blindspot99

Members
  • Content Count

    82
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About blindspot99

  • Rank
    CIC Member

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Michigan

Recent Profile Visitors

240 profile views
  1. Again I would listen to everyones advice here and make a few calls and get an attorney involved. Another route which just came to mind (and I would do this in parallel and not a replacement for the others) is to use social networking. Locate the facebook accounts for VW and the dealership and post a few negative complaints about your situation and see what happens. My sister recently had an issue with Art Van with a purchase and they would not address the issue or give her a refund. She spent 2 weeks trying to work with the store. After posting on facebook and twitter suddenly they bent over backwards and came and picked up the stuff and left them a check within a week for her agreeing to delete the posts. In another case I had a family member working through a short sale on their house where the bank dragged their feet for 9 months. After a post to their facebook customer service page and they closed in 40 days. Again I would not use this as the only method in your case but it can give you some leverage to get them to sort this out. The louder you are in a public setting the more likely they will be to come to an arraignment.
  2. You are right if you were buying a car. If it was a lease, they would likely come after you for the repo fees, towing, late fees, 8 months of missed lease payments (I say this from their perspective) and any overages for mileage during the lease period, and accrued interest. Also they will probably report this on your credit reports as well. I would speak to an attorney in your area and get to get this addressed as the implications could impact you for some time.
  3. Ok, please consider me thick headed but I am just trying to get at the details here. So for example in my case where the JDB started tacking on a statutory 5% interest rate from the month they purchased the alleged account but did not charge any interest from the time the OC charged-off the account and to the point that the JDB purchased it; would this be considered a violate as well?
  4. @bmc100 "that interest"; does that include tacking on interest only after they purchased the account? As to the contract are we talking about the original credit agreement with the original creditor or is it stipulated in the bill of sale to the jdb or some other agreement?
  5. Just to clarify, we are talking about interest added between the time the OC charged off the account and when the JDB purchased the account. Correct? The JDB can still charge interest from the time they purchased the account going forward up to either a fixed percentage set by each state or an amount governed by the original contract. Is that correct?
  6. Now in their exhibit list they did list billing statements as one of the items but I did ask for them during discovery and they never sent them. Judge gave them 30 days to produce or they would be precluded from trial. So if they do have them and try to submit them for trial I am pretty sure I can get them excluded.
  7. They actually did not produce any statements from the original account. Only a statement of account from Asset Acceptance. They have not produced any actual billing statements from the original account. The only thing they sent at the last minute was that transaction detail list with no authentication of where it came from or who created it. Now from what I have heard the attorney argue in court, they are arguing that these records are all electronic and are sufficient as they have been incorporated into their records and their records custodian generated the copies produced for this case. They are only focusing on account stated as a method of suit and not open account or on contract and have argued that those are irrelevant in an account stated case. So far the judge has not given any indication as to whether he favors one argument over another.
  8. Shelia98, my rogs were directed to assets affiant in regards to her knowledge in the affidavit they attached to the original complaint not the OC. At the time I made the rogs I had no affidavit from the OC. Now they did produce during discovery an affidavit from the OC in support of only the first bill of sale. It makes no reference to me, the account or any of the other bill of sales. I already tried to get it thrown out or limited in scope to what it says in my motion in limine but that motion in general was denied and the judge did not speak directly about any of my arguments so not sure where I stand on this for trial. BMC100 I truly hope they do not produce a witness. Then I know I have a shot. If they do I am going to attack their creditbility and knowledge. But in regards to first hand knowledge reading MRE it says they only have to have knowledge of how they maintain their records which includes those integrated from other companies to lay foundation to get the items admitted into evidence. Also if the person is not allowed to testify beyond admitting records I am going to expect their attorney to object to my questions in regards to first hand knowledge as irrelevant. How do you overcome that?
  9. They were directed at Gina Vinci only. The answers are focused on the hearsay rules and the business exception. Also I am pretty sure if they tried to use the answers I could get them excluded as they were after the 30 day response time the Judge ordered for them. Considering this was dated after my motion hearing and hearing my arguments, I am guessing they are trying to focus on my motions getting denied and trying to shove the documents down my throat. Maybe try to use this if the records keeper does not show. They do spell out very clearly that they sign the documents in front of a notary at the time they are made. The notary signature on the first affidavit does not match their application. However anything I have notarized from them are all from different notaries. At least three I think. Sadly I am right in Assets backyard. They are literally 20 minutes away so the likelihood of them sending someone is high.
