Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'affidavits'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Announcements
    • Polls
    • PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING / Board Announcements
    • Resources
  • Credit Repair Forums
    • Credit Repair
    • Collections
    • Credit Bureaus/Reports/Scores
    • Credit Article of the Week
  • Legal Issues
    • Is There a Lawyer in the House
    • Bankruptcy Q and A
  • Debt Validation
    • While You are In It Debt Validation Q and A
    • Debt Settlement
  • Loans and Banking
    • Obtaining Credit Cards, Auto Loans and Financing
    • Mortgages
    • Student Loans
    • Banking and Finance
  • Non Credit
    • Off Topic
    • Wine

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Location


Biography


Interests


Occupation

Found 6 results

  1. Hi all! I am trying to get editing assistance with my affidavit and my answer to a complaint and summons I received 20 days ago from PRA, LLC. I have read so many posts on here including @bmc100 's step by step guide to defending JDB lawsuits and finally think I am ready to drop these off at the CH tomorrow (DUE DATE!). The summons was served in person to my home and only had an affidavit listed as the exhibit A. I have prepared both my affirmative defenses using the MCR 2.113 (F), MCL 600.2145 and MCR 2.201 (B). I am just really stuck on my affidavit and if whether or not my reasons for denying each allegation (plaintiff has not provided any evidence to support this allegation) are durable and correct. I am inlining both the affidavit and the answer for help. Any feedback would be appreciated. Thank you !!!!! The Affidavit: STATE OF MICHIGAN 47th DISTRICT COUNTY DEFENDANT’S COUNTER AFFIDAVIT PURSUANT TO MCLA 600.2145 CASE NO: JUDGE: Plaintiff’s name, address and telephone Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC as successor in interest of SYNCHRONY BANK / SYNCHRONY BANK 120 Corporate Blvd. Norfolk, VA 23502 (866) 428-8102 v Defendant’s name, address and telephone M Plaintiff’s attorney, bar no., address and telephone Kevin L. Holst (P66274) David M. Greenbaum (P64731) Kirsten L. Pepper (P66208) 120 Corporate Blvd Norfolk, VA 23502 (866) 428-8102 Defendant’s attorney, bar no., address and telephone Defendant, In Pro Per, makes this affidavit per MCL 600.2145. 1. I am the Defendant. 2. If sworn as a witness, I can testify competently to the facts stated here. 3. The statement of account is untrue or inaccurate because: _______________________________________________________ I am unaware of an account with plaintiff or plaintiff’s assignor as stated in the plaintiff’s complaint. I have never received statements from plaintiff or plaintiff’s assignor as stated in the plaintiff’s complaint. I do not agree with and dispute the amount of $1813.66 the plaintiff is claiming is due and owed. I am not in possession of the terms and conditions of the account as stated in the plaintiff’s complaint. 4. I declare that the statements above are true to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief. _______________________________ _______________________________ Signature Date Subscribed and sworn to before me this _________ day of ___________________________,_____. __________________________________________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC, COUNTY OF __________________________________, MI MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ___________________________________________ The Answer: I X agree with the statements in paragraph 1. disagree with the statements in paragraph 1 because ___________________________________. do not know if the statements in paragraph 1 are true. 2. I agree with the statements in paragraph 2. X disagree with the statements in paragraph 2 because the plaintiff has not provided any evidence in support of this allegation. do not know if the statements in paragraph 2 are true. 3. I agree with the statements in paragraph 3. X disagree with the statements in paragraph 3 because the plaintiff has not provided any evidence in support of this allegation. do not know if the statements in paragraph 3 are true. 4. I agree with the statements in paragraph 4. X disagree with the statements in paragraph 4 because the plaintiff has not provided any evidence in support of this allegation. do not know if the statements in paragraph 4 are true. 5. I agree with the statements in paragraph 5. X disagree with the statements in paragraph 5 because the plaintiff has not provided any evidence in support of this allegation do not know if the statements in paragraph 5 are true. X continued on page 2. ____________________________ ____________________________________________ Date Defendant/Attorney signature _____________________________________ Name (type or print) IMPORTANT: If you have affirmative defenses, you must state them now using the last page of this form. If you do not, the court may prohibit you from raising them later. An affirmative defense is a defense claiming that the plaintiff is not entitled to a judgment because other facts exist that create a lawful defense. Affirmative defenses allow you to provide information to the court that is not stated in the plaintiff’s complaint. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on this date I served a copy of this answer on the plaintiff(s) or their attorney(s) by personal service. first-class mail addressed to their last-known address(es) as defined in MCR 2.107(C)(3). ANSWER, CIVIL (PAGE 1 OF __) MCR 2.111 Original – Court 2nd copy – Defendant 1st copy – Plaintiff 3rd copy – Proof of Service STATE OF MICHIGAN ANSWER, CIVIL (PAGE 2 OF __) Plaintiff’s name(s) Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC as successor in interest of SYNCHRONY BANK / SYNCHRONY BANK v Defendant’s name(s) Continued from page 1. 6. I agree with the statements in paragraph 6. X disagree with the statements in paragraph 6 because the plaintiff has not provided any evidence in support of this allegation. do not know if the statements in paragraph 6 are true. 7. I agree with the statements in paragraph 7. X disagree with the statements in paragraph 7 because the plaintiff has not provided any evidence in support of this allegation. do not know if the statements in paragraph 7 are true.
