bloomingfern

Members
  • Content Count

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Good

About bloomingfern

  • Rank
    Newbie

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Oregon
  1. Just received Atty's prehearing statement. Plaintiff is O.C.. Here is what they are bringing: Witness - employee of O.C. who will testify to the records of the O.C. - different person than who is listed on the Affidavit. Billing Statements - years worth - 3 different account #s are listed Application - computer printout with random #s and comments. Wouldn't know it was an application - my name is not on it anywhere. I have some good arguments, I was just wondering if I should prepare a prehearing statement and if so, what types of evidence could I provide? Thanks!
  2. Working on my Motion to Strike Affidavit. Tried to read up on it in the Rules & Procedures, but didn't really find it or understand. Thanks!
  3. Thank you OregonActor for bringing this to my attention! I thought it should be shared with any others dealing with Suttell & Hammer. SPOKANE (CN) - A Bellevue law firm works with collection agencies to mislead courts and consumers by using "robo-signers" in Minnesota who sign up to 400 affidavits a day, falsely swearing they have "personal knowledge" of cases in Washington state, to secure speedy default judgments, according to a federal class action. The class claims that Encore Capital Group, Midland Funding, and Midland Credit Management work with the Suttell & Hammer law firm, faxing a boilerplate form to a "legal spe******t" in Minnesota, who signs the affidavit before any supporting documents are attached. "Encore Capitol Group ('Encore Capitol') has developed a proprietary, sophisticated, 'system driven' collection process based on the 'predictive behavior' of consumers (and state courts). In conjunction with its subsidiaries and 'franchisee' law firms (including the Suttell Law Firm) it engages in computer automated, high volume, state court litigation in the collection of distressed debt (purchased at pennies on the dollar). "That predictive behavior results in a very high default rate of judgments of unproven cases or for inflated amounts: 1) because the filing of the collection lawsuit by an attorney implicitly misrepresents that the attorney has had meaningful involvement in developing and evaluation of the case against the consumer-debtor, 2) because consumer-debtors frequently default if it is made to appear that a creditor, represented by an attorney rather than a collection agency has sued them, and 3) because that state courts reviewing high volume filings of defaults and summary judgments will enter judgments if it appears on the surface that documentation supporting the debt has been properly attached to the default or summary judgment package. The debt collectors collecting purchased distressed debt have a significant hurdle to overcome in the collection of large portfolios of distress debt (much of it aged) using the state courts. Due to the nature of the purchased distressed debt, the high volumes, and automation the defendants are unable to meet the requirements of the rules of evidence of providing proof of the records of the debt without misleading the state courts and consumer debtors. "Instead of providing actual admissible evidence of the proof required in a breach of contract lawsuit, the Encore defendants (with the knowledge of the Suttell attorney defendants) hire collection agency employees as 'Robo-signers,' according to the complaint. "The Robo-signers sign several hundred affidavits a day falsely claiming that they are a business records custodian with personal knowledge of the facts. They falsely claim in the affidavit knowledge of the assignment(s) of the debt, the amount of the debt, the interest rate, the default of the debt, the alleged credit card terms and conditions, and the record keeping procedures of every bank in America. "It is made to appear to the state court judges that the debt records filed with the court were attached to the affidavit by the affiant. This is not true. The affidavits are signed in Minnesota by a Midland Credit Management (a licensed collection agency) employee. Only the two (2) page affidavit is shipped to the Suttell Law Firm in Bellevue Washington. A non-attorney Suttell employee sometime later, as needed, selects and attaches documents to the 'business records affidavit' to send to the court for filing whenever a default or summary judgment motion is required. The court is lead to believe that the affiant has authenticated and established the reliability of the records but the affiant does not even know what records will be later attached to the affidavit by the Suttell employees." (Parentheses in complaint.) The complaint adds: "The affidavit is printed on a printer at the desk of a randomly selected MCMI employee, employed in St. Cloud, Minnesota. The person selected to sign the affidavit is based upon when the affidavit comes off the printer and which printer rather than any personal knowledge of the affiant of the account being collected." The class claims that each "legal spe******t" signs 100 to 400 affidavits a day. One spe******t who swore she had personal knowledge that "the plaintiff's predecessor in interest sold and assigned all right, title and interest" did not "have any personal knowledge of who the plaintiff, Midland Funding LLC's predecessor in interest was or even know what a 'predecessor in interest' was, nor what it means to have 'sold and assign all right title and interest,'" according to the complaint. The class claims that Encore developed its business using a sophisticated process that predicts the behavior of consumers. Defendant Midland Funding is wholly owned by defendant Midland Portfolio Service, which is owned by defendant Midland Credit