Jump to content

the fight with sherman continues

Recommended Posts

okay..dv'd sherman, alegis wrote back they are investigating.

4 months later, sent alegis cmrr letter demanding since they can't verify to delete.

alegis comes back with letter and "affidavit" citing chaudry vs gallerizzo,174 F. 3d 974(4th Cir. 1999)

affidavit states that to the best of the affirming attorney's knowledge, that sherman purchased the account from osi on 10/30/ 02.

the affidavit does not state that the debt was owed to osi.

is there case law covering debt repurchasers and original creditors

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just got the same letter yesterday and it states:

"I have enclosed an affidavit of debt for the verification of debt you requested fot the above account. The court case of Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F. 3d 974 (4th Cir. 1999) states this is sufficient for account verification:

"verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed; the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the debt. There is no concomitant obligation to foward copies of bills or other detailed evidence of the debt."

It states that it bought the debt from the OC. in 2003. How can they verify a debt without proof? Where is the written proof they say they have from the OC? Well, I guess I'll DV the affidavit, but how do I go about that CM?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks chasey..should have done that in the first place. i keep forgetting that search option.

all the sherman victims should get together and file a class-action on these scumbags.

or maybe we need a sticky just for them.


I'm with you on the class action! I have already fowarded info to a law firm in Minnesota, however, I forgot their info. I even filed complaints with the South Carolina AG, Indiana AG and the FTC. I'm surprised they still are fighting against this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

got this from the collection agents' forum..thought it was interesting and may include in my ITS letter to sherman.

The court suggested the debt purchaser furnish a copy of the assignment or contract assigning the claims, along with a copy of any statement or record clearly demonstrating the calculation and the amount of the claim. If monthly statements were furnished to the defendant, copies of the most recently sent statements should be annexed. Reliable and factual information concerning the claim is required.

Even if we as attorneys include such items, they are business records of the originating creditor, not the purchasing plaintiff. At least in New York, these business records would have no probative value, because no one at the purchasing plaintiff has "personal knowledge" of the creation, maintenance, issuance, and tracking of the statements. In the eyes of the court, such affidavits are hearsay and therefore not admissible. A purchasing plaintiff is unable to swear to the authenticity of the originating or source documents of a credit transaction because they do not have personal knowledge of the events which transpired at that period of time in the life of the credit agreement. The original cardholder agreement, any correspondence, and monthly statements issued by the original credit grantor are not admissible as the purchasing plaintiff's business records, as the purchasing plaintiff has no personal knowledge of how those records were created or maintained.

How then can the purchasing plaintiff's counsel obtain a judgment for their client in the face of a court's refusal to grant judgment on a legitimate debt purchased by a third-party? The obvious answer is to obtain the affidavit of the originating creditor and annex the documents of the originating creditor to their affidavit. The originating creditor would have actual and personal knowledge of the events which led to the creation of the debt, as well as the events which lead to the sale of the debt. A second alternative would be to attempt to obtain a novation of the original credit agreement, which might be accomplished by either obtaining a signed statement from the debtor agreeing to pay the balance owed. Alternatively, if the debtor refuses to sign such a statement, the purchaser could send monthly statements which, if not objected to by the debtor, might be introduced by way of the purchasing plaintiff's affidavit, indicating that no objection had been made to the statements of account. Therefore, the debtors are estopped from denying the existence of the balance.

Absent a willingness by debt sellers to sign a business records affidavit as to the origination and sale of the account, or a novation by the purchasing plaintiff of the original debt, lawyers will be increasingly hard pressed to obtain judgments for legitimate debts purchased by debt buyers. If purchasing plaintiffs wish to continue to be able to use the court system to enforce their purchased debt, it is going to be increasingly necessary for documentation to be readily available for their counsel and the courts.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agh!! This just irks me that Sherman tries to get away with this bogus horsecrap! I had a strong class action against them but my attny decided not to go with the case because I am filing BK 7. If I could have filed a chapter 13, they would take it because I would have still owed the debt. If anyone is interested in a class, I will gladly give you my info on the interest of my attorney. Just a thought,, Check your CR, look for Sherman to reage your account, etc. Also, in my state, Sherman is not licenced to collect. GOOD LUCK!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

first off, weed, that clip you posted would you think that would be good for me to include to sherman. i just received an affidavit, with all that bull crap about citing the chaudry case, and it was signed attorney-in-fact by allison moon. who has that last name.

another thing, sherman is reporting on my credit report as if this debt is only 2 years old. it does not show any dola, but it does show the date the account was purchased 10/02, and it states that this acct was 30 days past due 12/02. this original debt was charged off in 97 or 98. what the f*ck is going on with this company? how do i find out if they are licensed to collect in my state?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • 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.