  10. Shelia98, I think you are misunderstanding or I am. This person answered my interrogatories for the original affiant Gina Vinci and the answers are notarized, so does that make it an affidavit? He did attach the bill of sale documents and a print out of their electronic information which they previously sent. It is title supplementary response to defendants interrogatories.
  11. It is too late for any more motions before trial. Nor will they be heard on trial date. As to the MI rules and witnesses (assuming this supposed person shows up). There is an exception to the witness lists as well. Specifically MCR 2.401(I)(1)(2) Witness Lists. The witness list must include: the name of each witness, and the witness' address, if known; however, records custodians whose testimony would be limited to providing the foundation for the admission of records may be identified generally; So they listed records keeper of asset acceptance generically. At my motion hearing last week the attorney was adamant that it would be Gina Vinci, but in reality it could be anyone from Asset according to the rules. The records custodian and who signs the original affidavit to the complaint can be two different people. I am thinking I might need to subpeana Gina. But not sure if that would help at this point. I can see their game plan at this point. They are going to fight to get the records custodian to get the bill of sales and the transaction transcript admitted on record. MRE902(11) self authentication: Certified records of regularly conducted activity. The original or a duplicate of a record, whether domestic or foreign, of regularly conducted business activity that would be admissible under rule 803(6), if accompanied by a written declaration under oath by its custodian or other qualified person certifying that (A) The record was made at or near the time of the occurrence of the matters set forth by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge of those matters; ( The record was kept in the course of the regularly conducted business activity; and © It was the regular practice of the business activity to make the record. A party intending to offer a record into evidence under this paragraph must provide written notice of that intention to all adverse parties, and must make the record and declaration available for inspection sufficiently in advance of their offer into evidence to provide an adverse party with a fair opportunity to challenge them. MRE 803(6) (6) Records of regularly conducted activity. A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, transactions, occurrences, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, or by certification that complies with a rule promulgated by the supreme court or a statute permitting certification, unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness. The term "business" as used in this paragraph includes business, institution, association, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for profit.
  12. Well, no. They simply sent another supplemental response to discovery. Specifically answers to the affiant Gina Vinci and reattached the bill of sale documents. It is signed by Mr Proctor and notarized by a D. Groppi., So it is not her answering those questions it is this Kenneth Proctor. No title mentioned. Maybe it is her boss or someone employed for litigation purposes.
  13. Need some thoughts and strategy suggestions for trial. 1st. I received a Secretary of State application for the notary on the original affidavit attached to the complaint. Surprise the signature does not match. Its not even close. Now the judge already limited the scope at my motion to compel and told me not to address possible robo-signing and struck my interrogatories in regards to it. I also tried to strike the affidavit on grounds other than the notary signature earlier this week and lost. I have trial a few weeks away. Is this new information of any benefit to me at this point and how could I get it in front of the judge if possible? 2nd. I just got another letter from Asset answering the interrogatory questions that the judge ordered them to answer. However the person answering them is not the original affiant on the affidavit attached to the complaint. The original affiant was a GINA VINCI. This person answering the interrogatories is a Kenneth Proctor and is notarized by a different notary. So I think instead of having the original affiant at trial as the records keeper they are going to have this Kenneth Proctor come. In the answers to the interrogatories they clearly state that they sign the affidavits in front of a notary. Any ideas or suggestions on how to tackle this at trial?
  14. I completely understand that I need to object again to each of the items they are going to submit and I intend to. The judge really did not make any statements in regards to whether my arguments were valid or not in regards to regularly conducted business. I think he generally just ignored the transaction record as I did not originally have it included in the motion. I think you are right he wants to hear it out at trial. He also was not willing to move trial to hear my motion for summary disposition first or to hear it early. He did not make any comments in regards to it to give me an indication as to whether it was valid or would be heard.
  15. So basically the same thing I argued in my motion in limine and was denied at this time. I hounded those two rules on my motions today for each item the presented during discovery and got no where. Maybe they will have a different impact at trial. @bmc100 I can't thank you enough for all of your help. Thanks.