BV80

Moderators
  • Content Count

    19,159
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    230

BV80 last won the day on June 21

BV80 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,620 Excellent

About BV80

Profile Fields

  • Location
    USA

Recent Profile Visitors

6,184 profile views
  1. The amendment to the law occurred in 2010. But unfortunately, in regard to the notice being sent, it’s a he said/she said.
  2. I believe @BackFromTheDebtis referring to this: 422.409  Notice of assignment. (1)  The customer is authorized to pay the assignor until the customer receives notification of assignment of the rights to payment pursuant to a consumer credit transaction and that payment is to be made to the assignee. A notification which does not reasonably identify the rights assigned is ineffective. If requested by the customer, the assignee must seasonably furnish reasonable proof that the assignment has been made and unless the assignee does so the customer may pay the assignor. From Scheunemann v. JC Christensen “Thus, the statute does not require JCC to furnish notice or proof of assignment to plaintiffs, but rather requires the assignee — here, Resurgent — to furnish the notice or proof.” The assignee, not the OC, is required to furnish the notice. From Johnson v. LVNV Funding LPlaintiffs contend that LVNV Funding violated the WCA by filing the state-court lawsuit without first providing a notice of assignment from the original creditor to LVNV Funding. (Doc. 1 at 4.) But the statute does not tie the validity of the assignment to the notice requirement. Instead, it merely provides that payments made by the debtor to the original lender count as valid payments until notice of the assignment is made. All this means is that if plaintiffs paid the original lender, that payment counts toward payment of their debt, even if an assignment had occurred. It does not mean that the assignment was invalid or that LVNV Funding could not sue.”
  3. Here is the law to which I believe you are referring. 559.715 Assignment of consumer debts.—This part does not prohibit the assignment, by a creditor, of the right to bill and collect a consumer debt. However, the assignee must give the debtor written notice of such assignment as soon as practical after the assignment is made, but at least 30 days before any action to collect the debt. The assignee is a real party in interest and may bring an action to collect a debt that has been assigned to the assignee and is in default. It says the “assignee” (not the OC) must provide notice at least 30 days before attempting to collect the debt. However, that’s a he said/she said situation. You can claim it was not sent while they can claim it was sent.
  4. Are you referring to this? 422.409  Notice of assignment. (1)  The customer is authorized to pay the assignor until the customer receives notification of assignment of the rights to payment pursuant to a consumer credit transaction and that payment is to be made to the assignee. A notification which does not reasonably identify the rights assigned is ineffective. If requested by the customer, the assignee must seasonably furnish reasonable proof that the assignment has been made and unless the assignee does so the customer may pay the assignor. Scheunemann v JC Christensen Thus, the statute does not require JCC to furnish notice or proof of assignment to plaintiffs, but rather requires the assignee — here, Resurgent — to furnish the notice or proof. The assignee, not the OC, must furnish the notice.
  5. @rhonda352 Along with what has been suggested by @Harry Seaward, you can eliminate most of your defenses because they do not apply to your case. Unless your state laws require the above, it is not applicable. Your cardmember agreement states that accounts can be sold or assigned. If Midland could prove it purchased the account, then that’s the same as having an account with Midland. This is not required unless your state laws require it. If they provide a bill of sale or affidavit from Synchrony, then Synchrony knows it sold the account. An agreement between Midland and Synchrony was strictly for the purchase of the debt so that Midland could collect. Midland did not make an agreement to pay for the account and not hold you liable. Accord and satisfaction only applies to the parties of an agreement. You were not a party to the sale between Synchrony and Midland. It would only apply if you had already settled and paid the account.
  6. Yes. JCS purchased the rights to the account, but it did not purchase the rights to the activities of the OC. Just because JCS became the new owner doesn’t mean it can change what took place on the account before it was sold. In addition, credit reporting is a separate issue. One business cannot tell the CRAs to change or delete what another business reports.
  7. Jefferson Capital only had the authority to remove its own TL. It could not authorize the removal of the OC’s TL. Only the OC could do that.
  8. I’ll defer to CA members to help you with discovery. 😀 They also understand CCP 96 & 98. @RyanEX @sadinca
  9. Pretty much all they have to do is show credit card statements with your name and address. The reason I’m asking the au is to determine that person’s relationship to you. If it was your spouse who made a payment out of your joint account, that could be more of a problem than a parent who made a payment that you didn’t know about.
  10. I guarantee you it’s a scam. A common term among the scammers is “claim number.” Have you googled the phone number? If it’s a legitimate agency, a google search of the number should reveal the agency’s name.
  11. You know, I’m not sure if there’s a particular document they might have that would show that information. But if they were to ask (such as in discovery requests) if there was an au, you would have to answer honestly. Who was the au? Have you looked into CCP 96 & 98?
  12. If that’s the case, you could honestly deny that you made a payment. How far the plaintiff would be willing to follow up to determine the origin of the payment, I don’t know. BTW, who was the AU who made the payment?
  13. BV80

    Inquiries

    How would the entity with which the OP had an account not have permissible purpose? 1681b(a)(3)(A) (a) In general Subject to subsection (c), any consumer reportingagency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other: (3) To a person which it has reason to believe— (A) intends to use the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer;
  14. California does allow for the shorter SOL of another state. See Resurgence Financial, LLC v. Chambers. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10121350625093322993&q=“borrowing+statute”&hl=en&as_sdt=4,5 However, if I’m not mistaken, Citibank is out of South Dakota which has. 6-year SOL.