GDayMateAZ

Midland Funding vs. me in Arizona 2010

Recommended Posts

Midland Funding LLC (hereafter "JDB") vs. me in Arizona 2010

JDB filed lawsuit against me in local Justice Court with Fast Track Complaint.

I was served with this complaint on my and Jane Doe names (2 copies)

without any supporting documentation and without any certificate of service.

Filed my Answer to Complaint with Affirmative Defences

(created using templates posted on this forum and

the book "Stick It To Sue Happy Debt Collectors: Learn How to Fight Debt Collection Lawsuits and Win" by Allen Harkleroad )

without paying the Court Fee ($50.00 for filing response in my County of Arizona) but attaching Fee Waiver/Deferral Application.

Sent this paperwork by cert mail to JDB's Atty.

We received this Affidavit of Debt.

I found the Affiant's profile on Linkedin.

The Affiant claimed working for MCM (Midland Credit Mgmt) in St Cloud, Minnesota.

However, her Linkedin profile says that she is working for Encore Capital Group) in that city.

Anyway, the Affiant never worked for alleged OC, and so she cannot have any "personal knowledge" about my alleged debt to OC.

This Affidavit can be considered nothing but hearsay.

I received a notice from the court with with request to pay $50,

otherwise they would sent my response back to me, not filed.

Called to the court. They explained me that my Answer to Complaint is not considered filed until I pay the Court Fee $50.00.

I paid Court Fee $50, filed my Amended Response (with more detailed Afirmative Defences),

the Motion to strike JDB's Affidavit of Debt and my Discovery Request.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. This Complaint is not substantiated with a proper evidence supporting the Plaintiff’s claims, whereas such initial supporting documentation is required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26(a)(1).

2. The Plaintiff lacks standing to sue the Defendants,

since at no time did the Defendants cause any harm to the Plaintiff:

a) the Defendants have never had any sort of relationship, business or otherwise, with the Plaintiff;

B) at no time did the Defendants become indebted to the Plaintiff;

c) as such, the Defendants have no obligation to the Plaintiff, monetary or otherwise.

3. The Defendants claim Lack of Privity as both Defendants have never entered into any contractual or debtor/creditor arrangements with the Plaintiff.

4. The Plaintiff has not proven that it has acquired the alleged account from

OC.

5. The Plaintiff has not proven that it is the real successor-in-interest.

The Defendants demand proof of ownership specifically that the alleged account is the legal property of the Plaintiff with all of the original creditor’s rights and privileges intact.

6. The Plaintiff's claims are barred by the Statute of Frauds (A.R.S. §44-101) as the purported contract(s) or agreement(s) fall(s) within a class of contracts or agreements required to be in writing.

The purported contract(s) or agreement(s) alleged in the Complaint (is) (are) not in writing and (is) (are) not signed by both Defendants or by some other person authorized by the Defendants and who was to answer for the alleged debt, default or miscarriage of another person.

7. The Defendants allege that the granting of the Plaintiff's demand in the Complaint would result in Unjust Enrichment, as the Plaintiff would receive more money than the Plaintiff is entitled to receive.

8. The Plaintiff's alleged damages are limited to real or actual damages only.

For estimation such damages, the Defendants attach a Memo from the Plaintiff to U.S. Federal Trade Commission dated by July 31st, 2009 (Exhibit 1).

This memo states (at the bottom of the 1st page 3rd Paragraph) that Plaintiff has invested $1.3 Billion to acquire 27 million consumer accounts with a face value of $43 Billion.

The simple mathematical action of division shows that the Plaintiff has paid in average $48.15 for each consumer account, whereas

the Plaintiff claims the damage in the amount of $XXXX.XX

9. The Plaintiff admits voluntarily purchasing the alleged account,

causing the Plaintiff's damages to its own self, therefore Plaintiff is barred

from seeking relief for such self-inflicted damages.

10. The Plaintiff has not proven that it is authorized and licensed to collect claims for others in the State of Arizona, or solicit the right to collect or receive payment of a claim of another.

11. The Defendants reserve the right to plead other affirmative defenses that

may become applicable and/or available at a later time.