Management, which is owned by defendant Encore Capitol Group, which is a publicly owned corporation that trades on the NASDAQ under the symbol ECPG, according to the complaint. All work out of the same address in San Diego. Defendants are Mark Case, Malisa Gurule, Karen Hammer, Isaac Hammer and William Suttell are all attorneys in Washington state, and all are employees of Suttell & Hammer, the complaint states. The class claims false affidavits were "served and filed in thousands of cases," in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Washington Consumer Protection Act and the Washington Collection Agency Act. The class seeks treble damages, disgorgement of interest, service charges, attorneys' fees, collection costs, delinquency charges or any other fees collected by the defendants, and injunctive relief. The class is represented by Michael Kinkley of Spokane.
  4. I'm being sued by O.C. - they have hired Atty's to represent them. We have an arbitration hearing scheduled for mid-January. They have filed a Motion for Summary Judgement based on the grounds that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the plaintiff is entitled to an award as a matter of law on its claim. They included an Affidavit from an "authorized agent" employee of O.C. who says that the statement included are based on personal knowledge or review of the business records. They say that their employment duties are to review records so they have knowlege of the said account and defendant, name and address of the debtor.......blah, blah, blah. The Affidavit continues that the defendant accepted the agreement by using the account and eventually failed to make payments. They attached a statement with a different amount, but explained on the affidavit how the amount was calculated. I need help with my Motion to Strike and my Responses & Objections to Summary Judgement. Thank you!
  5. I in in Oregon - mandatory arbitration for cases less than $50,000. Arbitrator was just chosen and I sent in my portion of the fees for arbitration. Then I received from the Attys the following: Motion and Order for Plaintiff to appear Telephonically Motion for Summary Award Atty are also requesting that the arbitrator consider the Motion for Summary Award BEFORE the arbritration hearing date is set! Including was an affadavit signed by unknown person claiming to be an employee of the O.C. who keeps the records saying that I, the defendent used the said account and was deliquent in the amount that they are suing for. I NEED HELP! HOW DO I RESPOND?? Thank you in advance.
  6. I read somewhere about a gentleman who was able to stop or delay a foreclosure by a writing letters to his state reps and/or congressman. I think he was in AZ. Will someone forward me that link? or a link to sample letters? I am desperate to stall my pending foreclosure - less than a month away!
  7. I have a house in Virginia that is in foreclosure. The sale date has been set for 11/29/10. I have applied for a loan modification, but it is still in review. VA is both a non-judicial and judicial state, but from what I've heard, most lenders go the non-judicial route because it is easier. I thought I had read somewhere that if they went the non-judicial route, they couldn't get a deficiency judgement for the remainder of the amount owed - does anyone know if that is true or not? Thanks!
  8. Please help. My mortgage was in default. I applied for a loan modication which they explained could take up to 12 weeks and now a foreclosure sale date has been set for 11/29. At one point they said that they would have an answer to me before the sale date, but now they are saying that they can't guarantee it. What can I do to stall?? The house is in VA which is both a judicial and non-judicial state. Thanks!
  9. The house is actually in VA which is both judicial and non-judicial. From what I have researched, most go the non-judicial route because they don't have to file in the courts. Is it still possible to use the produce the note defense?
  10. Need more information on this. Has anyone used this? And when would you file. Thanks!
  11. Haven't made a payment to my mortgage in 4 months I have applied for a loan modication and am waiting the 12 weeks for approval. In the meantime, my loan has been transferred to the foreclosure attorney and I just received letters from them yesterday. The letters stated that I have 30 days to dispute and 30 days to request the name of the original creditor. It also states that the note "may be lost" or unavailable at this time and the fact that the instrument is lost or cannot be produced shall not effect the authority of the trustee to sell. Does this mean I can't use the "produce the note" defense? Thanks!
  12. Recovering Attorney is correct. In Oregon - any claims less that $10,000 automatically are assigned to arbitration. The summons says that they defendant entered into a written credit agreement and became indebted on the account for goods, services and monies loaned. The defendant has defaulted on the obiligation by failing to make payments and currently owes $........ It also says that the plaintiff has made a demand on the defendant - 30 days prior and the defendant has failed or refuses to pay. This is NOT TRUE. The first communication I received from Suttell & Hammer was the summons. Thanks again for your help!
  13. Great. I need all the info I can get so I'll be well prepared. I send Suttell & Hammer my dates and choices of arbitrators. I will post when I hear back.
  14. I'm in Oregon - mandatory arbitration has been assigned. Atty's have asked for my dates and choice of arbitrators Is it too late to send a Request for Admins? There was no supporting documentation attached to my summons and I have not received a request for discovery from them. Not sure what they have or don't have??