Myself

Members
  • Content Count

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Myself

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Fields

  • Location
    US of A
  1. @kraftykrab, @BV80 Thanks for your thoughtful responses. Please review this ---> http://www.utcourts.gov/resources/rules/urcp/view.html?rule=urcp015.html, especially -----> (b) Amendments during and after trial. My interpretation of this is basically that I can bring up new info, Rules, Statutes, etc at Trial, and the Judge should let me do so, as well as use them as an amended Pleading, or allow time to make an amended Pleading. Is that what you see as well, or am I just seeing what I want to see? The big question is: is a Hearing considered a Trial?
  2. @kraftykrab, @BV80 What you suggest here, is 1 of the reasons I created this post. I certainly think your above reference, as well as many other issues that have been brought to light throughout correspondence with Plaintiff, and via research I have done, ensure I have, and had, from the get go, valid grounds for a counterclaim. Or perhaps operating under Rule 13 (d) Counterclaim maturing or acquired after pleading. I still think that this applies to my situation. Deceptive practices, misrepresenting the debt, unconscionable conduct, or something of the like. This is why I was thinking perhaps I can amend the initial pleading, and, or, the original Motion to Dismiss, or subsequent Motion to Dismiss. But, its kind of a moot point now, because I can't offer any new motions at this time. Maybe, if I am lucky, the Judge will allow me to amend initial Pleading, after the Hearing. I will contact an attorney Monday, to see if anything could be done to postpone the Hearing, which would enable making another Motion. I think that, although court clerk informed me that I cannot argue anything outside what is on file currently, I might bring it up in Hearing anyway. Hopefully the Judge doesn't get too aggravated by it. I also will mention that the dates on chain of assignments don't jive, so the subsequent Assignment Plaintiff is operating with is also void. Have any perspective on that thought? Oh, btw, one of you wrote this at an earlier section of this thread, referring to the terms and conditions plaintiff offered. - "More than likely, there's language in the agreement that says something to the effect of '"if you use the card, you've agreed to the terms and conditions"'. Answer to this is: no, it does not say this, or the like. Which is one reason why I argued SOF, in the case. Plus, the terms and condition they offered showed no transactions, hence, no use. Again, kinda a moot point at this time.
  3. Regarding enforcing Rules, Procedure etc. When I first was served and read different info about this situation, I thought it was an insane Complaint, and a sure win/Dismissal. First mistake. I talked with some savvy business people I've had relationships with for years, as a result, I was relatively convinced that Laws, Statutes, Codes, Procedure etc, was not something I needed to enforce. That a Judge knows the laws, and would know if something is not proper. 2nd Mistake.. Regarding MSJ - Decision - I am allowed time to respond to the MSJ, they just moved passed it. Actually, I forgot to convey that not only did they go directly to filing for Decision, they also filed a Proposed Order for the Judge to sign, all on the same day. (which is, according to Procedure, meant to performed after instruction to do so, by the Judge). This made my head explode. As I said earlier, court clerks told me attorneys do this type of thing often to skip thru the process. Plaintiff did these things, after I specifically asked them to produce documents that confirm that this debt is within the 6-year SOL, otherwise it is time barred and should be dismissed. They did not comply, and only offered a statement with a balance due on it. Then they filed a Statement of Facts, did not wait the appropriate time for me to respond, subsequently, they filed a MSJ - Motion for Decision - Proposed Order, all in the same day. I did not know what to do. It seemed insane; being ignorant, I thought, I must do something, or perhaps they will get this MSJ. So, I filed a Motion to Dismiss, due to lack of standing, and 6-year SOL. As referenced earlier, I was operating off of - 78B-2-113. Effect of payment, acknowledgment, or promise to pay. (1)An action for recovery of a debt may be brought within the applicable statute of limitations from the date: (a)the debt arose; They oppose my Motion, and offered a Reply in Support of their MSJ (along with their Reply is when they finally included a Statement with alleged payment), I opposed it, included Hearsay in argument against their Reply, also opposed their Motion for Decision and Proposed Order, filed a 2nd Motion to Dismiss, citing earlier 6-year SOL, Lack of Standing regarding things discussed in this thread, as well as made an argument that the 4-year SOL should apply (cited case law), if not, the 6-year SOL from the time of debt creation alleged in Complaint should apply, because of Hearsay Rule regarding new statement with payment, referenced validity of Bills of Sale they opposed it I then file Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss, citing case law for 4-year SOL, case law supporting need to establish Standing, and supporting dismissal for Hearsay/lack of Standing (that were different than other case law references I used from previous filings) as well as devoted a large section to outlining the SOF, and that this case is operating outside the bounds of that Statute. As you can see, it is a mess. Regarding this request - @BV80 "However, it might help if @myself would provide us with the chain of assignment." I would scan them, and offer them, but I was informed today by court clerk, that neither Plaintiff nor myself will be allowed to argue anything outside what we have already offered in writing, which is on file, at the Hearing. So, not much point really. I did, in 1 or 2 filed responses address the fact that Plaintiff does not own the debt, and is assigned the debt by another assignee. I did not mention, that it specifically says in the Complaint, Plaintiff purchased debt from Citi. Again, in my ignorance, I assumed that the Judge would certainly notice that, because I noticed it very quickly. Mistake # 3...... In my mind, from what I've read, establishing Standing was, and is the 1st priority. Assumed the Judge would have a critical eye; as I have now read, many many case law situations, and forums like this, I have learned that this often is not the reality. Shoulda, woulda, coulda
