ping

Members
  • Content Count

    134
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

ping last won the day on April 15 2011

ping had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

27 Excellent

About ping

  • Rank
    Impressive 100+ postings

Profile Fields

  • Location
    az
  1. since the COA occurred prior to the SOL change, the 6 year SOL doesn't apply. if the Dell account was secured by collateral ( the computer ) 4 year SOL applies under the UCC for Secured transactions. http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/47/02725.htm&Title=47&DocType=ARS if your debt was time barred ( 3 year SOL) before this date, you can still argue it is SOL. Because they didn't change this statute. 12-505. Effect of statute changing limitation A. An action barred by pre-existing law is not revived by amendment of such law enlarging the time in which suc
  2. No it shouldn't restart the SOL - besides the account was sold to LVNV Funding. Amex has no further interest in the matter, and this may be part of the CFPB settlement with Amex. where they were ordered to make an 85 million dollar refund to certain cardholders. http://www.consumerfinance.gov/pressreleases/cfpb-orders-american-express-to-pay-85-million-refund-to-consumers-harmed-by-illegal-credit-card-practices/
  3. the banks take a tax deduction for bad debts. then the same banks give the JDB's a credit line so they can buy more bad debt then the JDB's pay them back witn interest.
  4. Effect of statute changing limitation, and the 2011 amendment of 12-548 which added credit cards to the 6 year SOL is not applicable and is the use thereof is barred by state law A.R.S 12-505; An action barred by pre-existing law is not revived by amendment of such law enlarging the time in which such action may be commenced See City of Tucson v. Clear Channel. City of Tucson v Clear Channel; See Crowell v. Davenport, 11 Ariz. 323, 327-28, 94 P. 1114, 1115 (1908) (holding that suit on a contract cause of action that had accrued prior to effective date of new statute was governed by statute in
  5. one has to file repeated, mertiless, nutcase claims that have no basis in law or fact since it mostly proven that the folks sued by Midland Owe a debt to someone, and since the Justice courts repeatedly awards judgments on these claims, I doubt they are going to give you hearing on this. you have to go after the JC magistrates who admit hearsay evidence. this would take a RCP or Statute change similar To Deleware or NC and that won't happen in AZ with this legislature.
  6. all reporting disputes have to go to the address on the credit reports but for LVNV funding, - Resurgent Captial services is the one handling all the credit reporting duties for LVNV funding LVNV funding has very few employess- it's holding company only. for FDCPA DV'and Intent to sue letters, use the charleston address.
  7. file a motion to strike the affidavit. below is a sample MTS - which is a bit more complete than the standard one that floats about. if all they filed was statements and a bill of sale and affidavit, and nowhere is your account number listed on the Bill of sale - and there is no ledger of account attached to the bill of sale, then file a motion to strike everything they filed. Askew case is perfect. Comes now, Defendant ### and respectfully states the following: 1. Plaintiff has submitted into evidence Exhibit "A" which consists of an "affidavit of debt". 2. Said document pertains to acts
  8. Definition: Certiorari, Petition for Writ of Certiorari. it means the lower court ruling ( the 3rd circuit court ruling ) stands on it's own and they have refused to consider or issue a ruling on the case.
  9. the US Supreme Court has Denied the Petition for a Writ of Centiorari. http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012312zor.pdf FWIW, "meaningful involvement " was decided long ago; A lawyer may not "rent out" a letterhead or signature to a Collection Agency Christ CLOMON v. Philip D. JACKSON No. 761, Docket 92-7942. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Argued January 6, 1993. Decided March 17, 1993. John E. Beekman, Esquire and "true business name" violation.... FDCPA Staff Opinion: LeFevre-Challed one always supposes that a law firm is composed of attorneys and qualified
  10. you have thier discovery requests in front of you. use their's as a template for yours.
  11. 38 state attorney generals have filed ann opposition statement to the brent settlement it's posted on another thread here.
  12. An assignment can be with or without "recourse" if an assignment is made 'with recourse', and the list of account recievables is inaccurate, and the assignee cannot collect because the account is proven to be false, or not owed, then the Seller has to buy back the account. However, unlike a traditional factoring company which buys these accounts @ 80 to 90% of face value from a commercial businesses, a sale of these portfolios from the CC banks areusually sold "without recourse" to the JDB's The "sales agreements" covering the assignments of portfolios ( Bill of Sale ) are usually not gu
  13. No, they aren't - those statutes have not been revised and if the sue you under those causes of action then the 3 year SOL applies.
  14. if you are going to peruse your counter claims, then you have to opt out of any settelement with the class action. have you sent discovery requests out on your case?