Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bobdole369

  1. OK so I found my own answer - My judgment is not collectable. My attorney filed suit against the only person he could - the person on the lease - lets call him AS Management out of Iowa. The owner of the property is an LLC set up to own the property- AB IGF Hidden Apartments. Checks are made out to the name of the apartment complex (say Hidden Shoals Apartments), who has a joint account with the AS Management. The LLC is the only person I could conceivably collect against as its a property owner. The AS Management is uncollectable as they don't have an account in FL. AB IGF Hidden Apartments cannot have a lien from this - they were uninvolved. AS Management also doesn't have a business presence in the state - they work through the Hidden Shoals Apartments front. Hope this helps somebody. I'm out so much money and I'm never going to see it. My original attorney won't even collect cuz he knows how bad it is....
  2. It depends on your initial CC agreement. It isn't cancelled, in fact it guides what the CA can charge. If it only says "reasonable collection fees may be charged" or similar - its up to a judge what "reasonable" means. I practically guarantee your original CC agreement has such a clause. Your using the account indicates agreement to that clause. Just like if you agree to waive a jury trial. Anything specifically not disallowed - is legal. Your state might have laws against such fees, but you'll have to find them. Usury usually doesn't apply in a CC collections case. It's not a loan, its a credit account.
  3. If your state requires licensing/bonding - and that collection agency is not licensed, you can consider that violation #1. However since your letters and accusations, and even telling them "you are breaking the law" will do you absolutely no good - just chalk it up and file it away. The CA knows they are breaking the law - they are banking on that you won't sue them for it. This is because in 95% of cases - it costs them nothing because the consumer doesn't do anything about it - and they end up making more money by violating the law. It probably costs them an hour and $50 or so to get licensed in your state. Not doing so might cost them thousands if you follow through. Does your state have an authority dealing with such licensing? A letter to them will get them licensed most likely - but that doesn't help you at all does it? You need to get a member of the authority to tell you that such and such company is not licensed. A screenshot or a computer file showing the same is probably not as effective as a letter from the state. This may all be moot - lots of states have laws that say to the effect of: Lawyers or law firms whose primary business is not debt collection, are not required to be licensed as debt collectors. Some states require everyone who collects debts to be licensed. My whole point - its not a huge deal. CMRRR indicates "Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested" Its the only method of communications you should be using with the law firm. You have now discovered the debt. You can initiate communications and establish that this is the initial communication with that law firm. It's shaky at best. (have they been sending letters for months? If so they could argue that your mother in laws is the best address they had and that initial communications occured months ago - if they push the point its conceivable that they don't need to stop collection attempts) The concept here is to establish that you now have 30 days to dispute the validity of that debt, and they must stop collection attempts until they provide validation. If they continue collection attempts during that time prior to validation - they violate the FDCPA. Now you have 2 violations or more of the FDCPA. These violations may be actionable for your actual damages, or $1000 each. Chances are once they are called out and must perform validation - they sell the debt somewhere else and yank the reporting.
  4. Never use the online dispute method. The recent 2006 FACTA amendment treats these differently than the well-known methods. Every situation is different, but if you have any actively collecting tradelines (getting phone calls/letters) - I would think those demand the most of your attention.
  5. bah this is so difficult now. I thought for sure I had a clear path to collecting.....
  6. I'm not a lawyer. "Why would they file suit at this high rate?" If the debtor ignores it and doesn't challenge it - they win by default at the high rate. In the event they find a winner and can attach bank accounts or valuable property or wages- they would get it. "a generic citibank agreement from 1999" Time-barred by SOL??? (depends on your state) Would need to assert this as an affirmative defense in your answer. Maybe whatever constitutes legal aid in your area (Florida has "Legal Aid" - Colorado "Legal Services") - i.e. legal help for the indigent. In any event whether you get a lawyer or not its terribly important to answer the complaint. At the minimum you can copy the header of the complaint, and deny every line item listed in the cause for action.
  7. I'm no lawyer. There are 2 kinds of dismissals. THe kind where you both agree, submit the paperwork and any fee, and its over with. (Voluntary dismissal)? Then theres the kind where you argue your point and you MOVE the court to dismiss the case based on facts you provide. I think you need the second kind. You would file a motion to dismiss - and attach evidence that the court does not have proper jurisdiction (the appropriate place for this would be the initial answer - as they assert jurisdiction in the complaint. May I ask what is the problem with jurisdiction?