  4. Yes, BV80, I understand what you are saying. What I was explaining in the above quoted section you refer to, took place months before they ever provided that statement with an alleged payment. Also, they did not provide that statement as an answer to my Interrogatories. They offered it months later, with no reference to where it came from, or by whom it was attained in standard business practice. That is when I objected to it, as Hearsay. Plaintiff never opposed my objection, or offered any explanation. This case is crazy. It is all out of procedure. Starting with Plaintiff filing MSJ, and filing Motion for Decision at the same time. I objected with that, as I had no time t respond, but, it made things become an information overload situation for me. I did not think you could do such a thing. But, the court clerks told me that attorneys do this often. That, all by itself seems like it should fall under deceptive practices. Now I am just ranting. Can anyone give me some insight as to expect whether or not I will be allowed to argue/elaborate on my position related to issues/Motions in the case at the Hearing?
  5. Something, I still don't see has been substantiated by Plaintiff, is: within their initial Complaint/Summons, they allege as follows - "4) Plaintiff purchased Defendant's account from Citibank, NA and has been fully assigned all the rights and privileges of Citibank, NA in relation to Defendants account." "5) Defendant, by signing the Note, or by accepting and using the credit card, agreed to the terms and conditions of the Agreement." First, even according to Plaintiff's bills of sale, they are the 5th JDB in the chain, they have been assigned the debt from the 4th JDB, and the 4th JDB was assigned this debt by the 3rd JDB. This means the alleged Owner of this debt, is the 3rd JDB, not the Plaintiff. 2nd, referring to #5 from Complaint; they have not shown anything to substantiate that I signed anything, or that I have used the card. I have referenced these things in my Motions. I really hope that I am allowed to revisit them in the Hearing though. Lastly, I was studying these bills of sale recently, and noticed something I never did previously. Within the chain of assignment; one of the JDB assignments are dated before the purchase date listed on the previous assignment. This really seems to me to invalidate the chain, from that point. Hence, the current JDB's assignment is invalid, because the chain was invalid starting from 3 JDB,s assignment, before the current Plaintiff even had a chance to lay claim to anything, with their current Assignment. If that doesn't make sense, an example would be: I buy an debt on thursday the 10th, you buy that debt from me, dated weds the 9th. This doesn't make sense.
  6. They sent Bills of Sale with their response to my Interrogatories. I asked they provide anything that suggests they are the rightful owner of the debt. This was because in the initial Complaint/Summons, they made multiple claims, but offered nothing to support them. So, within my Answer, I stated, there is not enough info to determine whether they actually have claim to the debt itself, effectively lack of Standing, without using the words, lack of Standing. This wass 1 of prepared options, within an Answer form on the court website. After they provided the Bills of Sale (which they do not reference my name, account # in question, or the amount due), I challenged the Bills of Sale, and asked that they provide any documents that verify that the Bills of Sale were executed, and the details of agreements made between buyer and seller of them, as well as proof that any consideration was exchanged. Also, I asked they show any info that suggests this debt is not time Barred by the 6-year SOL, as they alleged in their Complaint, the debt was created in 2006, but did not offer info to support that claim. I was operating under the understanding from - Title 78BJudicial Code Chapter 2 Statutes of Limitations Part 1General Provisions and Special Actions Section 113Effect of payment, acknowledgment, or promise to pay. 78B-2-113. Effect of payment, acknowledgment, or promise to pay. (1)An action for recovery of a debt may be brought within the applicable statute of limitations from the date: (a)the debt arose; (b)a written acknowledgment of the debt or a promise to pay is made by the debtor; or (c)a payment is made on the debt by the debtor. (2)If a right of action is barred by the provisions of any statute, it shall be unavailable either as a cause of action or ground for defense. If the Plaintiff cannot offer evidence otherwise, it is reasonable to claim time barred, based on the date listed in Complaint, as creation of the debt within the Complaint. There is nothing within the 6-year SOL that states otherwise. (at least it seemed reasonable at the time, and still does, although, I may have been operating out of procedure, in a sense.) They objected to my requests for this info, in their response, saying - "it was protected by attorney client privilege, vague, irrelevant, seeking info outside Plaintiff's control, seeking info not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable info. Plaintiff also objects to the requests for admission in excess of the agreed to limitations." When they say "in excess of the agreed to limitations", I interpreted that, to mean, stipulations of the agreement between buyer and seller of the account. It is my understanding that this is info I was, and am, entitled to.
  7. Please review and respond to my question on your Sued by Unifund post/thread.