12. The Defendants reserve the right to submit counterclaims that may become applicable and/or available at a later time.

The Defendants pray this case be dismissed with prejudice along with any further relief the court deems just and proper.

Attachments: Exhibit 1 - Memo from the Plaintiff to U.S. Federal Trade Commission

http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/debtcollectroundtable1/542930-00025.pdf

Edited by GDayMateAZ
Added Affirmative Defences

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As of today, Sept 26, 2010

Midland Funding LLC is not licensed with

Arizona Dept of Financial Institutions

as Collection Agency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/debtcollectroundtable1/542930-00025.pdf

Encore Capital Group

... and its subsidiary, Midland Credit Management, Inc.

8875 Aero Drive, Suite 200

San Diego, CA 92123

Tel: (800) 825-8131 • Fax: (800) 309-6998

Via electronic delivery

July 31, 2009

Federal Trade Commission

Office of the Secretary

Room H-135 (Annex A)

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.

Washington, DC 20580

Re: Debt Collection Roundtable -Comment, Project No. P094806

Dear Federal Trade Commission:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide written comments in advance of the roundtable discussion regarding "Protecting Consumers in Debt Collection Litigation and Arbitration", scheduled for Chicago on August 5-6, 2009.

Our companies,

Encore Capital Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: ECPG),

Midland Credit Management, Inc. ("MCM"),

and three debt-buying entities,

Midland Funding LLC,

Midland Funding NCC-2 Corporation and

MRC Receivables Corporation ...

We employ more than 1200 employees across five locations,

We have been in the collection business for 55 years and started purchasing portfolios for our own account approximately 18 years ago.

From our inception through June 30, 2009, we have invested approximately $1.3 billion to acquire 27 million consumer accounts

with a face value of approxilnately $43 billion.

The receivable portfolios we purchase consist primarily of unsecured, charged-off domestic consumer credit card, auto loan deficiency and telecom receivables purchased from national financial institutions, major retail credit corporations, telecom companies and resellers of such portfolios.

After we purchase a portfolio, we continuously refine our analysis of the accounts to determine the best strategy for collection, including the use of a nationwide network of collection attorneys to pursue legal action where appropriate. We believe the use of the legal system is a necessary element of maintaining accountability in our financial system when repayment cannot be secured through the mail or by phone.

Default Judgments and Service of Process

The processes by which any judgments, including default judgments, are entered across various jurisdictions differ greatly based upon such considerations as the amount of the debt, the documentation provided with the complaint, and the sufficiency of evidence regarding the proper service of process upon the defendant. Default judgments represent a significant percentage of the judgments obtained by our companies and others in this industry, as well as in all other cases filed in coulis that must review and resolve increasingly large numbers of lawsuits. In our view, the rate of default judgments does not depend on the type of action but rather on the processes in place for a particular court or judge to make a decision in a case where the defendant has failed to file an appearance or responsive pleading, and has similarly failed to physically appear before the court. We would prefer that consumers appear so that we may discuss the account, their financial situation, and payment options, but they do not go to court, and that is the reason for the large numbers of default judgments.

While the number of cases filed to collect delinquent debts is substantial, we do not see the default judgment rate to be a reflection of certain types of debt or debt ownership, but as an indication that most defendants fail to respond to proper legal notice of a pending court action involving their interests. A reasonable default judgment process that examines both the service of process and the information and materials supporting the complaint is able to quickly resolve uncontested lnatters and remove them from a crowded court docket while limiting the time that local counsel must devote to such cases. In most jurisdictions, a defendant is notified of such a default judgment and provided another opportunity to appear before the court and raise available defenses to the claim. We believe that defendants are given sufficient opportunities, both before and during the litigation process, to raise defenses, ask questions, and reach a resolution to their delinquent account, and the default judgment process is important for companies such as ours to continue to collect debts in an efficient and costeffective manner.

