Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Joseph Andrew Terry'.
1. Sued by Midland Funding via Joseph Andrew Terry of Gamache & Myers, P.C., St Louis, Mo 2.Served in person by process server 3.Complaint filed 4-16-13, 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Boone County, Missouri 4.O.C. GE Money Bank 5.Claims: Count 1. Suit on Contract 1. All times pertinent therein, Plaintiff was at all times relevant herein a A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, duly organized and existing under law. 2. Plaintiff is the holder of a valid assignment of an account which originated with GE MONEY BANK with an account number ending in *************. 3. Defendants is/are resident of BOONE COUNTY, Missouri. 4. GE MONEY BANK and Defendant entered into a contract, whereby GE MONEY BANK extended credit pursuant to the terms and conditions of a credit agreement (hereinafter referred to as "Agreement") and Defendant, in exchange for the use of the credit extended, agreed to pay GE MONEY BANK for all amounts due resulting from the authorized use pursuant to the Agreement, including any finance charges and any other charges due under the terms of the agreement. 5. GE MONEY BANK fully abided by the terms and conditions as set forth in said Agreement. 6. Defendant has not made all payments to GE MONEY BANK pursuant to the Agreement. 7. GE MONEY BANK sent monthly statements to the Defendant. 8. Defendant breached the Agreement by failing to pay the amount owed. 9. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants breach of the Agreement, GE MONEY BANK has sustained damages in the sum of $1,934.98. 10. GE MONEY BANK has fully performed, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement or its performance has excused due to Defendant's breach. 11. GE MONEY BANK, and subsequently, Plaintiff, have made demand for payment of the outstanding sum of $1,934.98, but Defendant has/have failed and refused to pay. Plaintiff seeks interest from December 31, 2012, which is the date of demand or subsequent to the date when demand for payment was made. Wherefore, Plaintiff, MIDLAND FUNDING LLC prays for judgement in Count 1 against Defendant, in a sum of $1934.98 plus interest and for all costs expended herein and for any other and further releif this Court deems just and proper. Count II Money had and received Comes now, Plaintiff blah blah blah alternative cause of action follows: 1. Plaintiff restates and re alleges each and every paragraph of Count I as if fully set forth herein. 2. Defendant received and used (or authorized use of) the credit knowing that GE MONEY BANK expected to be repaid for all monies advanced, together with interest thereon. With each use of the credit GE MONEY BANK paid money on Defendants behalf to the merchant with whom the credit was used. Defendant accepted said funds for the purchase of goods, wares, merchandise or services and has/have been unjustly enriched by failing to repay such sums. 3. Plaintiff is the assignee of the Issuer's right to be repaid by Defendant for such money had and received, and it is entitled to recover from Defendant the sum of $1934.98, together with interest as provided by law from December 31, 2012, all costs expended herein and for any other and further releif this Court deems just and proper. Count III Account Stated Comes now, Plaintiff, and for its alternative blah blah blah as follows: 1. Plaintiff restates and re alleges each and every paragraph of Counts I and Count II as if fully set forth herein 2. Defendant and GE MONEY BANK had previous financial transactions related to the Agreement issued to Defendant by GE MONEY BANK, at Defendants insistence and request. 3. Pursuant to said transactions, GE MONEY BANK sent Defendant statements of account, to which Defendant did not object. 4. Pursuant to the terms and conditions sent to Defendant in the Agreement, and governing its use, the Defendant made an unconditional promise to pay the amount due with the use of said card. 5. The balance agreed to by the parties is $1934.98. 6. The Defendant has failed to keep his promise to pay said balance, despited demant for the same having been made. 7. Plaintiff is the assignee of GE MONEY BANK to be repaid by Defendant on the account, and it is entitled to recover from Defendand the sum of $1934.98, that being the balance due through December 31, 2012. Wherefore, Plaintiff, Midland Funding llc prays for judgement in Count III against the Defendant in a sum of $1934.98, together with interest as provided by law from December 31, 2012, all costs expended herein and for any other and further releif this Court deems just and proper. 6. Answered complaint in time and filed a motion to strike their affidavit as well as my own notarized statement in support of pending motions and of finding MIDLAND FUNDING LLC is a vexatious litigator and violates the ABA model rules of professional conduct here is their affidavit: Melissa Haag, whose business address is 16 Mcleland Road Suite 101, St. Cloud, MN 56303, certifies and says: 1. I am employed as a Legal Specialist and have access to pertinent account records for Midland Credit Management, INC. ("MCM"), servicer of this account on behalf of plaintiff. I am a competent person over eighteen years of age, and make the statements herein based on personal knowledge of those account records maintained on the plaintiff's behalf. Plaintiff is the current owner of, and/or successor to, the obligation sued upon, and was assigned all the rights, title and interest to the defendant's GE MONEY BANK account xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (MCM Number .............) (hereinafter "the account"). I have access to and have reviewed the records pertaining to the account and am authorized to make this affidavit on the plaintiff's behalf. 2. MCM's records show that the defendants owed a balance of $1934.98; and that interest is due from 2012-12-31 accruing at a rate of 9.00000% as provided by law, amounting to $1.91, making a total due and owing of 1936.98. