sued, then the whole case is void just because of that?