Statute of Limitations

A statute of limitations, which provides a deadline for the commencement of litigation, is defined is various ways across many states, with distinctions based on the nature of a contract, availability of supporting documentation, location of activity, and other factors that are reviewed and applied by courts at different jurisdictional levels. Our company uses litigation as only one of several methods to collect debts and, for those accounts that are past the statute of limitations, we do collect on such accounts through methods such as telephone calls and letters because there is no prohibition on such actions. We do not, however, knowingly pursue litigation against those consumers whose statute has expired. As you know, the FTC issued a Consumer Alert in October 2004 that specifically concluded that collection of debt for which a statute of limitations has run is not deceptive, misleading, or prohibited by law. With only a few exceptions, the expiration of the statute of limitations does not extinguish the debt or our right to continue collections, and we do collect such debts in the same general course of business that we collect all other debts.

Through court decisions, the statute of limitations for credit card accounts has been reduced in several states, and a number of state legislatures have also proposed a reduction in the time period for litigation. It is our view that shorter statutes will not have the intended effect and will lead to a significant increase in the number of lawsuits filed. Companies will be compelled to file lawsuits earlier in the collection process to protect their interests, and will no longer have the time and flexibility to work with consumers having financial difficulties. While shorter statutes may initially appear to be favorable for consumers, the result will likely not be beneficial to them because agencies will no longer be able to wait for individuals to financially recover. Additionally, the litigation costs and court activity will only add to the burden faced by such consumers.

Finally, consumers are currently provided with detailed information about their debt and numerous notices regarding their rights, and it is our view that informing consumers about the legal status of their account is problematic. Consumers receive a validation letter each time that an account is transferred to a new servicer, and consumers have also already likely received many letters and notices from the original creditor and prior owners and servicers, so we believe that sufficient disclosures have been made to consumers and that requiring an additional notice will result in legal questions and other issues that collection agencies should not be required to address. Letters to consumers should be concise, informative and provide details regarding the subject account and payment options, but should not be complicated with legal advice related to the statute of limitations, tax consequences, or other similar issues, which will complicate letters and make them less effective and more difficult for consumers to read and understand.

Evidence of Indebtedness

As noted previously, our company purchases account portfolios from national financial institutions, major retail credit corporations, and telecom companies, as well as resellers of such portfolios, and each purchase is the subject of a comprehensive written agreement that addresses all aspects of the transaction between our company and the selling entity. Our agreements not only require representations and warranties from a seller that all consumer and account information is accurate and current, but also often provide for post-purchase support from sellers regarding additional information or documents that may be needed to address consumer or court inquiries. The electronic data obtained from sellers includes a consumer's name, address, Social Security Number, telephone number and other details that are used to confirm identity, as well as specific account information regarding the charge-off and current balance, last payment date and amount, and other account activity. All of this is provided to our law firms at the time we place an account for litigation. We intend and expect that all relevant and required information is referenced in the complaint or provided to the court and the consumer in the form of an affidavit or other exhibit.

One major concern for our company and the industry has been the elevated evidentiary standards being proposed by state legislatures and independently developed by local courts. The standards appear to be applicable only to debt collection cases and often include documentation and information requirements that are burdensome and unrealistic in a time when such physical materials are often unavailable or non-existent. Many accounts are opened, accessed, managed and transferred without any hardcopy documents, so an evidentiary standard that sets minimum filing or judgment requirements that demand the production of an original application, complete set of account statements, copies of payments and other written materials is, in our opinion, an unreasonable expectation. The burden of proof should not be higher for debt collection matters, and we meet our burden of proof using electronic information and certain documents provided to us by the sellers and warranted by contract to be true and correct.

Lance S. Martin

Vice President, Compliance and Regulatory Affairs

Edited by GDayMateAZ
Added link to Midland memo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am interested to know how your case is progressing. I, too, have been contacted by an attorney who represents Midland Funding. I have requested a DV, but only recieved a copy of an avidavit from someone who claims to work for them and knows about their accounts. I have a couple of days to respond to their second letter. Not sure how to proceed at this point. BTW, I never received any letter from Midland stating that they had the account. The first I heard of them was the letter from the lawyer stating their desire to seek legal action if I didn't try to settle the account. Any information you can give will be appreciated.

Hope things work out well for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quoting from above (Midland): """"we would prefer that consumers appear so that we may discuss the account, their financial situation, and payment options, but they do not go to court, and that is the reason for the large numbers of default judgments."

