exbb

Members
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Good

About exbb

  • Rank
    Newbie
  • Birthday 12/17/1962

Profile Fields

  • Location
    mi
  1. (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of this or any other rule, discovery is not permitted in actions in the small claims division of the district court or in civil infraction actions. Does this mean I cannot commence "discovery" in my case since it is a civil case?
  2. Wow, you guys are good. Thanks for allowing me to pick your collective brains.
  3. Has the judge ruled on your MTS yet? If the affidavit is just a general affidavit attesting that the facts in the Complaint are true, Judge has not ruled on my MTS yet, I have a date of August 8th for that. The aff. attests: that the CA is owner/assignee, they purchased said credit account, that I owe such and such amount they have a right to sue me I used Mi case rules to say that the affiant did not attach a written instrument and she has no personal knowledge of my account The attorneys countered that they don't have to attach the contract since I have it. ( I do not) And that case law Lipa vs. Asset Acceptance ruled that a CA doesn't have to have a contract or proper affidavit.
  4. So if the judge in that case rules that CAs don't have to be in possession of the original contract and don't have to have a proper affidavit, is his opinion binding to all defendants in Michigan? I now feel like my defense has been dealt a fatal blow. I don't have any documents showing the existence of the account, or the balance owed. They have stated an account number, balance at charge-off and an alleged date of my last payment. I was under the impression that if they aren't in possession of an original signed contract that some judges would agree with me and ask the CA to prove their statements, but after I read the entire transcript of Lipa vs Asset Acceptance, I think I am wrong. If so, I would want others on this board who are living in MI to learn from my experience. I wonder if my next move (I feel like I'm playing a chess game) is to locate a case law where the judge's ruling is the opposite of Lipa. Or do you think I'd be wasting my time looking for one?
  5. ]I'm posting this as a head's up for others in Michigan using the MCL 600.2145, and MCR 2.113(F) (failing to attach a written instrument) Palisades answered, it is long, I will summarize. they say I am misapplying MCR2.113(F) because said rules states "unless the instrument is in the possession of the adverse party." (this is in regard to them not attaching a written instrument) Apparently, they are assuming I have it, which I don't. I'm also guessing that means they don't have it either. Okay, now here's the legal jargon: "MCL 600.2145 sets forth criteria, which if followed, will create a prima facie showing on the part of the compliant party; thus it is merely a burden-shifting device" Then they quote Lipa vs Asset Acceptance.(where the debtor argued that the affidavit was signed a month before the complaint) Here's a quote from that case: "There is no legal requirement that a creditor attach to its complaint either a credit agreement or a proper affidavit. The Statute merely prescribes a procedure that eases the burden on a creditor seeking to collect a deliquent open account by converting it to an account stated"
  6. It states that Jane Doe is an account spe******t of Palisades she's authorized to make Affidavit in support of an application for Judgement Plaintiff is assignee of debt lists the account number lists the sum of debt The affidavit is dated further out than the required 10 days prior to the summons.
  7. Some have suggested that the SOL has expired on my debt because of the governing clause in the Chase agreement which states: The terms and enforcement of this account shall be governed and interpretted in accordance with federal law and to the extent state law applies. The law of Delaware without regard to conflict-of-law principles. The law of Delaware, where we and your account are located will apply no matter where you live or use the account. SOL for Michigan is 6 years. My debt deliquency is now at 4 yrs. What is the most time-saving way for me to search for case law in this regard?
  8. Here's my vital statistics in my JDB suit in district ct here in Mi: I am 9 days post filing my denials to S/C and filing MTS affidavit I have 28 days to answer the Plaintiff's Request for Admissions. My question: Some have suggested I use the SOL in the Chase cc contract that states they will use the DE law. (sol in DE = 3yrs, MI=6yrs). Can I really use this? Do I need case law to support it?
  9. I was served summons/complaint. Palisades Collection vs me. I've put hours into figuring out how to answer complaint. Now I have a question about the affidavit. The motions to strike affidavits that I have read invoke the "written instrument" defense. If the affidavit just states that the Plaintiff is now the owner/assignee of debt obligation stemming from a credit account extended to Defendant, is that a reference to a "written instrument" The "complaint" page of the summons does reference "an agreement for the extension of credit with First USA". Basically, I want to know if I can file a motion to strike the affidavit since they did not attach a copy of the written instument. Or is it the complaint that I have an issue with? Also, how can I find out when I need to file a MTS. The complaint answer is due tomorrow by 4:30.