Jump to content

COURT, confusing situation.


Recommended Posts

A buddy of mine's DW was sued by NCO in 2002 based on a Discover Card that she claims never existed.

Answer was filed by the DW and discovery was issued by both parties, the case stalled as NCO did not answer the discovery as they had no paper to back the claim.

In NOV, 2008 the court issued A NOTICE TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION......nothing further was done by either party or the Court.

KICKER........August, 2008 ASSET files suit, as they bought the alledged debt from NCO in 2005........all the while NCO was still in litigation with this same debt, but the filing by ASSET shows NCO did not buy the debt until 2004.

ASSET and the defendant go to court last week.........Judge throws the case back to the Circuit Court based on the juridiction of the 2002 NCO suit that never had an order dismissing the origional case.

Confused Yet? I have been doing the paper writing since the origional suit by NCO, neither ASSET or NCO has any paper linking buddy's DW to this account.

So here we are 6 1/2 years later to find out the origional case by NCO is still pending and the Judge merged both cases, so no we have 2 PLAINTIFFS, for the same account.

NCO files suit in 2002, but chain of custody provided by ASSET shows NCO bought this debt in 2004?

ASSET shows they bought this debt in 2005 from NCO while NCO still had this under litigation.

I am seeing some violations here, but I need to wait until the Court rule's (PAPERS SUBMITTED) on the fact of who legaly owns the alledged debt, and who has proper legal standing now before the Court.

Anyone ever seen a situation this messed up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This case has gone from simple block and stall, and make them produce documents pro se' defense to giving rise to many causes of action and claims for you to recover against both these scumbags.

Filing a lawsuit against you on a claim without proper ownership or multiple ownership claims of the same claim is actionable in many states.

I'm not familiar with Ky law but you need to file countersuits and not be satisfied with dismissal, you need to slit their throat with your own claim.

Sue, sue , sue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have told the parties that there will be a time to get a lawyer involved, but I think it is best to see how the Court will rule on which Plaintiff has legal standing, then go after the other.....but as was posted I think it will be determined that neither Plaintiff has legal standing, so I see both being sued for multiple violations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have what has happened in a suit of mine, you needed to back to the court in the first one and get a document from teh court that case was dismissed. You need to go to the court clerk and get a full docket of the case(copies from the court)

Now there are some options you have, in the second case you can file a Motion to dismiss based on a suit pending for the same alleged complaint. Bring the docket. Judge will dismiss. If he does not then motion based on fruadelent cliams and that the original plaintiff suit was dismissed by another court. Have the docket. You need to sue these bastards, i am sure they re-aged the account on your report. Send them the FTC Affidavit too. By law they have to do away with the file. Take this to court also that it was most likely a case of ID theft. SUE SUE SUE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The Court has now dismissed NCO's suit for lack of prosecution. This leaves ASSET in a deep hole as it shows they had no right or legal standing to file their suit to begin with..........I see several violations due to this, so now it is time to test the waters on a countersuit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • 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.