Recievables

[Big Time]

The term "recieveables" is used a lot by JDB's, especially the ones who try to say they are factoring companies.

As I undestand it, reciveables means a debt that is not in default, which is owed by one business to another.

So when a JDB cliames they are a factoring company, collecting on recieveables, they are misrepresenting the legal status and character of the debt.

[MadinKS]

You go boy. Let's get the party started!

[Big Time]

Honestly, it's curiosity more than anything that motivates me with stuff like this.

Ever read any of Towerrats old AOC archives at IC? Thay guy blows me away with being able to figure out these obscure business terms that he uses to pick JDB's apart.

[MadinKS]

No, until two days ago I hadn't found out about DB. I only started my credit repair journey in Mar. I had done some a ways back but never ran into the CAs I'm dealing with now. Figured I better get armed w/as much knowledge as possible.

[Big Time]

It'll change you.

I've gone from being a meek and mild and polite southern gentleman towards everyone I meet, to an obnoxious jerk towards everyone I percive as being a bully; all in a matter of three years as the result of my battles with debt collectors.

www.infinitecredit.com is the site I mentioned

[IHateCAs]

I don't know if there is a legal definition of receivables. It basically just means people who owe money on an account.

[MadinKS]

MadinKS is up and runnin' in the IC, DB, and the CIC. I didn't realize there were that many forums out there. Thanks for the info.

[nascar]

I don't know if there is a legal definition of receivables.

The court in Munoz v. Pipestone Financial, LLC, 397 F.Supp.2d 1129 (Minn. 2005) defines “receivable” and “account receivable” in a manner that should be acceptable in any jurisdiction that uses the plain meaning standard.

“The plain meaning of “receivable” is “[a]n amount owed.” Blacks Law Dictionary 1296 (8th ed. 2004). Because the term “receivable” refers to an amount owed, it does not refer to interest not yet accrued or future attorney fees.”

“The term “account receivable” is defined as “[a]n account reflecting a balance owed by a debtor; a debt owed by a customer to an enterprise for goods and services.” Black’s Law Dictionary 18 (8th ed. 2004)”

On another note, I've been wondering about the effect of selling a "closed account." If an account is "closed by the credit grantor", I'm wondering if that is consistent with termination of a contract. If so, the contractual obligations of the parties no longer exist. A damaged party still has a right to recover from damages, but the contract itself is terminated, along with its Terms and Conditions. If an OC sells a terminated contract, they are essentially selling nothing. The only thing of value left of the original contratual relationship should be the "receivables" in existence at the time of contract termination. Has anyone run across any caselaw dealing with this theory?

[MadinKS]

I like the way you think.

“The term “account receivable” is defined as “[a]n account reflecting a balance owed by a debtor; a debt owed by a customer to an enterprise for goods and services.” Black’s Law Dictionary 18 (8th ed. 2004)”

Could this be construed, or has it been proven, to mean that since a JDB provides no "goods or services" to the debtor they cannot consider junk debt an "account receivable"? And then if the junk debt is not an "account receivable", then the claim of factoring is out the window. Or am I out in left field pickin' daisies?

[Big Time]

On another note, I've been wondering about the effect of selling a "closed account." If an account is "closed by the credit grantor", I'm wondering if that is consistent with termination of a contract. ... A damaged party still has a right to recover from damages, but the contract itself is terminated, along with its Terms and Conditions. ... The only thing of value left of the original contratual relationship should be the "receivables" in existence at the time of contract termination. Has anyone run across any caselaw dealing with this theory?

Damb! Excellent theory of contract law. Trying to find caselaw on that would be tedious, as I doubt it's ever been tried.

The only thing I can think of that might negate that is if a credit card agreement had some clause about assignees inheriting the contract when they purchase the debt.

[Big Time]

since a JDB provides no "goods or services" to the debtor they cannot consider junk debt an "account receivable"? And then if the junk debt is not an "account receivable", then the claim of factoring is out the window. Or am I out in left field pickin' daisies?

"Lack of Consideration" would be the affirmative defense there, and the "account recieveable" as well as "open book account" claims would be a good cause to countersue for misrepresenting the legal status or character of the debt.

I think that, realistically, a Judge may not really care what the JDB calls the alleged debt, or themselves for that matter; but rather only if the JDB could prove it's right to collect.

[MadinKS]

You can say it. I'm in left field pickin daisies.

[SecretAgentWoman]

Whoa, I feel like I stepped into a debate in school.

*backing out slowly*

[MadinKS]

Apparently the debate has ended while case law is being scoured. I'm just in here for the entertainment.

[Big Time]

Heh. I'm at work, so no caselaw searching for now.

http://www.infinitecredit.com/forums/aoc-archive/487-towerrat-no-_open_-collections_-manny-i-owe-you-tall-col.html

Those .pdf files are gold, though. (just blow past the caselaw at first)

[MadinKS]

I'm just scouring the FDCPA stuff at IC. Exploring and soakin' it in. I like the fact that the FDCPA is a consumer friendly, no wiggling out for the CA, kinda statute. It bodes well for the current issues I'm facing.

[Optimus_SubPrime]

Before this thread passes from view, I thought I should add Daniel Edelmen's thoughts about receivables here for posterity:

1. An absolute assignee (bad debt buyer, as opposed to one taking assignment for collection or collection agency) is subject to Article 9 of the UCC, which covers sales of receivables as well as security interests.

2. Send a certified or faxed letter requesting assignment or assignments necessary to show title in plaintiff under UCC 9-406, 810 ILCS 5/9-406. The way 9-406 is written the debt buyer is not entitled to payment unless it provides a copy of the assignment(s). Wait about 10 days after receipt and then move to dismiss on the ground that there is no obligation to pay.

3. Section 9-210 of the Uniform Commercial Code gives right to accounting, defined as breakdown of what debt consists of. Unlike the case with 15 U.S.C. 1692g, the debt buyer does not have the option to cease collection but decline to respond. There is $500 statutory damages for noncompliance.

That last bit seems especially interesting to me. So often, you DV a company and they scurry to sell the account to someone else. This seems like it could be a useful tool to force settlement or deletion.