Purchaser and assignee no DV

[jjbtrcrdt]

I have read and Read and read, and can not find an answer so I am hoping that I can get a few answers to my situation. Thank you all in advance for helping.

I had a car loan, I was two payments away and did a volunteer repo- the BB value was $4000 more than the balance due. this was in 11/2000.

I never received anymore info regarding a balance.

In Jan of 08 I received a garnishment from my wadges, I received with the paycheck the copy of this "garnishment".

I was never served this summons. I did have the Judgment Quashed. and ordered the funds garnished returned to me. We are still in court.

I requested DV via CM and via court in response to new summons issued at the date of the quash. I did receive return of my funds after several certified requests. however, the only DV is the copy of the agreement with the OC.

We went to a hearing to schedule a court date, they threatened to garnish my wadges and enforce the judgment, I requested that they set the court date.

I also requested documentation of this alleged debt.

I received the date of trial a copy of a note (note letterhead) stating the debt was purchased by the CA and that they have all rights to the terms of the original agreement (21% interest). I advised the judge that I just received these documents and that I request 30 days to review them. I had submitted the request 70+ days prior. She allowed to reschedule, however, it is noted that the CA suing me is the purchaser and per court documents the assigner as well. In court I requested form the courts to enforce my right to this debt being valid, if they did only sell it for say one payment (not a chance) then I understood that I was to be responsible for that debt, however they have yet to have proved payment history, including selling of the debt, and - noted in court they could not provide that information. They only have the documents they provided. The Judge requested they do provide that to me, however I just received a letter stating they were going to have the OC give disposition at their office on xx date. I also received a letter stating this is the itemized principle and interest claimed. It is a print out however it is impossible for it to be from the OC as it shows an address from 2006 (and not prior)

Here are my questions;

1. if they sell the debt, so I have to pay more than what they purchased it for plus interest? (as in original agreement?)

When it was "sold" it was charged off (I have gotten that much info) I also know that the OC (bank) was sold and purchased by Chase again, after the charge off.

FYI: the note showing that they are the purchaser and assignee of such alleged Debt, does not show purchase amount or my account info.

Prior to that is one other note showing it was paid and the debt assigned.

2. Can they be the purchaser and assignee? I was certain that it was only one or the other? Is there any reference to this one way or another?

3. Does this deposition (via phone call) count? Why am I not getting documentation? Why is it not at the court house? Do I have to be there for it?

4. Is there anything more I can do? I know I dont owe this amount, I cant imagine the OC selling this car and getting less than $575. for it.

Please please help me, I am so tired of fighting but I KNOW I dont owe this! The requests I am giving are not being answered in my opinion is there something I'm missing? Please help.

By the way-

The original judgment was for $14,000, when the judgment was quashed, they served me again but on that one, it is $9,500 they are now suing for. They dropped the amnt form the interest.

[nascar]

If this whole this is over a repo, read up on Title 4, Article 9, Part 6 of the Colorado Statutes and proceed accordingly.

It's hard to make sense of your post so, I'll ask you to clarify the following.

1)How much are you being sued for?

2)Is that the amount of the alleged repo deficiency?

3)What was the balance remaining on your loan when you lost the car?

[BTO429]

2. Can they be the purchaser and assignee?

No they cant. Its one or the other. read up on Gearing v. Check Brokerage Corp

233 F.3d 469 (7th Cir. 2000).

File a counter claim for $1000 under the FDCPA.

If they cant or wont produce any documents that you asked for file a motion to dismiss with prejudice based on the fact they cant produce the docs.

[Recovering Attorney]

When did they sue you? And yes, bone up on the UCC

[nascar]

2. Can they be the purchaser and assignee?

No they cant. Its one or the other. read up on Gearing v. Check Brokerage Corp

233 F.3d 469 (7th Cir. 2000).

Yes, an assignee can be, and many times is, a purchaser. Many debt collectors who only contract to collect a debt on behalf of the creditor claim to be assignees. And the term, although confusing at times, is not used improperly in that context either.