That gave me a really good laugh, sort of, almost. Since Midland Funding is the firm who are in collusion with the judge in my case at which I did appear and which I did insist they provide proof of standing to sue and a proper cause. It seems that since I was being a nuisance and didn't give them the evidence in my response to their discovery documents to hang myself they decided to "juggle" appearance dates. So much for their preferences and willingness to deal. Unless you're talking about making a deal with the judge. A strong accusation on my part but also an accurate one.

BTW, I also found in my court file when I checked it on this past monday a Affidavit of Debt (what a load of tripe) from someone in St. Cloud Minnesota who appears to be one and the same as the person in your affidavit. It was interesting to note that prior to her becoming a LEGAL SPE******T just last year, her former job was as part of a crew at a taco restaurant.

The affidavit was dated in April 2010 yet oddly this PROOF didn't materialize until SURPRISE the default judgment date against me, I guess it helped the judge to feel better about signing the judgment which also (oddly) was prepared and file-stamped the same day as the judgment which was at court which lasts about 2 hours or so and starts at 1:30 so not over until 3:30 but this duly diligent attorney managed to supposedly prepare the order and get it signed and filed. The order did not have a blank for the date and then written in, it was specifically prepared with the date of judgment typed in as part of the document. The attorney I talked to about the case seemed eager to make excuses/explanations and he said they frequently keep an order with their file and then fill in the date but I told him that this wasn't a blank date then filled it, it was prepared for that specific date. Telling, it seems to me, just as the fact that the Affidavit was available since April but didn't show until judgment date.

Edited by Anne Tyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lkgibbs,

I post here:

Motion to Strike Affidavit of Debt

The Defendants, appearing PRO SE, respectfully request this Court to strike the Plaintiff’s Affidavit of Debt (hereafter “Affidavit”, see Exhibit 1) created and signed by XXXX (hereafter “Affiant”) for the following reasons:

1. The Plaintiff has sent to the Defendants the Affidavit (which Defendants received without knowledge if the Affidavit is filed with this Court) created and signed by the Affiant who states that she is employed with Midland Credit Management, Inc. (hereafter “MCM”), while actually she is employed with Encore Capital Group, Inc. since November 2009 (see Exhibit 2).

2. The Affidavit pertains to acts and events that allegedly occurred between the Defendants and a third party, OC, between 2005 and 2008.

3. The Affiant is not currently and has never been employed with OC (see Exhibit 2) and therefore cannot have personal knowledge of how OC records were prepared and maintained and how they were transferred to MCM (Arizona Rules of Evidence, Rules 803(6)(B) and 803(6)©) .

Therefore, at no time was the Affiant present to witness any alleged acts or creation of the records of transactions allegedly occurring between the Defendants and OC.

4. The Affiant does not state if she witnessed any document that the Plaintiff is authorized and licensed to collect claims for others in the State of Arizona, or solicit the right to collect or receive payment of a claim of another.

5. The Affiant does not state if she witnessed the original signed credit application between the Defendants and OC, bearing signatures of both Defendants.

6. The Affiant does not state if she witnessed any contract, agreement or bill of sale that could prove that the Plaintiff acquired specifically the alleged account from OC.

7. The Affiant does not state if she witnessed any documental evidence that the Plaintiff is the real successor-in-interest of the alleged debt, and any proof of ownership specifically that the alleged account is the legal property of the Plaintiff with all of the original creditor’s rights and privileges intact.

8. The Affiant does not state if she witnessed any authentic document which definitely says that both Defendants have contractual responsibility to the Plaintiff for the alleged debt, such as Contract(s) or agreement(s) in writing and signed by both Defendants.

9. The Affiant does not state if she witnessed any document that could support claims of actual damages caused by Defendants that the Plaintiff is seeking relief for.

10. The Affiant’s claims that she has “personal knowledge of those account records maintained…” and she is “familiar with the manner and method by which MCM creates and maintains its business records…” are questionable, because she avoids getting in any technical details of her daily usage “in the regular course of business” the MCM documents management system, such as:

a) how the MCM documentation storage and retrieval system is organized ?

