hf2272

Members
  • Content Count

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About hf2272

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Fields

  • Location
    houston, tx

Recent Profile Visitors

578 profile views
  1. http://www.consumerfinance.gov/newsroom/cfpb-takes-action-against-medical-debt-collector/ Nevermind. Just found link to settlement. Wonder if i get only one check..or one for each line item.lol
  2. Syndicated office sent me a letter stating "above account may not have received a timely response to a dispute you submitted to cfc.as a result of this we are making payment indicted below" "You are not agreeing to anything by cashing, but you must cash within 90 days. Questions call ####...." Thoughts?
  3. This is what it says... "NOTICE OF NEW OWNERSHIP AND PRE-LEGAL REVIEW on 9-15-2015 your citibank acct was sold to MIDLAND FUNDING LLC which is now the sole owner of this debt. Midland credit Management will be collecting on this debt. MCM is considering forwarding this acct to an attourney in your state for possible litigation. However,such forwarding will not occur until after the expiration of the validation period described on the back ofthis letter. Upon reciept of this notice, please call...####. If we dont hear from you or recieve payment by 11/15 we may proceed with forwarding this acct to an attorney. " and then they list all the normal payment plan info and debt collector jargon. they did add a statement from MCM stating the original acct # and what they say I owe along with the original acct being citibank.
  4. MIDLAND just sent me my letter stating they bought my debt and gave me until 11/15 to validate or they will proceed with litigation. My SOL(texas) goes out in june. Of course i plan on stretching out my dv until then, (.. unless i can ignore this given date.) and hope for the best. Any past peeps deal with Midland?
  5. my advice is to not bring these items up first in court. let their attorney introduce. then object. thebill of sale is so generic. and the last page is printed from their electronic file from the midlands computer. someone else will have better advice.
  6. @bassplayr, I did an online dispute thru Transunion, and they deleted it. does that matter or help more? I just have the printout of the dispute confirmation and the only thing it shows is the collection companies name and account # then deleted in bold. from now on, I will be more thorough. @TomnTex, what about the company not being bonded in texas? i will be sending a letter, but can i legally state they "cannot sell, transfer, assign, or share any information about me or this alleged debt.." ( i saw this line in your linked posting and i would like to add it to my letter) or would that be more of a guideline?
  7. okay. I need to correct my post. the more research I do on here, the more I realize the JDB should have been listed as a medical collection. and I searched through my files and found one of these bills is dated for my sons birth but I did find an old collection notice from CFC from NICU bill. but my son never was in the NICU, nor saw this doctor for any reason. Our insurance covered all of his birth from the hospital and my obgyn had me pay in advance my deductible. ( I have all documentation of this). I am guessing I need to contact this Dr. directly? or what would be my best option? this bill is from way back in dec 2009/ jan 2010. the others, I have nothing for but my DV letters and proof they were once deleted. thank you for pointing out both companies are one in the same. I would have hated to pay all the CRRR fees just to realize after. does anyone know which company has the better removal rate? which one would I have better luck sending my DV letter to?
  8. I just did my annual reports to see where I was. I have central financial control showing three medical debts on Transunion, and syndicated office showing the exact same account #'s and amounts, etc. on the Equifax report. ( I haven't done the third one yet but will sometime this week) Anyway, I disputed these three med bills back in 2012 and two were deleted. and one was updated. I then sent a dv letter to the updated one (central financial) and they deleted it a short time later. Then in may 2014, I checked again, and the first 2 deleted are up again, I sent both JDB's their dv letters, CFC gave me a reply stating they have already validated these accounts and my continuously repeated DV requests are not worth a reply and waste of their office supplies( but they DID delete one). They told me they were not going to reply again. Syndicated just sent back a generic reply with everything I could get on my credit report( original creditor/amt owed/dates, etc). so now I have the two that were previously deleted by CFC back on, and all three from syndicated. so what do I do now?
  9. just a little FYI the article did not mention. If you fill out form 982 to file for insolvent, don't forget to put the amt on line 10a. Do NOT add the 1099 amount into your income. And fill out and send in the insolvency worksheet just to be on the safe side incase of an audit.
  10. So, I contacted the Plaintiff's attorney to tell them the discovery has been longer than 30 days, and they need to respond or I will file a motion and sanction yadda yadda and they responded with "This case is being routed for dismissal." Thank you everyone on here!
  11. sorry this is a late update, my computer crashed the night before I had court. anyway, it went horribly. I tried my best. The judge said exactly "this court goes by it's own set of rules! those don't apply to my courtroom." and waived a copy of papers around in the air and then popped it down on his bench. after that all my planning went up in smoke and I was intimidated and nervous and just choked. but he did get after the young attorney for not having read my discovery and repeatedly asked if they had any statements to show him. and she kept stuttering and saying she will send everything thru discovery. he reminded her "30 days, okay?" and I am still waiting to get the discovery answers from them. the judge only let me have partial discovery. I am trying to find a PRO BONO attorney or free legal aid right now, or someone in the area that will charge less than $1000. if not then I will just continue to go thru the motions pro se and see what happens.