  8. I know that I could have done things better, and differently now. But, I cannot change what is already on file unless I file a Motion to Amend something. I have been searching how that works exactly, and am still unsure. I did send Discovery request within my Interrogatories to Plaintiff for above mentioned documents, they refused. They said it was irrelevant, and, or, something that Plaintiff does not have. This seemed like it was something they could not refuse. But, again, I was ignorant, and continued forward with the process at that point, without following up with a Meet and Confer, or the like.
  9. @kraftykrab, @BV80 I did what you suggest, referencing more than 1 case law, supporting need to establish Standing. Also, I referenced Plaintiff's refusal to provide the documents about Bills of Sale, details, and agreement involved; with my Motion to Dismiss, and Reply in Support. At this point, I want to pound this issue of Lack of Standing, with a Motion to Compel, so that the Judge is forced to see how this supports my assertion of lack of Standing. Would it perhaps be worth filing a Motion to Compel, just so it is in the record, even if the Judge decides it is inadmissible? After our back and forth previously, I looked up my Credit Reports, they do not list this debt. I am told from someone at Experian, that a creditor is not required to report to the different Bureaus; so, I am thinking that offering this info at the Hearing is basically worthless? What do you all think? Anyone have insight on what to expect in a Hearing? I have phoned the courts in this area to see about observing a civil collections Hearing, before my dated Hearing. It seems that I might be out of luck. Won't know until Monday. They can't confirm anything until I go to courthouse and view dockets.
  10. Honestly, this may be where I made some error. I did not reference a Rule, when filing Motion to Dismiss. I was confused when first dealing with this case, and had not found any forums, like this one until much later, to help shed light on everything. Initially, when filing answer, and requesting disclosures from Plaintiff, I was being directed by the court clerk to follow procedure for small claims. Whereas, this is not a small claims matter. I did not realize this, until later. So, Procedure was ambiguous, because I was looking at two separate instructions for how to proceed. Basically, I, eventually was just following http://www.utcourts.gov/resources/rules/urcp/view.html?rule=urcp007.html, when I filed Motion to Dismiss, and Reply in Support. But, I did not reference, for example - Rule 7, when Motion was filed.
  11. SOL, Lack of Standing, and Statute of Frauds. Oh, when you ask which Rule, do you mean Procedural, or what are you asking specifically?
  12. @kraftykrab, @BV80 Yes, SOF, is something that I have argued in my Motion to Dismiss, and Reply in Support. Does anyone know what happens in a Hearing? The court clerk informed me that it is basically a trial, that you discuss the motions on file. What I don't understand is if you have a chance to elaborate, argue or discuss the details of things outlined in the Motions? Or, is it just basically the Judge interpreting the laws, and articulating how the Motions relate to the laws, hence Plaintiff, and Defendant or just listening to the Judge speak? Also, I have asked from the Plaintiff in the past to provide documentation about the Bills of Sale, and agreements pertaining to those alleged Bills of Sale. They refused. I believe that this info adds to my stance, they have lack of Standing. Can I still file a Motion to Compel, prior to the Hearing at this point? It is scheduled for Jan 11th. How could I find out if a Motion to Compel would be admissible at this point? Rules of Procedure do not spell this out well. Also, I have been thinking of filing a Motion to Amend my initial Motion to Dismiss. I could/should have included a couple things with it that are relevant.
  13. @Coffee_before_tea Hey, I am just about to go to Hearing, next Weds, Jan 11th. I have almost exactly the same case as you have described here, including same Plaintiff, in UT. I have argued many aspects that are identical to things in this thread. ie asking for info about Bill of Sale Agreement details, challenging Standing. Really, many of the exact same things you have challenged. When I read your explanation of the details and wording of the Summons, and the events following the initial Complaint, it is almost identical. They must literally just have turnkey method for this stuff. I really want to know what it was that the Judge ruled on, that seemed to be the main factor behind your case, as you said, being "resolved positively in my favor." ????? I have actually included the SOF as an affirmative. It seems to me to be a viable stance. Please give me an inside scoop. Or even better, can you give me a case to search for so that I can see the actual Judge Conclusion?