BV80

Moderators
  • Content Count

    19,765
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    269

BV80 last won the day on September 2

BV80 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,760 Excellent

About BV80

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

Profile Fields

  • Location
    USA

Recent Profile Visitors

7,843 profile views
  1. A process server is not considered a debt collector u dear the FDCPA. See 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6)(D). Unless he engaged in abusive or harassing behavior, simply telling you that he represented Synchrony is a doubtful violation. In addition, it would be your word against his.
  2. What about this part of the arbitration provision? ”If we prevail, we may not recover our arbitration fees, unless the arbitrator decides your Claim was frivolous.”
  3. @alwayswinning36 referenced MN. In MN, the SOL is tolled when an action is commenced. Commencement begins when a summons and complaint is properly served. From the MN Supreme Court’ Because Heitland was not served on or before August 1, 2014, the statute of limitations expired on Melillo's claim before proper service had occurred. Melillo v. Heitland, 880 N.W.2d 862, 864 (Minn.2016). Cited in an article from the MN Bar Association: In order to properly commence a civil action and avoid having a statute of limitations period expire, service must be proper under Rule 3.01. See, e.g., Mellett v. Fairview Health Servs., 634 N.W.2d 421, 424 (Minn. 2001). https://www.mnbar.org/docs/default-source/sections/2019-20-time's-up-manual.pdf?sfvrsn=10
  4. I understand. You must point out the lack of specificity in their documentation. Use the rules of evidence to discredit the admissibility of the documents (lack of authentication). I think the reason they won’t provide all of Schedule 1 is because it would contain loans belonging to other people. However, what they provided is no proof of a “Schedule 1”. They referenced Schedule 1 but have provided no proof of the existence of such a document. All you have is their claim that that one line came from the alleged document. They filed the MSJ. They have the burden of proving there is no genuine issue of material fact that precludes judgment in their favor. You have to show that they have not met that burden.
  5. I don’t know if the arbitrator will require authentication of docs or not, but I would raise that argument. Check the MI rules of evidence for business records. In court, records must be authenticated. I would also argue that despite what the plaintiff claims, the records do not clearly show that your loan was sold to Velocity. Which specific record shows your account number included in a sale? Read the following from the MI Court of Appeals. Although it’s an unpublished (not precedent) opinion, it is interesting and may give you some ideas and case law that you can use. Here’s an excerpt from the opinion’ Midland Funding, LLC v. Bassett (MI Court of Appeals, 2018) “Rather, our issue with the chain of title documents is that they do not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that plaintiff owns defendant's debt. Although the chain of title documents admitted affirmatively show Midland Financial purchased a debt pool from Asset Acceptance, LLC, which was originally owned by FIA Card Services, N.A., the trial court's finding that defendant's individual debt was included in that debt pool is clearly erroneous.” https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3316089820981380489&q=“assignee”+AND+“credit+card”&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=4,23
  6. Did Velocity provide any affidavits at all? If so, from which company(s)?
  7. It’s possible that they provide the documentation to be signed by banks. Velocity will need to show that the signed documents are genuine. If you claim documents are fake, it’s on you to provide the proof. The fact that Velocity has unendorsed copies is not much proof. Could you post redacted copies of both the endorsed and unendorsed docs?
  8. The lack of endorsement does not automatically indicate a document to be fake. All it means is that it’s not endorsed and doesn’t provide proof of anything. Look at the checks in your checkbook (for those who still use checks). The fact that they are not yet filled out does not make them fake.
  9. What do you mean by “having the means to produce fake documents”?
  10. The plaintiff claims it that owns the account in question, you opened that account, and owe the balance. You are merely exercising the right allowed in the cardmember agreement related to the account the plaintiff claims you opened. Notice I wrote “plaintiff claims”. That does not mean you admit to the plaintiff’s claims.
  11. That judge deserves a take-down from the appeals court. But, you’re correct that an appeal is more difficult to prepare and takes more effort and time. Don’t feel badly if circumstances in your life right now don’t allow you to take that time or if you’re tired and just don’t have the energy Just do what is right and best for you at this time. That’s all anyone can do.
  12. Bless your heart! The judge is an idiot. He is both ignorant and misinformed. I understand if you choose to settle. You have to do what is best for you, and that is all that matters. You researched and did your best to put up a great fight. We all think you did an excellent job. Unfortunately, due to a stupid judge, it seems the odds were against you. Get this behind you, and enjoy your new home. I wish you the very best for the future. 😀
  13. Any dispute must be specific. For instance, you might dispute the accuracy of the balance. Did the account become delinquent in 2015? The 7-year reporting period is based upon the date of first delinquency. That is the date the account became delinquent and was never again brought back to a current status. In the event the accuracy of information is verified, you could sue for the CRA’s delay in responding, but be prepared to prove that you have standing to sue. In other words, you would have to show how the delayed response injured you. Without proof of an injury, a technical violation can be deemed insufficient to show standing, and the lawsuit would be dismissed. Proving an injury could be especially difficult if the information in the entry is accurate. You would bear the burden of proving the CRA’s delayed response was a result of negligence or willful delay. Note that if you proceeded, the only way you could receive statutory damages is if you prove the CRA willfully delayed its response. If you can only prove negligence, you would be required to have actual damages.
  14. While it may be a violation, it has nothing to do with removing the collection account unless the account is invalid and should not be reported. You wou”d have to show that the CRA did not perform a reasonable investigation. Is the account valid?
  15. The CFPB issued the following statement: ”The Bureau indicated that in evaluating compliance with these dispute investigations timeframes, the Bureau will consider the individual circumstances that consumer reporting agencies and furnishers face as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Statement makes clear, however, that the Bureau expects furnishers and consumer reporting agencies to make good faith efforts to investigate disputes as quickly as possible, and that absent impediments due to COVID-19, disputes should be resolved under FCRA requirements.” What reason did you provide to the CRAs for your dispute? Did you dispute as “not mine” or was it based upon a specific item of information within the entry such as the balance, date of first delinquency, etc.?