Lecasbas

Members
  • Content Count

    698
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Lecasbas last won the day on December 4 2007

Lecasbas had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

176 Excellent

About Lecasbas

  • Rank
    500 posts and hasn't been banned yet....

Profile Fields

  • Location
    IOWA
  1. Thanks. I'll be checking into this tomorrow and let you know what I find.
  2. If you will notice...you and I are the only ones still here.
  3. Well, then, the same thing can happen with the other legitimate comments from this very thread which expressed disagreement with the op. It's pretty obvious that the op doesn't like anyone questioning his opinion. No one should then, under these conditions, respond against anything that the op says for fear that things will get ugly. We can just all agree. I think retmar can handle himself.
  4. Hey admin, I'll go halfway with you. The op should provide a link in the new thread to this one. Those who want the whole story can come here and read it. Others who just want the concise facts can read the updated new thread and give their opinions. Kind of like fishing with two poles. I know that you, admin, wouldn't like handling two poles, but the op will benefit by catching more fish.
  5. I agree. Make this #1. I had forgotten that nascar had brought this up earlier in the thread. Thus, the problem with a long thread...we forget what was said and are too lazy to go back and read. On another issue, nascar...I don't think there is any harm in the op introducing more than one defense in case a mistake has been made concerning the first defense. The plaintiff may have documented the seemingly missing facts in the verification of account or elsewhere. If the op only issues this one defense then the op's case is in jeopardy.
  6. If it looks like you will win, the plaintiff will most likely dismiss its case anyway and you would have to file your own countersuit to pursue the violations for money. I would still incorporate the word "Deny" into the Answer. Otherwise, it seems that you don't know when you actually do know that the debt is not yours. Everyone reading this thread should make a copy of your sworn denial affidavit and send one in with their Answer. This counters any affidavit submitted by the plaintiff attesting to the debt being valid and belonging to the defendant. In theory, the plaintiff will need to bring in a live witness from the OC to testify. Not likely.
  7. Go to your courts online. Do a search on your name. This will give you a state-wide result. You could also do a search on whoever you think the plaintiff may be.
  8. As far as service, I usually take 3 copies over to the clerk, have him/her stamp all three, the clerk files one, I slip one copy into a pre-stamped envlope to the plaintifff and give the envelope to the clerk to mail, and I take the third copy home with me. If there are any problems later the clerk can testify that you deposited a filed copy in the clerk's mailbox for the plaintiff. If you would like some money, you should file some Counterclaims. If all you want is just a simple dismissal then you seem to be good to go.
  9. Look, the FDCPA, FCRA and other acts are mindboggling. Noone should expect that their interpretations of these acts and other laws should not be questioned. We don't know each other here. Why should anyone take for granted that the law means what any person says it means? Why shouldn't a person ask for case law for support? I wouldn't want to go into court spouting that someone from CIC said it was so. Retmar, I think you are personally offended when someone questions your answer when that someone is just looking for some support for future court action. You shouldn't be offended...it's just part of the research process for case building.
  10. I've always been lucky enough to have my cases dismissed so I am not very familiar with appeal procedure. But I would think that the moving party could dismiss its own appeal while the nonmoving party could not. What does your Rules of Appellate Procedure say? Do a search on terms like dismiss or withdraw or similar terms. Hopefully somebody like nascar will chime in.
  11. Yea, you guys are right. I finally got the comma's, and's, and or's figured out and can see that Iowa does not treat financial institutions as debt collectors. Thanks.
  12. Original post by: cjtx This is a good example. I'll use it for my next question. If the orginal debt belongs to Citigroup and Citigroup itself attempts to collect the debt then, according to Iowa's definition, Citigroup is considered a debt collector? If it choses to pass the collection process on to one of its affiliates and that affiliate attempts to collect a debt for its parent company, then that affiliate is not considered a debt collector? Let's go one step further...once Citibank sues as the plaintiff, Citibank has established itself as a debt collector, hasn't it? Citibank could dismiss its case and pass the collection attempt on to one of its affiliates but Citibank could still be held liable for debt collection violations in a countersuit by the defendant, couldn't it?
  13. I did a search and I found this: Can someone help me out? Does this say that a bank, such as Citibank or Discover is not considered a debt collector if one of its affiliates is attempting to collect the debt? An affilitate, in layman's terms, is a member or associate. Who, for example, would be a member or associate of Discover or Citibank? Found a more precise definition of affiliate: http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/affiliates/ Would this be something like an in-house lawyer?
  14. Okay, I've been reading on the forum that some states treat OC's like CA's. That is, OC's have to follow the same state collection laws as the CA's. Whereabouts would I look to see if my state, Iowa, does this? I think in the General Assembly area, but where, exactly?