Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'case law'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Calendars

  • Community Calendar

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 10 results

  1. Does anyone know of any case laws that I can use for my MTC arbitration in GA? I got served by L&J representing Unifund CCR, LLC on a citi card w/ an arbitration clause. However there is some verbiage in that clause that says it can be handled in small claims, and I believe magistrate court in my county is small claims. I did file for arbitration immediately (upon recommendation here, thank you!), but AAA came back and said that if any party wanted to pursue in small claims they could if they sent in a written response. Well L&J did submit a response and said they wanted to pursue in small claims. My arbitration clause was started before I was served with the suit, but now AAA is closing the case because L&J requested small claims. However, AAA said that the Business has to pay the $200 fee. Because of this: Unifund has not paid the $200 yet. I go to court soon, and I just wanted to prepare bc L&J will probably say something to the effect of the arbitration clause doesn't apply here because there is an exception that says it can be pursued in small claims, and AAA also sent a letter pretty much saying the same thing. I was just looking to prepare my MTC with additional GA case law that would help me say that the arbitration clause is indeed valid and I have a right to that option.
  2. Hello Forum, HELP!!! I am a Texas resident and Homestead Property owner involved in a Pro Se "unconscionable contract" dispute with Nationstar Mortgage. My original petition is attached. Nationstar is a "Debt Collection" agency/service provider for Freddie Mac. The defendant Nationstar has sent an open letter of "General Denial" to my claim stating: 1) Defendant asserts statue of limitations. 2) Plaintiff has failed to name all necessary parties. 3) Plaintiffs complaint alleges damages that are the result of acts or omissions committed by non-parties to this action over whom the Defendant has no responsibility or control. 4) Plaintiff failed to state a legal basis for his claim. My questions/comments are as follows: 1) I am WAY out of my league as a Pro se litigant. My experience level in life has not prepared me to fight a giant like Freddie Mac & Nationstar Mortgage but I have lost everything in my pursuit of an equitable judgement and this is my final hope. 2) What do I do? In responding to the 4 points listed above I can only provide these statements for your help & consideration on how I might go about defending my home. Point 1: Defendant asserts statue of limitations: Taylor Bean & Whitaker were my original mortgage "Note" holders and the FBI put them into force receivership when they raided their offices in 2012 and put several of the executive directors in jail for mortgage lending fraud. FreddieMac transferred my "Note" to Cenlar just 3 short weeks before the FBI raid. Cenlar as the second service provider and in the summer of 2015 FreddieMac assigned my note to Nationstar for Debt Collection. A final letter of denial for assistance from Nationstar was received on 01/25/2017. I immediately filed against them with this petition. Point 2: Plaintiff has failed to name all necessary parties. As I am not an attorney, i am not sure what other parties I should be filing against for "unconscionable contract" when Nationstar is the only "Note Holder." Am I supposed to be filing against Freddiemac too? Point 3: Plaintiffs complaint alleges damages that are the result of acts or omissions committed by non-parties to this action over whom the Defendant has no responsibility or control. This the big one. Does anyone have a legal precedent in Texas that I can reference that says that all responsibility lies with the current service provider and that the current service provider inherits all previous errors and omissions? Point 4: Plaintiff failed to state a legal basis for his claim. i thought I did this when i stated my claim is an "unconscionable contract." How do I respond to this? Angels are out there and I could really use one right now. Can anyone help with this? With humility, respect and overwhelming gratitude. Chris
  3. Hello, I am trying to get a motion together that will allow me to appear via teleconference for an arbitration hearing scheduled Feb 28th. It's regarding a lawsuit by PRA for credit card debt. I was told by the head arbitrator that I would need to provide case law in order to appear via telephone or video conference. I have cited PA Civil Code and Due Process. But honestly I have no idea what I'm doing and I don't know if I'm on the right track or not. Any Additional help would be greatly appreciated! Defendant has the right to be heard in any hearings and this is a fundamental right under due process “a person may not constitutionally be deprived of "life, liberty or property" by governmental action without notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard” Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313 (1950), Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 550 (1965), Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 80 (1972) (noting that the "central meaning of procedural due process" is the "right to notice and an opportunity to be heard ... at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner"). See generally Martin H. Redish & Lawrence C. Marshall, Adjudicatory Independence and the Values of Procedural Due Process, 95 YALE L.J. 455, 475 (1986) ("The Supreme Court has often stated that the core rights of due process are notice and hearing."). Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 171-72 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring) ("No better instrument has been devised for arriving at truth than to give a person in jeopardy of serious loss notice of the case against him and opportunity to meet it."). United States v. James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43, 55 (1993) (quoting McGrath, 341 U.S. at 171-72 (Frankfurter, J., concurring)); Connecticut v. Doehr, 501 U.S. 1, 12-14 (1991) (same); Fuentes, 407 U.S. at 81 (same). Escoe v. Zerbst “‘the end and aim of an appearance before the court’ under the statute was to ‘enable an accused [parolee] to explain away the accusation,’ and this required ‘bringing the [parolee] into the presence of his judge.’” Thus, the required elements of due process are those that "minimize substantively unfair or mistaken deprivations" by enabling persons to contest the basis upon which a State proposes to deprive them of protected interests. Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 81 (1972). …but by general provisions of law applicable to all those in like condition, he is not deprived of property without due process of law, even if he can be regarded as deprived of his property by an adverse result. Marchant v. Pennsylvania R.R., 153 U.S. 380, 386 (1894). The core of these requirements is notice and a hearing before an impartial tribunal. Due process may also require an opportunity for confrontation and cross-examination, and for discovery; that a decision be made based on the record, and that a party be allowed to be represented by counsel. "In almost every setting where important decisions turn on questions of fact, due process requires an opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses." Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 269 (1970) Although the subject of an administrative hearing has the right to give oral testimony, actual physical presence is not required. See Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 268-69 (1970); Kansas City v. McCoy, 525 S.W.2d 336 (Mo. 1975). Furthermore The demeanor of witnesses in telephonic hearings, despite the inability to observe the appearance of the witness, can still be judged by other factors, such as the inherent plausibility of the testimony, the tenor of the witness's voice, inconsistencies and contradictions in testimony and specificity of testimony. Babcock v. Unemployment Division, 696 P.2d 19, 21 (1985). Thus, the notice of hearing and the opportunity to be heard "must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965) Pennsylvania Code § 101.127-101.133 - Regarding Teleconferences 101.128 Section A and B a) The tribunal may schedule, on its own motion, testimony by telephone of a party or witness when it appears from the record that the party or witness is located at least 50 miles from the location at which the tribunal will conduct the hearing, without regard to State boundaries. (b) The tribunal may schedule testimony by telephone of a party or witness, at the request of one or more parties, when one of the following applies: (1) The parties consent to the receipt of testimony by telephone. (2) The party or witness is reasonably unable to testify in person due to a compelling employment, transportation, or health reason, or other compelling problem.
  4. Has anyone won in the Magistrate Court in DeKalb County, Georgia recently? I'm trying to determine a strategy because my research shows that the judge in that court typically allows all of the debt buyer's attorney's paperwork through the sworn affidavit, making it harder to wage a winnable defense. Thank you in advance for any advice or tips.
  5. http://www.nlada100years.org/sites/default/files/Defending%20Junk%20Debt%20Cases.pdf
  6. So I have already been to court with JDB attorney in AZ. I used case law in AZ found by searching forums here that supports a 3 yr SOL (A.R.S. 12-543). The JDB attorney objected by stating unpublished memorandum decisions hold no weight and have no precedent in the state of AZ as per AZ Supreme Court Rule 111©. The judge asked if I could provide a supplemental memo to support my contention for a 3 yr SOL. I used DSS Financial v. Deborah Walrod to support my 3 yr SOL defense. My question is do unpublished cases hold no weight or precedent? It seems strange that only case law that has been "published" in some AZ court publication would be allowed. If anyone has advice it would be much appreciated. Thanks
  7. We go to trial in a week from today. LVNV Funding did not respond to discovery, so we had to file a motion to compel admissions and req. production of docs. LVNV funding finally responded last week, but simply gave us the same paperwork they originally provided when we asked for a Bill of Particulars back in December - nothing new, except the answers formulated admit, deny etc. The exhibits are the same. They have provided no signed agreement which they reference in their complaint, no contract, no statements, and no itemization of account to show how they came up with the amount owed - we don't believe this is our debt. We are concerned that they might try to enter evidence at our trial that they have not provided us, and want to be prepared to object to this with citations of case law which support objecting to the plaintiff entering this info after the discovery period is over. From the research we have done, the cases seem to be from CA Reporter 3rd series: 84Calap3rd771 195Calap3rd213 200Calap3rd372 and another from Cal Reporter - 235CR430 Does anyone have access to these cases? I can't seem to find them at the law library! I am hoping if someone does, it will not only help us, but also help others to have these cases as a resource for trial. Thank you for any help and advice as we get ready for trial.