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and correct 1-16-2013 signed: Melissa Haag notarized by: Thenda Bermea here is my motion to strike affidavit: Motion to Strike the Affidavit of Melissa Haag Comes now, Defendant and respectfully states the following: 1. Plaintiff has submitted into evidence an affidavit claiming that the affiant, Melissa Haag, has personal knowledge of business records related to the aforementioned debt. Affidavit of Melissa Haag 2. The affiant writing in AFFIDAVIT OF MELISSA HAAG does not explain how the business records came into her possession, only that to the best of her beleif they "represent" the actual records from the original creditor, GE MONEY BANK. 3. Affiant of AFFIDAVIT OF MELISSA HAAG does not claim to have personal knowledge of how business records were kept at the original creditor. 4. Affiant of AFFIDAVIT OF MELISSA HAAG does not claim to have personal knowledge of the sale or assignment of the debt from the original creditor to Midland Funding LLC. Wherefore, the Defendant prays this Honorable Court that Plaintiff's AFFIDAVIT OF MELISSA HAAG be stricken from evidence in the above action. I state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. signed and notarized certify that I mailed a copy to plaintiffs atty Here is my AFFIDAVIT SUPPORTING PENDING MOTIONS AND IN SUPPORT OF A FINDING THAT MIDLAND FUNDING LLC IS A VEXACIOUS LITIGATOR AND THAT MIDLAND FUNDING LLC VIOLATES THE ABA MODEL RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT NOW COMES, __________________ and hereby swears and deposed based on personal knowledge, under oath, as follows: 1. Frederick J. Hanna and Associates ("Hanna") have been Georgia debt collection lawyers for Midland Funding LLC ("Midland") 2. In 2010 and 2011 James T. Freaney, Esq. ("Freaney") was/is an attorney for Hanna and for Midland. 3. In 2011, Freaney testified in Court, under oath, that Hanna files 8000 to 10000 lawsuits a month and receives up to 100 answers to those suits each day. 4. 2010 letterhead for Hanna listed 10 attorneys to properly review/evaluate cases, prepare complaints and litigate 96,000-120000 lawsuits a year. 5. Upon information and beleif it is ethically impossible for 10 attorneys to properly review/evaluate cases, prepare complaints, and litigate 96,000-120000 lawsuits a year. 6. Upon information and beleif, all Midland debt collection attorneys handle a similar volume of lawsuits. 7. Upon information and beleif, for Midland to operate profitably, the debt collection attorneys for Midland must file a huge number of lawsuits and such a volume per se violates several precepts contained in the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. 8. Aside from generating hundreds of thousands of direct lawsuits, the conduct of Midland has flooded bankruptcy courts, federal and state courts concerning FDCPA claims, other collateral litigation and caused untold human suffering. 9. Midland has filed lawsuits against wrong parties. 10. Midland has filed lawsuits that are time-barred. 11. Midland files multiple lawsuits against individuals when one lawsuit could have been filed. 12. Midland files lawsuits without adequate documentation supporting said lawsuits. 13. Midland uses illegal robo-signed affidavits in lawsuits it files. 14. Midland files lawsuits in the wrong jurisdictions. 15. Midland files serial litigation against individual defendants in different courts. 16. Midland is an adjudicated violator of the FDCPA. 17. Midland has settled a large number of FDCPA suits in favor of debtors. 18. Midland has argued that U.S.D.C. (Arizona) has no jurisdiction over Scott Huminski's/Midland litigaition and U.S. Court Judge Teilborg agreed. In U.S.D.C.(Ohio) and in the Sixth Circuit, Midland represents that the Arizona federal courts have jurisdiction over the Huminsky/Midland litigation. Upon information and beleif, Midland should stop lying to the federal courts and get its story straight. 19. Upon information and beleif the aforementioned facts support a conclusion that Midland is a vexatious litigator and vexatious litigation filed by Midland is perpetrated on a massive scale throughout the United States. dated and signed sworn and subscribed notarized 7. A hearing was set to hear my Motion to Strike Affidavit but I got confused and just happened to notice that the date was set 5/13 the friday before court on monday and thought I was responsible for sending notice to the Midland's atty so that day I filed for a continuance of the hearing in order to give proper notice. After I filed for continuance I found to letter from the court notifing me of the hearing with cc:Plaintiffs atty. So, I showed up in court on monday and the judged ended up not ruling on my motion and instead set the trial date for 6/10. 8. I know the Motion to Strike was premature. I can object to their Affidavit during trial. 9. All they attached to the complaint was an Affidavit verifying im not on active duty, Affidavit of Melissa Haag, an MCM account statement. 10. I'm thinking about filing discovery but dont know if it is even necessary given that all they have is an dubious affidavit, and a account statement. No contract or even an agreement with terms and conditions. No bill of sale. 11. I disputed the debt the moment they sent me any mail about it and requested an FDCPA debt verification and they did send me some stuff but I dont know if it really validates anything. Im not sure how to proceed at this point to prepare for the trial on 6/10. Kinda think if I study the rules of evidence and requirements for an account stated I could argue for a dismissal on lack of standing. I have a list of cases that Midland has lost that have been brought by about every state's AG that I want the court to be aware of. How do I inform them? File a document? under what rule? thank you for any advice or experience that you can share with me!