The Gearing case dealt with subrogation and rescission. Check Brokerage was indeed the purchaser and thus the assignee of the debt it purchased from Ayerco. The problem was the clause in the contract that allowed Check Brokerage to rescind the sale if its collection efforts did not pay off. This clause did not create a subrogation and as such, Check Brokerage did not have the right to bring suit against Gearing even though it was technically an assignee.

[jjbtrcrdt]

"It's hard to make sense of your post so, I'll ask you to clarify the following."

1)How much are you being sued for?

Original Judgment was for $14000 the New Claim and amount I am being sued for is currently $9000

2)Is that the amount of the alleged repo deficiency?

The CA is stating that the Balance of Principle alone is $ 4700. the balance added to the claim are fee's $500 and interest of the balance

3)What was the balance remaining on your loan when you lost the car?

Two payments of $279 was the balance.

Thank you for the info on the Colorado law I will be looking it up.

Here is a link to yet another thread regarding this same case.

http://www.debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/forums/showthread.php?t=285820

Thank you!

[jjbtrcrdt]

2. Can they be the purchaser and assignee?

No they cant. Its one or the other. read up on Gearing v. Check Brokerage Corp

233 F.3d 469 (7th Cir. 2000).

File a counter claim for $1000 under the FDCPA.

If they cant or wont produce any documents that you asked for file a motion to dismiss with prejudice based on the fact they cant produce the docs.

I have filed a counter claim for many reasons here is the link to my response to them.

http://www.debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/forums/showthread.php?t=285820

So am I to understand that since per the Judge, they had until the end of Sept to produce the documents to which they replied as mentioned above but in fact did not furnish the documents I can request a dismissal with prejudice?

Thank you!

[jjbtrcrdt]

When did they sue you? And yes, bone up on the UCC

The Original "Judgment" was done in Jan 2007 they enforced it in Feb of 2008. That Judgment was quashed. At the hearing for the motion to Quash they served me again. (In April of 2008)

Thank you!

[jjbtrcrdt]

Yes, an assignee can be, and many times is, a purchaser. Many debt collectors who only contract to collect a debt on behalf of the creditor claim to be assignees. And the term, although confusing at times, is not used improperly in that context either.

The Gearing case dealt with subrogation and rescission. Check Brokerage was indeed the purchaser and thus the assignee of the debt it purchased from Ayerco. The problem was the clause in the contract that allowed Check Brokerage to rescind the sale if its collection efforts did not pay off. This clause did not create a subrogation and as such, Check Brokerage did not have the right to bring suit against Gearing even though it was technically an assignee.

I am going to read up on this more in depth, I am still unclear as of yet sorry. and thank you.

However, that brings me to another question-

Per the information I have received from credit reports and my own research, this account was charged off at the time of purchase. This CA is the 2nd purchaser (unless you count that the OC was bought out then perhaps the 3rd???) Can they still as it was charged off charge me interest and amount (they have yet to have proved that I owe) of principle or can they only sue me (if at all) for the amount they purchased the alleged debt for?

Thank you!

[nascar]

Under the UCC 4-9-616, if you request a calculation of surplus or deficiency, you must be provided with detailed information within a certain time period. If the person seeking the deficiency does not respond, he forfeits any claim to the deficiency and must issue you a release. If he does not do so, he is liable to you for $500 in damages.

You also indicate that you only owed two payments of $279 when the car was surrendered. I won't even ask how you let that happen in the first place, but regardless, if the car sold for anything more than the amount you owed, plus repo fees, you are entitled to a refund of the balance.

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see anywhere in any of your posts where you have attempted to indicated to the court that this collector is illegally attempting to collect a repo deficiency. You have enough of a claim against this debt collector that you should have no problem getting an attorney to look at this.

You've got to stop looking at the debt collection law to save you on this and start using the laws that apply to your situation instead. You can start with sending your Request for Calculation today.