Credithis

Members
  • Content Count

    511
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by Credithis


  1. I believe in Ohio there is Appeals Court case law reflecting the Plaintiff must give a full accounting of the debt from a zero balance to what they claim it to be now.

     

    {¶ 14} “In order to establish a prima facie case for money owed on an account, ‘ “an account must show the name of the party charged and contain: (1) a beginning balance (zero, or a sum that can qualify as an account stated, or some other provable sum); (2) listed items, or an item, dated and identifiable by number or otherwise, representing charges, or debits, and credits; and (3) summarization by means of a running or developing balance, or an arrangement of beginning balance and items which permits the calculation of the amount claimed to be due.” ’ Gabriele v. Reagan (1988), 57 Ohio App.3d 84, 87, 566 N.E.2d 684, quoting Brown v. Columbus Stamping & Mfg. Co. (1967), 9 Ohio App.2d 123, 223 N.E.2d 373, paragraph three of the syllabus. ‘An action upon an account may be proved by the introduction of business records showing the existence of the account.’ Wolf Automotive v. Rally Auto Parts, Inc. (1994), 95 Ohio App.3d 130, 137, 641 N.E.2d 1195. See, generally, Raymond Builders Supply, Inc. v. Slapnicker, 11th Dist. No.2003-A-0040, 2004-Ohio-1437, at ¶ 8.''

     

     

    https://caselaw.findlaw.com/oh-court-of-common-pleas/1530536.html  


  2. Then the whack the mole concept is in play. I believe and would argue since the JDB knew it was avoiding through a loophole the spirit of the law and they would be liable. Also, since they hire the CA, they are jointly and severally liable for deliberate continued debt collection in a manner that is avoiding the FDCPA.

     

    I find it odd that today this practice is still in play. LVNV was most notorious for it. I had enough saved DV letters and correspondence with it's CAs to threaten legal action.

     


  3. Well, the OP ran into my situation with LVNV. I sent Prompt DVs to each CA cmrr. After the 3rd CA I did the same cmrr to LVNV. Now, the 1st CA did not assign it to another company, LVNV had to. So, does LVNV violate the FDCPA by assigning it again to another CA knowing a DV was sent to the 1st? This would trigger a "continued collection" action as per the FDCPA. Actually, when I threatened LVNV I brought this up.... They dropped it.  This is what the OP is facing...


  4. Sorry, love you and your posts but I believe if you send a DV to a JDB you "cut out" the middleman, in this case, the CA. I have seen no case law addressing this. It would be interesting to see the response.... Say the JDB keeps assigning the alleged debt to CA after CA and each CA was sent a DV and did not respond... You then (As I did) send it directly to the JDB.... What would be their response? I think they would be facing possible FDCPA sanctions if they assign it to another CA if they don't reply with the validation......  Interesting topic... I believe they would be breaking federal law if they do.


  5. Hi BV80, we had this discussion many years ago. LVNV did this notoriously, I sent DVs cmrr to 3 different CAs collecting for them. Then sent a cease comm to LVNV because they would always farm it out to another CA.  Now, the OP stated they were calling his cell phone, he wants it to stop... Getting the JDB involved is necessary to get TCPA violations.....  To stop the continued collection a cease comm is needed to be sent to whoever "owns" it.


  6. I talked about this on this board and others. National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts never has the paperwork to prove standing and can be defeated easily with a half way decent Attorney. This is another standing issue and why standing is so important in a court of law. Actually this is a win win for Students saddled with these vultures.

    The Times relates cases where borrowers pointed out the trusts had paperwork claiming they went to schools they never enrolled in, owed debts at amounts they’d never borrowed, and featured other glaring inaccuracies about the paperwork filed. That’s thanks to how the trusts work: They buy up private student loan debt, slice it up, and repackage it to sell to investors. Sound familiar? It should: That’s what caused the subprime mortgage crisis and the Great Recession.

    http://uproxx.com/life/student-loans-disappear-paperwork-lost-national-collegiate/

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/business/dealbook/student-loan-debt-collection.html

     

     

     

     

     


  7. The Statute of Limitations to sue you for this in Florida is gone. They also cannot place this on your credit report after 7 1/2 years.  I'd send them a letter certified mail return receipt requested with a copy of their letter and keep a copy telling Carson that you deny this alleged debt entirely and will sue if this is on your credit report..  They cannot legally collect this or report it.

     

    Carson Smithfield  are Scum!!

    • Like 1