BV80

Moderators
  • Content Count

    19,266
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    235

BV80 last won the day on August 16

BV80 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,652 Excellent

About BV80

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

Profile Fields

  • Location
    USA

Recent Profile Visitors

6,369 profile views
  1. @Frankie12 Does your agreement show this? ”14. Assignment; Registration of Note Owners, Termination. We may assign this Agreement and the Loan Agreement and Promissory Note, or any of our rights under this Agreement or the Loan Agreement and Promissory Note, in whole or in part at any time. You further understand, acknowledge and agree that LendingClub or another third party may further sell, assign or transfer your Loan Agreement and Promissory Note and all associated documents and information related to the and the Loan Agreement and Promissory Note, in whole or in part at any time, without your consent or notice to you (subject to the registration requirement below). You may not assign, transfer, sublicense or otherwise delegate your rights or obligations under this Agreement to another person without our prior written consent. Any such assignment, transfer, sublicense or delegation in violation of this section 14 shall be null and void.”
  2. @kid330323 Send a validation request to the law firm stating that you dispute the referenced debt and request validation. Be sure to reference the account number in your letter. Also, request the items that were listed in the second to last paragraph of their letter (that Unifund has the right to seek collection, etc.).
  3. If a motion in limine is proper, yes. It should be included in whatever you do to respond to the MSJ.
  4. From the CA Supreme Court: Section 98(a) requires an affiant to provide an address within 150 miles of the place of trial at which lawful service can be made of a form of process that directs the affiant to attend trial. (Meza v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (2019) 6 Cal.5th 844, 866.)
  5. CCP 98. A party may, in lieu of presenting direct testimony, offer the prepared testimony of revelant witnesses in the form of affidavits or declarations under penalty of perjury. The prepared testimony may include, but need not be limited to, the opinions of expert witnesses, and testimony which authenticates documentary evidence. To the extent the contents of the prepared testimony would have been admissible were the witness to testify orally thereto, the prepared testimony shall be received as evidence in the case, provided that either of the following applies: (a) A copy has been served on the party against whom it is offered at least 30 days prior to the trial, together with a current address of the affiant that is within 150 miles of the place of trial, and the affiant is available for service of process at that place for a reasonable period of time, during the 20 days immediately prior to trial. Was an address provided that was within 150 miles from the court? @sadinca @RyanEX
  6. The OP is in Cuyahoga County. Rivera v. RENT A CENTER, INC, Court of Appeals, 8th Distrct, Cuyahoga County, 2015 “Thus, if a dispute even arguably falls within the parties' arbitration provision, the trial court must stay the proceedings until arbitration has been completed.”
  7. How did you determine Midland is not in good standing with the state of DE? The only difference between a “debt portfolio company” and a traditional debt collection agency is that debt portfolio companies purchase defaulted and collect those debts for themselves whereas traditional collection agencies do not purchase accounts. Instead, they strictly collect for whichever company hires them to collect.
  8. Would a MTC be in lieu of an an answer to the complaint or along with the answer to the complaint?
  9. You really need to get over the acknowledgment by ascension thing. Locating a copy of the agreement for an account that the plaintiff claims you owe means nothing more than you located the agreement for an account that the plaintiff claims you owe. You also have to realize that if the plaintiff presents credit card statements with your correct name and address, most judges are going to be pretty sure that, absent ID theft, you opened the account. You’d have to come up with a good explanation as to how those statements show your name and address but were never delivered to your mailbox and you never realized there was a credit card account opened in your name.
  10. If the judge denies a MTC, you’d probably have the right to an interlocutory appeal. That would allow you to immediately appeal the judge’s denial to.a higher court.
  11. Yes, the SOL clock stopped when they filed suit. However, since they dismissed, it should be as though they never filed in the first place. BUT, you need to make sure your state doesn’t have a “saving statute”. Even though the debt is now outside the SOL a saving statute would allow them to refile within a certain amount of time.
  12. It is not an admission that you acknowledge the debt. A JDB claims to own the account and, therefore, is bound by the arbitration provision. How are they going to oppose it? The plaintiff can’t say it’s not a party to the contract because that would be admitting it does not own the account. It cannot say you are not a party to the contract because that would be admitting they sued the wrong person. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has copies of credit card agreements. By law, credit banks are required to provide their agreements to the Bureau. That’s where you would get the copy. 15 U.S.C. 1632(d) (d)Additional electronic disclosures (1)Posting agreements Each creditor shall establish and maintain an Internet site on which the creditor shall post the written agreement between the creditor and the consumer for each credit card account under an open-end consumer credit plan. (2)Creditor to provide contracts to the Bureau Each creditor shall provide to the Bureau, in electronic format, the consumer credit card agreements that it publishes on its Internet site. It would be difficult for the plaintiff or the judge to discredit a copy of an agreement that was required by law to be posted with the Bureau. “When one party to an agreement seeks to prevent another from proceeding to arbitration, judicial inquiry is limited to determining (1) whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists between the parties and, if so, (2) whether the dispute involved is within the scope of the arbitration provision. An agreement to arbitrate a dispute is an agreement to submit oneself as well as one's dispute to the arbitrators' jurisdiction.” Midomo Co., Inc. v. Presbyterian Hous. Dev. Co.,739 A.2d 180, 186 (Pa.Super.1999).