For anyone being sued in DE Court of Common Pleas it is helpful to know that on July 1, 2011 the Court's Administrative Directive 2011-1 became effective. It requires that creditors filing consumer collection cases with the Court must also submit: PLEADING REQUIREMENTS: 1) the caption shall name both the original creditor and the current assignee; 2) the name of the original creditor and the last four digits of the original account number of the debt; 3) the name of the current owner of the debt; 4) the full chain of the assignment of the debt, if the action is not filed by the original creditor; and 5)the amount claimed as currently owed, broken down by principal due at the time of default, interest, fees and other charges. EXHIBITS TO THE COMPLAINT: 1) a copy of the original contract or other documentary evidence of the original debt; and 2) a copy of the assignment or other documentary evidence establishing that the plaintiff/creditor is the owner of the debt. If the debt has been assigned more than once, then each assignment or other writing evidencing transfer of ownership must be attached to establish an unbroken chain of ownership. Each assignment or other writing evidencing transfer of ownership must contain at least the last four digits of the original account number of the debt purchased and must clearly show the debtor’s name associated with that account number. MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY: the moving party must certify regarding good faith efforts to reach an agreement before applying to the Court for relief. Copy/paste the directive into your search engine b/c I can't post links and it's a PDF on the Courts website. Most of the work is done for you with this Directive but many lawyers don't know about it and if they are, they are ignoring it and filing cases the old way - without proof of anything. Plus, the Court is now considering scheduling trials 12 weeks after the respondent's filing. Hope this helps!
Chase Bank USA, N.A. v Gergis 2011 NY Slip Op 51068(U) Decided on June 15, 2011 Civil Court Of The City Of New York, Kings County Dear, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau Attack the affiant and the account statements: "At trial, plaintiff attempted to establish damages by offering into evidence copies of defendant's three credit account statements which set forth the alleged unpaid balances. Through the testimony of Mr. Lavergne, plaintiff attempted to establish that the account statements were "business records" within the meaning of CPLR 4518 and therefore admissible. For the reasons that follow, the Court refused to allow them in evidence." "In sum, the offered "robo-testimony" was insufficient to establish its case by a preponderance of the credible evidence." I can't post links yet but in the collections forum there is a legal precedents thread. Google cole taylor bank v. corrigan 230 ill app 3d 122 129 595 ne 2d 177 and it should come up. I just went to court yesterday, prepared to argue the same against Midland. Lucky enough, the judge took one look at the statement dates and denied their MSJ. The OC prepared and mailed out a stmnt AFTER the account was sold! (She also denied another MSJ in another case where there were gaps in the statement dates. She said they couldn't prove actual damages with questionable records.)