  8. With a score in the low 700's, is it really hurting you? Was it that tradeline that caused the loan denial? It's quite old if its due to be removed in 2009 and is probably not reducing your score at all - esp if its paid. Maybe try another lender? Perhaps your CU is just a stickler. With a low 700 score you shouldn't have very many problems, even with 1 bad mark.
  9. A person who has reached the age of majority, and those who have not, may contract for necessaries. Enrollment in any school matters not. Shorter answer: Yes, and yes. Longer answer: Yes, and anybody can be billed for medical services rendered. If the person in question is a minor not seeking to contract for necessaries, typically the parents are the responsible party. Anybody who obtains any service from any professional, non-professional, store, service, etc. is legally responsible to pay that debt, even if your in high school.
  10. I take it to mean what it says on its face. Then again I'm not a lawyer so who knows. If a debt collector uses false representation or deceptive means to collect a debt, or to obtain information about a consumer, than I would consider it a violation. I can't imagine accidentally saying that "I'm the bank and I need to talk to John Doe, whats his phone number". Or accidentally mailing a letter saying that I was a lawyer when I was not. How could there be an error? Any example?
  11. Just more proof that the CRA's and the debt collection business in general are a bunch of crooks with no regard for the folks they screw along the way. If you dispute that item as "not medical" I wonder if they just remove the notation. Worth a shot for sure. The tradeline could miss verifying it, but for that dollar amount I bet they won't.
  12. Read in that same agreement - somewhere I bet is a provision that terms can change at any time for any reason. Your terms probably changed at some point.
  13. http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/F6B35735-B249-4124-9D74F72F73665F34 Discovery is a pre-trial process governed by the rules of the court. It allows either party to perform depositions, examine evidence, question witnesses, send out and receive answers to interrogatories (requests for admissions, etc) and so on. Its where you sort of feel out the other sides case. Yes, this is the phase where you can get the other side to produce documents such as a signed contract.
  14. (judge) "For the Defense?" . . . "For the Defense?" . . . "DC vs. confusedone - for the Defense?" . . . "This court finds in favor of the plaintiff, next case?" Tough one.
  15. The names below are bogus. Upon even further review - I was working from memory - its split in two. Half is owned by an LLC - Lets call it "XF IGF Jones Soda APT LLC % Paradise Tax Group" - and the other half is "XF IGF Jones Soda APT LLC % GWD Realty Advisors" The entity I sued was the one that my lease agreement was with - XF Management Services, Inc. On my rent check which was made out to "Jones Soda Apartments" - it was deposited into an account at a major bank and the returned check says on the reverse "Pay to the Order of (Major Bank) - For Deposit Only XF Management Services XF IGF Jones Sodat Apartments LLC - <acct#> (sic) I think the advice still applies about finding the right person to get the money from yes? Yep, I've pretty much exhausted my options over the nearly 2 years now. The management company claims they were never served - I served the person named as "XF Management Services" Registered Agent, who was the same person from 99 - 12/2007. The service was proper (handled by my lawyer - who has a certificate of service). Interestingly - the Registered agent changed the next week to a completely different person (now a company that handles corporate registration and legal stuff). My guess is the VP realized they flubbed and the agent hadn't been right for years. I tried to be amiable - I wrote a couple letters asking for the money. I called the office and managed to get a call back from a VP - they claim they never heard of it, wanted my lawyers info, etc. My lawyer forwarded everything about the case to him. I had won on a default. His final position (in a letter to the lawyer)- "We were not served, I have no information about this suit, I would be glad to give you the deposit if you'll drop the attorney's fees. Note that I have damages exceeding the deposit and would of course pursue these damages". (the damages are bogus, I have concrete evidence that those damages are from another unit.) I sent a letter after that explaining such, telling him about what really happened. Now any phone calls to him are not returned. So it looks like its back to court. I think I might go ahead with retaining the lawyer again to collect. This is getting complicated. However I do note that half the owner of the property (I'm guessing its half, I'm guessing the % is a divider) is the same as the entity that is on the check, and that the entity I sued, and the other entity on the check are the same.