  12. @BV80 which one? the lyons? should I print it out and take to court with me? just incase?
  13. sorry I had to rewrite all my jotted down notes in order. tell me how this sounds. I am going to add more for the "bill of sale" but have to take a short break. please find anything that doesn't work or I should add in. I welcome all critiques. 1. Plaintiff, Portfolio Recovery Associates, has filed "Exhibit A" which consists of an "affidavit" and "bill of sale". 2. "Exhibit A" pertains to acts and events that allegedly occurred between Defendant and a third party, Citibank. 3. At no time was the creator of the "affidavit" nor any of Plaintiff's employees present to witness any alleged acts or creation of the records of transactions occurring between defendant and Citibank. 4. Affiant fails to refer to ANY attachments in the affidavit and does not specify the # of pages attached. According to the RULES OF EVIDENCE 902.10(, The Form of Affidavit is insufficient. Lyons v. Lyons, No. 04-08-00259-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 14, 2009). 5. Upon information and belief, the creator of the document in Plaintiff's "Exhibit A" is not currently and has never been employed with Citibank and therefore cannot have personal knowledge of how Citibank's records were prepared and maintained, and; 6. Is unqualified to testify as to the truth of the information contained in Plaintiff's Exhibit "A". 7. It is the business records that constitute the evidence, not the testimony of the witness referring to them. There is no business record from the original creditor attached that shows that the defendant had an account or used an account that was transferred to the plaintiff. 8. Affiant or plaintiff presents no evidence providing how the finance charges were calculated or how plaintiff arrived at the balance of alleged debt which lacks foundation and is nothing more than conclusory statements. Such unsupported conclusory statements are not credible. an affidavit must state facts and cannot merely recite legal conclusions. See McIntyre v. Ramirez, 109 S.W.3d 741, 749-50 (Tex. 2003) (citing Ryland Grp., Inc. v. Hood, 924 S.W.2d 120, 122 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam)).. Conclusory statements in affidavits are insufficient to raise a fact issue. Ryland Group, Inc. v. Hood, 924 S.W.2d 120, 122 (Tex. 1996); Paragon Gen. Contractors, 227 S.W.3d at 883; Rizkallah v. Conner, 952 S.W.2d 580, 587 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, no pet.). A “conclusory” affidavit is one in which there are no underlying facts to support the conclusions made in the affidavit. Such an affidavit cannot raise any fact issues and amounts to no evidence at all. Coastal Transp. Co. v. Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp., 136 S.W.3d 227, 232-3 (Tex. 2004). 9. As such, said affidavit falls under the hearsay rule, Texas Rules of Evidence Rule 802, and is inadmissible as evidence.
  14. AFFIDAVIT (OBJECTION: HEARSAY. Affiant lacks personal knowledge, lacks foundation, and makes conclusory statements.) Plaintiff, Portfolio Recovery Associates, has filed Exhibit A "Affidavit". Exhibit A pertains to acts and events that allegedly occurred between Defendant and a third party, Citibank, N.A. At no time was the creator of the affidavit nor any of the Plaintiff’s employees present to witness any alleged acts or creation of the records of transactions occurring between Defendant and the Citibank, N.A. Affiant or plaintiff presents no evidence providing how the finance charges are calculated and how plaintiff arrives at the balance of alleged debt or provides the terms stated in the affidavit. and lacks foundation. Conclusory statements in affidavits are insufficient to raise a fact issue. Ryland Group, Inc. v. Hood, 924 S.W.2d 120, 122 (Tex. 1996); Paragon Gen. Contractors, 227 S.W.3d at 883; Rizkallah v. Conner, 952 S.W.2d 580, 587 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, no pet.). Also, Affiant fails to refer to ANY attachments in the affidavit and does not specify the # of pages attached. According to the RULES OF EVIDENCE 902.10(, The Form of Affidavit is insufficient. Lyons v. Lyons, No. 04-08-00259-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 14, 2009). It is clear from the face of the document that it was prepared for the purpose of litigation. The affidavit refers to parties as "Plaintiff" and "Defendant," respectively. Therefore, we adhere to the well-established rule and conclude that this document, which was made in anticipation of litigation, was not admissible under the business-records exception. See Blackburn, 992 F.2d at 670. Ortega v. CACH, LLC, 396 SW 3d 622 - Tex: Court of Appeals 2013 Tex.R. Evid. 803(6). Lack of trustworthiness is most frequently found when the record was prepared in anticipation of litigation. United States v. Blackburn, 992 F.2d 666, 670 (7th Cir. 1993)[4] As such, said affidavit falls under the hearsay rule, Texas Rules of Evidence Rule 802, and is inadmissible as evidence. Alright. this is what I have in my notes for the affidavit now. a few cups of coffee in and my brain is jumping around like crazy!
  15. @BV80 thanks for the Ortega v. cach "The West Affidavit is offered as a business record of CACH, but it is clear from the face of the document that it was prepared for the purpose of litigation. The affidavit has the heading of a pleading and refers to CACH and Ortega as "Plaintiff" and "Defendant," respectively." they reference me as the "defendant" multi times.