• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

25 Excellent

About theoryman

  • Rank
    CIC Member

Profile Fields

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I beat them, LVNV / Stenger and Stenger, on SOL using the documents they sent me. Got Dismissed w Prejudice! They do not have the paper work and fold easy. IMO, don't settle, fight, fight, FIGHT! I've also bested LVNV before... Both were for MORE that yours. Fight, don't give those bloodsuckers a dime. --
  2. My fight with them... They don't have the paperwork and they fold easy! --
  3. So, today I get the settlement agreement in the mail... A bit more expansive than I expected. A line from the agreement: 'Consumer agrees that, from the date of execution of this Agreement, Consumer will keep strictly confidential the nature of this Action, the claims, the matters giving rise to this agreement and the substance of this Agreement.' I read this as 'Once you sign this you can't talk about it or post about it or anything else.' Right? However, I am not required to go out and erase things I have already said or posted. And I see nothing that would keep me from OCR'ing,
  4. I think you have done quite a bit. At my case on 30SEPT2013, the JDB attorney commented that it was MUCH harder to win on account stated recently in western MI. I think that might be your doing... I know your stuff helped me win my first case in 2011. Thanks! --
  5. LVNV bites the dust in MI. Dismissed with prejudice! --
  6. I was up against LVNV, not Midland, but they did not like the looks of that Delaware stuff at all... After playing the tape back, I also noticed that he had commented on how hard it was proving account stated in western Michigan. Wounder if there is starting to be a sea change here... --
  7. Dismissed with prejudice!! And an oral agreement, on the record in front of the judge, that LVNV will remove their tradelines from my credit reports forthwith. I think this counts as a win for the good guys! Only $600 or so, but still a win! They did not want to litigate the SoL issue at all. They did not like the stuff I'd brought in about the Midland Funding case in Delaware. They said it was not binding on a Michigan court. I agreed it wasn't binding, but said that it was persuasive and that this judge is known to be very hard on proof for an account stated claim. They then folded
  8. After reading this, I wounder if there is precedent in other states for SoL starting with the date of last purchase as opposed to date of last payment? --
  9. I didn't open the account or pay on it, but I see no way to prove that I didn't pay on it. Example: it could have been paid by Money Order or mailed cash or something else. I have NO intention of putting my bank records into the court record. That is just asking for more ID theft... So far, they just claim those dates. No documentation of any type for the date of last payment or date of charge off. They do have one of those affidavits signed by an LVNV employee saying that 'this is what we got from the OC' that includes date of account origination and date of assignment, but of course,
  10. My win against LVNV and WWR: Take a look, it might help, --
  11. Also, have Pre-Trial on Monday... Comments on their answer... They have provided more dates, but no documentation for them... Without a new affidavit, aren't these just unsupported claims or hearsay? It looks like they just cut and pasted a standard set of defenses... --
  12. Well, got an answer in the mail. Here it is... Amounts rounded to $100, dates changed to 1st of the month. NOW COMES Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, LVNV Funding LLC (herein referred to as "Plaintiff) by and through its attorneys, Stenger & Stenger, P.C., and hereby enters its Response to the Counterclaim filed by Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff (herein referred to as "Defendant") and states as follows: 1. Plaintiff denies Defendant's allegation contained in the Counterclaim as untrue. As stated by the Defendant, pursuant to MCL 600.5807(8), the statute of limitations governing Plaintiffs c