Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'robo-signed'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Announcements
    • PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING / Board Announcements
    • Resources
  • Credit Repair
    • Credit Repair
    • Collections
    • Credit Bureaus/Reports/Scores
    • Identity Theft
  • 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

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start







Found 2 results

  1. 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."
  2. New to the forum and I've been finding a lot of useful info from the posts. I was hoping to get some advise and how to go about a lawsuit brought against me from Midland Funding ( represented by Zakheim & LaVrar / Zakheim & Associates). I was served on January the 12th, 2013 for an alleged debt owed in the amount of $3k. I'm scheduled for a pretrial conference on Feb. 21st, 2013. Attached to the summons was the complaint and a affidavit (file attached) from a former Midland employee name Elizabeth Neu dated in 2008. The complaint is for and open account and Account stated. That is all I received. I've never received any letters from Midland or Zakheim, and the reason is they've been sending everything to an address I haven't lived at in almost 10 years ( Zakheim representative admitted this over the phone) . I found this out when I called them to discuss a piece of evidence they listed as "exhibit A". I didn't admit to anything over the phone, it was just purely to clarify what they meant on the complaint. It also turns out that they originally filed the suit in 2009. Why it took them long for them to serve me is baffling since I've always changed my address in accordance to FL state law. ...it's not like I moved out of state or turned the lights off and hid when they tried to serve me I moved maybe 12 miles away from the address they had on file. After I was served at my current home, then then sent me a letter in a attempt to negotiate and pay the debt prior to pretrial. This is the first actual letter I've ever received , not including the lawsuit summons. I was originally thinking to myself when I received the summons " this debt is clearly outside the FL SOL" (8 plus years) Once I found out the case was file in 2009 I found out it was only 8 months past the FL SOL. I based this off an old credit report I printed up two years ago for a home loan approval that had the date of last activity as 3/2004. They filed the suit on 11/2009. Are there exceptions to the SOL in my case since it's so close to the FL. SOL? Is my credit report proper evidence to prove SOL? Can I send a DV letter now since this is the first notice I've actually received? I feel it may be to late since the pretrial is now less than 30 days away Also I found that in 2011 the State of Minnesota file a suit against Midland for using "robo-signed" affidavits. I found one article that actually took testimony from the same women who signed my affidavit admitting to signing affidavits without knowledge. The article also stated that Elizabeth Neu (Affiant) is no longer an employee with Midland funding. http://www.startribune.com/business/118777379.html?refer=y Here is another link to a Press Release from the Minnesota Attorney Generals Office pertaining to the case and its outcome in 2011 Are these fraudulent affidavits a violation of the FDCPA and do I have grounds for a counterclaim? If I don't have a legitimate counterclaim.. Is there something I can due to get this case dismissed based on the evidence I have prior to pretrial? Should I tell the attorney representing Midland about my findings in attempt to have them dismiss the case? I would like an attorney, but I don't think it would be cost effective unless I have grounds for a counterclaim where the attorney can reclaim his fees from a judgment in my favor. Based on what I've discovered so far I don't feel they have the grounds for a suit and I shouldn't be held liable for any costs. Any advise on my situation would be greatly appreciated. Thanks RRPBFL Brevard County, FL
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.