  8. Hi Everyone, Just curious, is there a effective way by Pro(s) like you all, to pull case law ( in California) ? I feel like finding a pin in the ocean,... I am trying to find some case law that the defendant files for motion summary judgment Vs. plaintiff, as they plaintiff does not have any contract with defendant. Million thanks,
  9. I read a lot about this on the forums, and I just finished reading common law wiki, and attorney views on citing CA case law, and from what i gather, it is beneficial to cite case law *from your jurisdiction* some questions: 1. is citing federal law ever useful? 2. basically, being in CA, the following seem to be the most applicable as precedents: -similar rulings by a particular judge -CA appellate court rulings -CA supreme court rulings is there a hierarchy to these? are any California appellate court rulings equally applicable or should they be from my district? 3. pretty much as these JDB cases go, most of the useful statewide rulings have already been cited here and obviously i need to actually read and understanding the rulings forward and backward. Is it really worth doing much more research at the appelate/state level beyond this? most JDB cases seem to be relatively cut-and-dry. 4. Apart from that the legwork is in doing my own research on my particular county, right? unfortunately we are rural and they closed the law library, i have no idea how to research case law other than paying the clerk to produce documents on a given case. any ideas? clerks havent been any help. All ive been able to do is search tenetave rulings using internet archive's wayback machine to search last few years. so far ive found one Midland case, one Unifund case,a few other random JDBs like FIA card services, USA Financial Marketing, Palisades Collection, Pinnacle Credit Services, Worldwide Asset Purchasing, National Business Factors). We have a case management conference coming up so i will try to pull the midland and unifund cases and any other you guys recommend while I'm at the court thanks
  10. Check out this Texas case law regarding challenging 3rd party business records: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10612691797526674821&q=dodeka++campos&hl=en&as_sdt=4,44&as_ylo=2012 Here is the relevant excerpt: "Finally, Campos [debtor] contends the [OC] records themselves are untrustworthy. However, we note that the creator of the documents, Chase, must keep careful records of its customer's accounts, otherwise its "business would greatly suffer or even fail." Id. at 244 (quoting Harris v. State, 846 S.W.2d 960, 964 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, writ ref'd)). Furthermore, if Chase failed to keep accurate records, it could face criminal or civil penalties. Id.; see also TEX. FIN.CODE ANN. § 392.304(a)(8) (West 2006) (prohibiting consumer debt misrepresentation); TEX. FIN.CODE § 392.402 (providing criminal penalties for violations of Chapter 392 of the Texas Finance Code). We believe these circumstances lend support to Dodeka's [JDB] claim that the Chase documents are trustworthy." Am I reading this wrong, or is this court basically saying that a JDB doesn't need to establish the reliabiltiy of the original records; they are simply assumed to be reliable (and somehow magically not hearsay) because the OC wants to make money and can get in trouble if they lie? Here was the argument the debtor made: "Campos contends Chaffin did not have sufficient personal knowledge to attest to Chase's business records because Dodeka is a third party who purchased the account and was not the original author of the documents. Further, Campos argues that Chaffin is not qualified to testify about Chase's documents because she did not indicate that she or anyone from Dodeka knew of the events or conditions recorded in Chase's records or had knowledge of the manner in which Chase prepared the documents" Apparently, according to this court it doesn't matter that there was no personal knowlegde of the records when they were created; Chase's records are assumed to be trustworthy becasue they could "face penalties" otherwise. (This is especially ironic that this is Chase who is assumed to be trustworthy; see the affidavit to the government given by former Chase employee Linda Almonte.) What's especially galling about this is that they overturned the trial courts ruling. Since it was an apeal, they said "We will uphold the trial court's ruling on the exclusion of evidence if there is any legitimate basis for the ruling". So basically they are saying that the fact that there is no one that can attest to the veracity of the oc's documents is not a legitamate basis to exclude evidence. This new interpreation of the business records hearsay exception seems insane to me. The JDB afiidavit I received in my lawsuit includes almost the exact language from this case as to why the OC's records are reliable ("reliable because OC is required to keep good records by law and/or suffer busines loss"). I hope I am missing something, because this ruling seems to make it harder to exclude OC docs in Texas.