B) is it computerized or paper-based ?

c) if this system is computerized, then is it “Legacy” Mainframe based (with “green-screen” text capabilities only) or is it modern computers based with Graphic User Interface screens and Internet capabilities ?

d) where is the system located ? is it in-house system (on the MCM site) or third-party outsourced (in the USA or offshore) ?

e) how many documents requests per a day (in average) this system processes, and how many requests per a day the Affiant herself processes ?

f) how many affidavits per a day the Affiant creates, prints out, reads, verifies/checks for accuracy and signs ?

g) is it assured that she verifies 100% of all affidavits she signs ?

h) if this system is computerized, then how all original documentation is entered to the MCM’s computer(s) ?

i) whether all original documentation retained or is it destroyed after entering to MCM computer(s) ?

j) how the MCM documentation’s accuracy, authenticity, integrity, consistency and completeness is assured ?

k) how the MCM’s documental system is protected against any kind of forgery, falsification or human error ?

11. As such said, Affidavit falls under the Hearsay rule (Arizona Rules of Evidence, Rule 801) and is inadmissible as evidence.

12. The Defendants further state that the Affidavit is not subject the Hearsay business records exemption because it was not made at or near the time of the alleged acts or events (Arizona Rules of Evidence, Rules 803(1), 803(6)(a)), and;

13. The information contained in the Affidavit is partial, vague, biased, insufficient and is merely an accumulation of Hearsay, and;

14. The Defendants believe that the Affiant is not qualified to testify as to the truth of the information contained in the Affidavit.

15. As such said, this Affidavit cannot substitute all that documentation that Defendants have demanded the Plaintiff to produce in their Discovery Request.

The Defendants pray the Plaintiff’s Affidavit be stricken from the evidence in the above action.

Attachments: Exhibit 1 – Affidavit of Debt

Exhibit 2 – Curriculum Vitae of XXX from Linkedin.com

Edited by GDayMateAZ
Included "Motion to Strike Affidavit of Debt"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Anne,

>> BTW, I also found in my court file when I checked it on this past monday a Affidavit >> of Debt (what a load of tripe) from someone in St. Cloud Minnesota who appears to >> be one and the same as the person in your affidavit.

"My" affiant's name is Susan R.

Her Experience

Paralegal Encore Capital Group

(Public Company; ECPG; Financial Services industry)

November 2009 — Present (11 months)

Validate affidavits

Legal Spe******t Encore Capital Group

(Public Company; ECPG; Financial Services industry)

November 2009 — Present (11 months)

Legal Spe******t: Managing the evaluation of the documents, proof reading, ensuring accuracy and completeness

of documentation, as well as escalation and resolution of non-conforming docurments (sic !!) to quickley (sic !!) resolve discrepancies.

Affidavit Types: Default Judgment, Motion for Summary Judgement, Affidavit of Lost Instrument, Affidavit of Indebtedness, Affidavit in Lieu of Testimony, Chain of Title Affidavit

Notary Public

Edited by GDayMateAZ
Correction 2 Mask Affiant's full name

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you ever heard of Roman v Midland Credit Funding?

Its a real recent (just in the last couple of months) class action suit that is being settled out of court. It appears that some 20-some thousand people in Illinois and Indiana were sued by MCM (Encore) and presented with affidavits from an employee of Midland that contained false information. Midland has agreed to pay 200-some thousand dollars in restitution to the Plaintiffs in the class action suit rather than go through the cost of litigation (and although Midland has denied any wrong-doing, this sounds like an admission to me...IMHO).

RL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you ever heard of Roman v Midland Credit Funding?

RL

RebelLady,

Do you mean Midland Funding LLC (or Midland Credit Management, Inc.) ?