  16. Perhaps the student loans are at 100% utilization? Does it work that way? Have you new established credit reporting on Exp?
  17. Hallelujah!!! Thanks Methuss! "You'd have to sue the Trust for recovery" I had wondered about this. I sued "xxxx Management" and the building is owned by "xxx xxx Apt Ltd partnership, etc" "This is where the landlord would have to answer questions about where their money and other assets are located under oath." Similar to a set of Interrogatories?
  18. This letter purports to ask the debt collector for information they do not need to supply. It also misquotes the FDCPA while doing so. FDCPA is very vague when it comes to validation. It doesn't require itemization. Validation is informal. It asserts that the person against whom the debt is claimed - is that person. The amount is correct, and the FDCPA requires that the information must be obtained from the original creditor. The itemization deal comes from case law - Specifically Spears v. Brennan, and of course there is Chaudry, which requires even less. DV is not the appropriate time to assert or cite case law, FDCPA or anything like that. Your goal is to appear as the "least sophisticated consumer". Debt collectors know the law. They know they are violating it, they also "know" that you won't do anything to stop them. They know what is required - they also know that the least sophisticated consumer will take the information as provided as gold. Also just so you are aware - unless you are in Texas, the debt collector does not have any time frame at all in which to reply. They can take 3 years and 11 months + 29 days, and on the day that the SOL expires - provide validation and file the lawsuit. A better letter: You address Scumbags address xxx November xxxx Dear dirtbags, The letter you sent me on xxx November is not validation as I requested. Please provide validation. Sincerely You. However since this was an untimely DV they do not have to do anything. BUT - a far reaching and probably unsuccessful maneuver might be to cite equitable estoppel. This is in court mind you - That is the doctrine that once someone does something, and that person relies on it, they cannot rescind it - most commonly used when a landlord accepts late rent. Of course EE requires a pattern of behavior and actual damages. I don't think you would be damaged by them not validating the debt when they didn't have to. Since they attempted validation.... well whats the least sophisticated consumer to do? A better use of your time is with a CRA dispute. Lets hope they sell it and it drops now that you've been shown to be alive.
  19. I know I'm stretching it without proof - and I will find the case law either way, but I swear I have seen it. Of course its exactly like h2g2, and of course its completely illegal and an actionable violation of the FDCPA, completely immoral and downright scuzzy of CA's to do that, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen all the time. Here is some backup: The definitions portion of the the FDCPA defines "communications", 1692a (2): The term "Communication" means the conveying of information regarding a debt directly or inderectly to any person through any medium. Building on that - Websters defines initial as: "of or relating to the beginning". Put them together: "initial communication" means the first conveying of information regarding a debt directly to any person through any medium. Thus: Reporting information regarding a debt directly to equifax via computer network could be construed as the initial communication to the consumer regarding the debt. I know its deeper than that. I know there is case law. What that should trigger - is the 5 day validation notice. It doesn't happen that way all the time.
  20. You'll want to wait for the snail mail. Doing anything online will keep you from being able to prove anything later - if/when you go to court. The premise behind this CR stuff is to make it terribly expensive for the collection agency to continue to collect.
  21. Too bad its not case law. The two cases I mentioned above are just about all I can find. Anyone know different?
  22. "or can my awnser cause a defualt judgement" Answering a complaint/summons will not cause a default judgment. Here is the basics: One person decides to sue someone else. They draft a complaint which outlines the case, provides for a cause of action to which they are entitled relief. The file the paperwork with the court. They CC: you and serve you with the paperwork. YOu must now "answer" the complaint. The court will eventually get around to sending you a notification of the court date. You might want to call the clerk to confirm. In the meantime unless you file your answer to the complaint the plaintiff has every right to move for a default judgment well before the trial even starts. The judge would agree since you haven't spoken up to defend yourself. So you see - answering the complaint is the only thing you can do that would prevent a default judgment.
  23. They sent you an unfiled summons. Served you an unfiled summons. "The lawyer and the courts both say they can file if i do not awnser them. " Well yeah, anybody can. admins got the right idea. I'd call the bluff.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.