  2. Excuse me if this seems too basic, but I'm having trouble understanding when I need an affidavit of service, and how it should be done. I've read everything I can find on this forum, as well as plowing through what I could find in the NY CPLR, and I'm still stumped. Here's what I need to know. When do I need to file an affidavit of service? Does everything I send to the plaintiff require an affidavit of service? Also, from what I understand, even for an affidavit of service by mail, I am not allowed to drop the thing in the mail myself. So essentially, I need to find a notary and bring along with me someone who will then drop the whole thing in the mail. And I have to do this each time I file something?? I cannot tell you what a pain in the a$$ it is to find a notary, and find someone with time on their hands just to go along with me to the notary and drop an envelope in the mail. And frankly, I'm not crazy about telling random strangers or neighbors about my legal troubles. Is there any way around this?
  3. Palisades Collection LLC v. Kalal, 781 N.W.2d 503 (Wis. App. 2010), holding that an employee of an assignee creditor cannot ordinarily authenticate the records of the assignee for purposes of the business records exception. Does that help? Found that in discussion of account stated.
  4. Fred Hanna files a motion to dismiss and CFPB files its response. I recommend clicking through to read the CFPB's response: http://www.insidearm.com/daily/debt-collection-news/debt-collection/cfpb-gets-testy-in-latest-filing-in-debt-collection-law-firm-enforcement-action/ (I apologize in advance if this has been posted here already. I didn't see that it had been.)
  5. Informative read for anyone arguing against Midland's or any other JDB's affidavits, or is a member of the class affected by this proposed settlement. 32 state attorneys general filed on April 16, 2014, an amicus curiae brief objecting to the revised proposed class settlement for Midland's use of "robo-signed" affidavits in Vassalle et. al v Midland Funding LLC, 708 F.3d 747, 760 (6th Cir. 2013). [You may recognize this as Class Settlement Agreement, Midland Funding, LLC v. Brent, 644 F. Supp. 2d 961 (N.D. Ohio 2009)] http://www.michiganconsumerlaw.com/ags-vassalle.pdf "The Attorneys General of Illinois, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia (“Attorneys General”) urge this Court to reject the revised proposed class settlement, which is a thinly veiled attempt to revive the original settlement, which was rejected by the Sixth Circuit. Like the original proposal, the revised settlement provides no meaningful value to unnamed class members, and, in fact, it leaves them in a significantly worse position. In exchange for approximately $10 each, class members lose their right to pursue valuable claims under state and federal law. While class members technically may challenge Midland’s “robo-signed” affidavits, they lose the statutory right to attorney fees that makes it possible for them to do so. Worse still, the form affidavits approved by the Special Master, which are central to the relief provided under the revised settlement, are based on a misunderstanding of Defendants’ business practices and would authorize affidavits that violate both the Federal Rules of Evidence and the laws of multiple States. The revised proposed settlement therefore is not in the public interest and should be rejected." Objections to Revised Settlement filed by the class action objectors' attorneys:http://www.michiganconsumerlaw.com/Objections-Final.pdf"The parties have attempted to ameliorate the first of these deficits by permitting individual class members to challenge the default judgments taken against them. But as set forth in section I above, while the parties have provided this remedy, they have also impaired the ability of class members to take advantage of that remedy by stripping their ability to use fee shifting statutes to find counsel, denying them access to necessary evidence, and removing their ability to move collective to set aside these judgments. In reality, they provided a remedy, but so severely crippled it as to render it empty."
  6. Recent Court of Appeals decision overturning Midland class action lawsuit settlement gives new opportunity to Georgia consumers affected by Midland Funding's filing of false robo-signed affidavits in debt collection lawsuits. You've probably heard about the Midland Funding class action lawsuits regarding robo-signed affidavits used in lawsuits against consumers, right? Well, a Court of Appeals recently decided that the settlement with Midland and its parent company, Encore Capital, was unfair and overturned the approval of the class settlement. The proposed settlement would have basically let Midland/Encore off with a slap on the wrist and an insulting $20 to each class member affected by the false affidavits. To read the Sixth Circuit opinion overturning the approval of the settlement, go here http://caveatemptorblog.com/files/2013/02/13a0050p-061.pdf This recent decision gives those Georgians who were sued during the dates of March 2010 and March 2011 where one of those false affidavits was filed an opportunity to stand up to Midland Funding, Midland Credit Management, and Encore Capital. Before, the class action could have extinguished certain rights of Georgia consumers to pursue Midland for those false affidavits. So, what does this mean? It means act quick! You may be entitled to a remedy under federal and Georgia law against Midland Funding if you were affected by those affidavits within a time period where the statute of limitations has not run out for you to do so. The statute of limitations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") is only one year so you can see why it is imperative to act now. The FDCPA has a provision in it that allows a consumer to recover attorneys fees and costs from the debt collector if a violation is proven - this means consumer attorneys often take on these cases for little to no money upfront from the consumer. Midland will not change its practices until it is held accountable for its policy of lying to the court. You should also know, that even while these legal class action proceedings were ongoing, Midland did virtually nothing to change its practices. Its staff continued to fill out form affidavits with little done to verify the truth of its statements to obtain judgments against Georgia consumers. So, what should you do? Contact Georgia consumer attorney Daniel DeWoskin Phone: (404) 987-0026 Email: info@atlantatrial.com ASAP to discuss (for free) your legal options to hold Midland accountable for their actions. He is looking for people who've been sued by Midland Funding / Midland Credit Management between those dates and whose cases involved an affidavit filed by Midland Funding or Midland Credit Management. It does not matter if you lost your case to Midland Funding. You may be entitled to a remedy under federal and Georgia law.