I was curious how "my" Plaintiff Midland Finding LLC

is registered with Arizona Corporation Commission,

and found this:

Arizona Corporation Commission

10/01/2010 State of Arizona Public Access System 8:33 PM

Corporate Inquiry

File Number: L-1339563-7

Corp. Name: MIDLAND FUNDING LLC

Domestic Address 2209 E JOY RANCH RD

PHOENIX, AZ 85086

Statutory Agent Information Agent Name: DEAN ALAN JENKINS

Agent Mailing/Physical Address:

2209 E JOY RANCH RD

PHOENIX, AZ 85086

Agent Status: APPOINTED 01/18/2007

Agent Last Updated: 01/25/2007

Additional Corporate Information Corporation Type: DOMESTIC L.L.C. Business Type:

Incorporation Date: 01/18/2007 Corporate Life Period: PERPETUAL

Domicile: ARIZONA County: MARICOPA

Approval Date: 01/25/2007 Original Publish Date:

Manager/Member Information DEAN A JENKINS

MEMBER

2209 E JOY RANCH RD

PHOENIX,AZ 85086

Date of Taking Office: 01/18/2007

Last Updated: 01/25/2007

ARTICLES OF ORGANIZATION 01/18/2007

Microfilm Location Date Received Description

32018000809 01/18/2007 ARTICLES OF ORGANIZATION

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The exact title is:

Lillian Roman v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Funding, LLC, MRC Receivables Corp. or Midland Funding NCC-2 Corp. and Encore Capital Group, Inc. (case No. 09-cv-5685).

I think she pretty well covered them all...lol

RL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The exact title is:

Lillian Roman v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Funding, LLC, MRC Receivables Corp. or Midland Funding NCC-2 Corp. and Encore Capital Group, Inc. (case No. 09-cv-5685).

I think she pretty well covered them all...lol

RL

RebelLady, Thanks a lot !

I found it in PACER.

Edited by GDayMateAZ
Found this case in PACER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, remind me to stay clear of Arizona. you have to pay to respond? or did I read that wrong? Making someone pay in order to defend themselves just seems wrong to me??:roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, remind me to stay clear of Arizona. you have to pay to respond? or did I read that wrong? Making someone pay in order to defend themselves just seems wrong to me??:roll:

Anne,

You've read it right: there is $50.00 court fee (in my County of Arizona)

to file your answer. No pay -> no answer's filing -> Judgment by Default

(pending 10 days that gives you the last chance to respond paying this amt

of $50.00).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anne,

You've read it right: there is $50.00 court fee (in my County of Arizona)

to file your answer. No pay -> no answer's filing -> Judgment by Default

(pending 10 days that gives you the last chance to respond paying this amt

of $50.00).

Well that just blows my mind. Granted, its not a criminal matter, but what if you were to apply the same standard to accusations of criminal conduct? You wouldn't be allowed to tell "your side" without coughing up some bucks?

That seems abusive to me. Okay, then, IF you were to prevail in defending yourself and went even further and proved that they had brought a case against you in which they were never able to establish they owned the debt and had the info to back it up, would they be required to reimburse your $50?

In a case such as mine then I would have had to pay $50 to defend myself and then get screwed over by the judge and k&f with a wrongly ordered default judgment, what a deal!88-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that just blows my mind. Granted, its not a criminal matter, but what if you were to apply the same standard to accusations of criminal conduct? You wouldn't be allowed to tell "your side" without coughing up some bucks?

That seems abusive to me. Okay, then, IF you were to prevail in defending yourself and went even further and proved that they had brought a case against you in which they were never able to establish they owned the debt and had the info to back it up, would they be required to reimburse your $50?

In a case such as mine then I would have had to pay $50 to defend myself and then get screwed over by the judge and k&f with a wrongly ordered default judgment, what a deal!88-)

If I prevail, then I'm entitled to reimbursed with $50.00 plus money

I spent sending out my paperwork to Plaintiff's attorney by certified

mail ($6.xx each time).

And PACER cost, too ...

for getting the data of the Cases "1:09-cv-05872 Lillian Roman v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. et al" in U.S. District Court, Northern Disctrict of Illinois- Eastern Division" and "1:09-cv-05685 Jeannet Thrnton v. Midland" in the same court (2009).

Edited by GDayMateAZ
Includung Pacer cost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

G'Day:

My Affiant is Carina B. who says she is a "Legal Spe******t" (probably because the sole purpose of her job is to fill out this ridiculous affidavits and it appears more impressive coming from a "Legal Spe******t". She is located in St. Cloud, MN, her prior job was as part of a "crew" at a Taco chain.

