• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About cjtx2

  • Rank
    CIC Member

Profile Fields

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You need to start your own thread. But in answer to your question, having your efiling pleadings accepted only means that they were reviewed by a clerk and they appear to comply with the procedural requirements for the specific pleading. There is no guarantee that the judge has even looked at them and obviously he has not made any rulings unless there is a separate entry indicating so specifically.
  2. True. But it is not uncommon for a JDB to claim they do not have records of the original date of first delinquency and report it based on their business records reflecting payments.
  3. Are they reporting the payments to the credit bureaus? If so, this is a blatant attempt to damage your FICO score and force you to settle/pay up. A collection with no activity for 2 years has a lower negative impact than the same account with a recent payment.The payments re-age the account and extend the reporting period for an extra 2 years, which is a violation of both FCRA (605(c) running of the reporting period) and FDCPA (807(2)(A) misrepresenting the character, amount or legal status of a debt). They can use the bona fide error defense (FDCPA 813(c))and then you have to request discovery to find out exactly how "reasonable" are their procedures to avoid such errors. As Harry suggested, your best bet is to file a motion to compel arbitration.
  4. That must be it. You referred to a long time member still advising to use the Finance Code, which in the context was bad advice. I see his point. There is no mention of debt validation in Finance Code 392, but there is no time limit to dispute the account under 392.202 after their first communication/dunning letter. Many collectors will ignore a validation request if not sent within 30 days. You can dispute the account as "not mine", which would force the JDB to provide the equivalent of validation and probably much more than just a verification of the name of the OC and the balance. Also, with validation, during the time they take to investigate and until they respond to you about a completed investigation (for which they have 30 days), they are not allowed to continue collection activity (reporting to the CRAs).
  5. I have been successful in the past as well, but I was away for some time and lately I am in the process of re-learning what works now. Simien seems to complicate things for defendants and give JDBs an easy win without proper records. I have been looking at your strategy and it looks promising, but I am concerned about hick JP non-lawyer judges who may fail to understand the nuances in Simien. In looking at robo signed affidavits and their admissibility, I found the case from the attorney general against PRA in 2011 (which was Abbott back then and was filed in Harris county, btw), where he made the case that debt collection is a service under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). He also sued them under the Debt Collection Act (TDCA) as a tie-in statute to DTPA and ended up in a consented order. This is interesting to me because I am dealing with a business account, so FDCPA and TDCA do not cover non-consumer debt. But the DTPA applies to all consumers whether businesses or individuals. I have read your comments about TDCA not working anymore. How about DTPA? I like that the standard of proof is one of the lowest if not the lowest.
  6. I was doing some research on business records admissibility in Texas based on Simien v. Unifund CCR Partners, 321 S.W. 3d 235, 240-45 (Tex . App. -- Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.), which basically allows debt collectors to magically turn a debt with incomplete, possibly inaccurate/unreliable records into a valid debt as long as they incorporated the business records for everyday use as stated in an affidavit. Check out: https://www.johnstontobey.com/are-your-business-records-admissible/ According to the author, depending on where you live in Texas, the courts may be influenced by the Simien opinion, especially in the Houston area. In Dallas, they use Powell v. Vavro,, McDonald & Assocs,., LLC, 136 SW3d 762, 765 (Tex. App. -- Dallas 2004, no pet.) In El Paso, they use Riddle v. Unifund CCR Partners, 298 SW3d 780, 783 (Tex. App. -- El Paso, 2009, no pet.) Both of which require the affiant to have personal knowledge about the way the records are maintained (not created) by the original creditor. I checked out the Powell case and it was referenced in Castillon v Morgan, No. 05-13-00872-CV (Tex. App -- Dallas 2015). It references the Simien opinion but the outcome is based on Powell.
  7. As long as you file your answer within the deadline, it makes no difference if you send it in advance. You need to create an account to e-file your response or other pleadings. Once you have it, you can e-serve the attorney through the system at no charge. https://efile.txcourts.gov/ofsweb Any other correspondence you have with the attorney (discovery after the court authorizes it, settlement offer, etc.), you should send it via certified mail. In theory you can e-mail it, but that is not recommended.
  8. TCPA has been undermined big time by the decision in ACA International v. FCC https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7140589698627765519&q=aca+international+v+fcc&hl=en&as_sdt=6,44 Basically the FCC made it extremely easy for caller violators to claim they are not using an ATDS. Some courts still use the old FCC orders, where almost any device qualified as an ATDS, but they are the exception and not the rule and a lot of cases now are relying on the above opinion and ruling in favor of robocallers.
  9. Is this for a small claims court? If so, check out: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/small-claims.pdf Rule 7.090 describes what to expect at a pre-trial conference. Basically, you must show up or your lawyer must have authority to enter into an agreement unless you and the other party waive the pre-conference. Filing an answer does not excuse you from showing up at the pre-conference. Unless the court requires it, there is no need to file an answer in advance. You do not deal with a judge, but one may be there to supervise. They may decide if additional discovery is necessary, including admissions, production of documents and witnesses and set a trial date. They may try mediation to reach a settlement without a trial.
  10. Not sure how it works in justice courts in Collin county and whether there is an extra charge. I know some county courts used to require you agree with the other party to your own mediation services or use the one the court proposed at whatever cost was set by the mediator, but lately, these county courts offer this service for free. When a court orders mediation they usually accept other mediation venues, as long as you and the plaintiff agree. For example, SMU offers mediation services in Plano and they cost $100 per party. https://www.smu.edu/simmons/Community/MediationClinic/Mediation
  11. Thank you for the case reference. Does it make any difference that some CRAs report something along the lines of "consumer disputed account, furnisher investigated and found it accurate, consumer disagrees". There are enough codes in the Metro-2 format to include this information when furnishing. They are supposed to be compliance codes. Not many judges fully understand all the nuances of compliance. Unfortunately, disclosing that info would make it extremely easy for the JDB to identify me and have an unfair advantage by knowing my work product.
  12. But is it still a violation of FCRA 623(a)(3) enforceable after a 623(b) notification of dispute to the CRA?
  13. The JDB was put on notice of the dispute first (by certified mail) and then a few days later, after receiving delivery confirmation, the CRAs.
  14. The bill was for services performed. The account was in dispute and it was not reported as such. After this dispute, the report did not change after contacting the CRA to force the JDB to verify it.
  15. I sent them a bill and they never disputed it (so it is assumed to be correct). I also let them know that the account was disputed with the OC before they bought it and was still disputed with them and that I would be willing to accept a lesser amount than the total bill in exchange for a full deletion of the tradeline. Otherwise, the bill was due in full immediately, and additional charges would be tagged for attorneys' fees and court costs if I had to take it to court, plus any damages resulting from their false reporting.