• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


debtzapper last won the day on June 11

debtzapper had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,272 Excellent


About debtzapper

  • Rank
    CIC Member

Profile Fields

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

2,709 profile views
  1. You win! Great job with the arbitration strategy. Even some consumer lawyers now are representing their debtor clients by arbitrating their case.
  2. You did a great job, rob. And thanks to all those on this board who helped you. Superb advice from some very bright, very experienced "litigators."
  3. Great work! And thank you for wanting to join the military and serve your country. I wish you well.
  4. Forget about contesting their business records. Idaho rules are irrelevant. Your opposition to their MSJ must be based solely on your right to compel them to stay their case and enter into arbitration. If the court grants your motion, it is likely they will drop their case because of the expense of arbitration.
  5. Still, the CFPB is not the vigilant, pro-consumer agency it once was. It is hated by the financial industry, and it has willing allies in Congress who want to weaken it.
  6. Debt collectors could soon get an all-clear to text, email and private-message consumers who have fallen behind in debt repayments -- on an unlimited basis. Consumer groups decried the proposed rule, saying it will enable harassment of consumers through electronic communications as well as phone calls. While the proposed law would limit debt collectors to seven calls per week per debt, one consumer advocacy group said debtors could still feel ambushed, especially when combined with texting and emailing. "We are horrified that the CFPB's proposed rule will actually authorize harassment of consumers through phone calls, emails and texts," said Margot Saunders, an attorney at the National Consumer Law Center, in an emailed statement. Even limiting debt collectors to seven calls per week could prove to be overwhelming for some consumers, the National Consumer Law Center said. For instance, a student with eight loans could receive 56 calls each week, the group noted.
  8. Congrats to the OP for his persistence and hard work and to the MEMBERS who continue to give generously of their time and expertise to this board.
  9. To learn more about Arbitration, read this from @fisthardcheese *Learn About The Arbitration Strategy**
  10. If you live in Western or Central OH, Greg Reichenbach is a very fine consumer lawyer. I know him from a TCPA listserv. Or go to A consultation is free.
  11. This is a published January 2017 decision from the Idaho Supreme Court. The court held Portfolio Recovery Assoc, did not prove its case because an affidavit lacked adequate foundation. It is interesting what the court says about electronic documents. s:// MacDonald argued that the statements contained in the Robertson Affidavit are likely based on information contained on a computer screen. We agree. The fact that Robertson's statements are based on electronic information, however, still implicates Rule 803(6). The Rule makes it clear that a business record can be in any format. In other words, a paper printout is not required to fall under the Rule. Having said that, however, we recognize that electronic information raises heightened concerns about accuracy and authenticity. This is where the foundation for Robertson's statements falls apart. Robertson stated in his affidavit that Citibank records showed that the account linked to MacDonald was sold to PRA. He did not identify the records he examined and did not explain when or how the information was entered into the Citibank records. Robertson also stated that Citibank prepared and delivered a spreadsheet to PRA reflecting account information as of the sale date. Robertson does not explain, however, how that spreadsheet was made or the procedural safeguards that were used to make sure that the information taken from Citibank records and put on the spreadsheet was accurate. His affidavit also does not contain any statement verifying that the information on the spreadsheet was still accurate at the time of his affidavit. The reality is that consumers do not always know or understand when accounts are sold and may make payments to their credit card company that are not reflected on a spreadsheet created at the time of the sale of the debt. For these reasons we find that the foundation for the statements contained in the Robertson Affidavit was not adequate under Rule 803(6).