Her affidavit was notarized by Ashley H. It occurs to me wouldn't it be interesting if these legal spe******ts notarized each other's affidavits? That is described as part of their job, so if all they are doing is preparing these affidavits why would they need to be a notary? Online she lists herself as a legal spe******t with ENCORE which of course is part of Midland Funding so her affidavit, apart from the fact it proves nothing except how desperate they are, is certainly not from someone objective.

What it amounts to is someone from the same company basically affirming what seedy lawyers say as the truth. What a deal, get your secretary to say you are telling the truth and you have the keys to the kingdom. OF COURSE, that might be HER JOB and since it is if she doesn't back you up she's out on her ear so yeah, very objective.

In my case its interesting because she states she as access to "pertinent account records for Midland Credit Management, Inc. (MCM)

In my case, Carina B's statement that she has "access to pertinent account records of Midland Credit Managment, Inc. (MCM)" is misleading it seems to me. She never states that she is employed by this group. Furthermore, in my case I am being sued by Midland Funding LLC and so why are we admitting "evidence" from Midland Credit Management? Midland Credit Management is not a party to the case nor is Citibank from whence the charges came. If they can't prove that Citibank sold them this debt then they have no case. Which is where we were when I got STUNNED by an overeager judge (overeager being a generous term on my part) and plaintiff's attorney.

Each of her tasks at work basically amounts to the same thing. She spends her day filling in the blanks for whatever bit of "proof" they are wanting at the time.

This is from your affidavit :

Managing the evaluation of the documents, proof reading, ensuring accuracy and completeness

of documentation, as well as escalation and resolution of non-conforming docurments (sic !!) to quickley (sic !!) resolve discrepancies.

Affidavit Types: Default Judgment, Motion for Summary Judgement, Affidavit of Lost Instrument, Affidavit of Indebtedness, Affidavit in Lieu of Testimony, Chain of Title Affidavit

Notary Public

In both cases (yours and mine) these spe******ts are relatively new having come onboard 2009 (I bet they don't last long).

And your person says part of her job is proof reading (not proofreading) and she has numerous errors in spelling so I guess she isn't too good at her job.

Edited by Anne Tyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Managing the evaluation of the documents, proof reading, ensuring accuracy and completeness

of documentation, as well as escalation and resolution of non-conforming docurments (sic !!) to quickley (sic !!) resolve discrepancies.

Affidavit Types: Default Judgment, Motion for Summary Judgement, Affidavit of Lost Instrument, Affidavit of Indebtedness, Affidavit in Lieu of Testimony, Chain of Title Affidavit

Notary Public

What this says to me is that its a boiler room setup since she has to QUICKLY turn nonconforming documents into conforming ones. In other words, make it work, she is involved with ESCALATION and RESOLUTION (solve the problem). So she's supposed to take the facts and fit them into the scenario to QUICKLEY (sic) RESOLVE DISCREPANCIES.(not errors but discrepancies). If they are errors you fix them but if they are discrepancies (things that don't "match") you fix those too I guess.

So she has access to these records and whenever they don't quite fit by her own words she is charged with making them fit basically. Find the inconsistencies and resolve them.

And why again does she need to be a notary when all her job involves is preparing documents that will be notarized (her signature as affiant) by some other notary.

I think they hand them over to the next desk and say "i'll notarize yours if you do mine". It would be interesting to see where these notaries are employed. In fact, I think I'll see if I can find something right now on Ashley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Having to pay to defend a civil suit doesn't make sense to me.

Nor to me, not to defend any suit really. It sounds unconstitutional actually. So Joe Blow can say whatever he pleases and if you want to prove he's lying or wrong you have to pay to do so? You can't tell the truth unless you pay to do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Having to pay to defend a civil suit doesn't make sense to me.

Agree ...

But, at this point, greed is not good (for me) ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They produce (print out) about 200-400 such affidavits every day,

sign them and send out to Notary.

All these affidavits are going to courts as Sworn Statements.

Some words about Encore/Midland Corp

that operates under multiple identities:

Encore Capital Group, Inc. (Encore) is a purchaser and manager of charged-off consumer receivable portfolios. Located in San-Diego.

Midland Credit management, Inc (MCM) is actual collection agency.

Located in Phoenix.

Midland Funding LLC - our mutual Plaintiff -

looks like a fictitious, fabricated business entity.

It's located nowhere.

There are more Midlands ...

Why they (Encore or MCM) put this alias "Midland Funding LLC"

on legal papers and file lawsuits under fake identity ?

10/02/2010

Today I found that MIDLAND FUNDING DE (of Delaware) LLC

is really in Arizona with the Secretary of State

and Corporation Commission

as Portfolio Savings Management Company

and not as Collection Agency.

Arizona Corporation Commission

10/02/2010 State of Arizona Public Access System 10:58 AM

File Number: R-1565213-0

Corp. Name: MIDLAND FUNDING DE LLC

Domestic Address

CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY

2338 W ROYAL PALM RD STE J

PHOENIX, AZ 85021

Foreign Address

8875 AERO DR #200

SAN DIEGO, CA 92123

Statutory Agent Information

Agent Name: CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY

Agent Mailing/Physical Address:

2338 W ROYAL PALM RD STE J

PHOENIX, AZ 85021

Agent Status: APPOINTED 11/19/2009

Agent Last Updated: 12/08/2009

Additional Corporate Information

Corporation Type: FOREIGN L.L.C. Business Type:

Incorporation Date: 11/19/2009 Corporate Life Period:

Domicile: DELAWARE County: MARICOPA

Approval Date: 12/08/2009 Original Publish Date:

Manager/Member Information

Ariz. Corp. Comm. -- Corporations Division Page 1 of 2

MIDLAND PORTFOLIO SAVINGS INC

MANAGER

8875 AERO DR #200

SAN DIEGO,CA 92123

Date of Taking Office: 11/19/2009

Last Updated: 12/08/2009

Description Date Received

02971581 APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION 11/19/2009

Real Debt Collector is their Attorney,

who is not licensed with the State in such capacity.

G'Day:

Her affidavit was notarized by Ashley H. It occurs to me wouldn't it be interesting if these legal spe******ts notarized each other's affidavits?

In my case its interesting because she states she as access to "pertinent account records for Midland Credit Management, Inc. (MCM)

Each of her tasks at work basically amounts to the same thing. She spends her day filling in the blanks for whatever bit of "proof" they are wanting at the time.

Edited by GDayMateAZ
Midland Funding DE (Delaware) LLC is their correct name

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The notary is supposed to witness each document as being signed otherwise they can't be sure who signed it. I know its not done that way a lot of times but this is just another weak link in an already weak chain.

It would be foolish on their part to have someone from within notarizing documents for them but then I wouldn't put it past them. Nothing would please me more (ok, a few things would but anyway) than to find out that the person notarizing is also an employee of that same company because i dont think they are supposed to notarize anything that they stand to profit from.

I used to be a notary a long time ago and it was in a law office and I did notarize things for my employer but it was nothing that he was going to profit by. For example, a Last Will and Testament that he would not be one of those inheriting anything through it.

It's amazing though, how much there is to "stuff" that gets clouded with time how I used to do those things and now I have to "dredge" my mind to come up with the stuff.

Anyway, I know of one case, a Foreclosure, that didn't happen because of the "signing in the presence of" stipulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the notarized statement in my case it is Titled Affidavit of Carina B. in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment.

There was no Motion for Default Judgment (but that doesn't surprise me because the judge never required any motions OF THEIRS to be in writing from them. He just ordered whatever it was that suited them). Anyway, if this document was signed by Carina B. back in April before the case was even filed against me then that doesn't seem quite kosher to me. And back in April there was no motion for default judgment because there was no case then. So that is just another example of how these things are churned out and no doubt put aside until needed.

Was yours signed and notarized months ago as well???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This amount is variable, but still > $0.00 in Arizona.

Is this just in your county in Arizona, this charge to defend or is that state-wide, I'm curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.