Jump to content

Ready for battle!!! Midland Funding in CA.


Recommended Posts

1. Who is suing you?

MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC

Stelios A. Harris is the attorny assigned

2. For how much?

$13,000.00

3. Who is the original creditor?

Washington Mutual

4. How do you know you are being sued?

Served papers on 5/14/11

5. How were you served? Were you served?

Girlfriend was served at home

6. What was your correspondence (if any) with the people suing you before you think you were being sued?

Maybe collection letters and calls, never really filtered them out

7. Where do you live?

Northern California

8. When is the last time you paid on this account?

10/2008 according to the credit bureau

9. What is the status of your case (if anything has been opened)? You can find this by a) calling the court or B) looking it up online (many states have this information posted daily).

Filed electronically on 4/29/11

10. Have you disputed the debt with the credit bureaus (both the original creditor and the collection agency?)

Have lexington law hadling the disputes

11. Did you request debt validation before the suit was filed? If not, don't bother doing this now.

No

12. Does your summons require a response in writing? (Look hard!) If you don't get a questionnaire with your summons, you are still probably required to answer it in writing. If you don't respond to the lawsuit notice you will lose automatically. In 99% of the cases, they will require you to answer the summons, and each point they are claiming. We need to know what the "charges" are. Please post what they are claiming. Did you receive an interrogatory (questionnaire) regarding the lawsuit?

1. Plaintiff, Midland Funding, LLC ("Plaintiff"), is a limited liability company qualified to do business in California.

2. The court is the proper court because Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendent John Doe (hereafter "Defendent"), is a resident of the County of ...., state of California.

3. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capicities of Defendent sued by the fictitious names DOES 1 thorugh 10; however, Plaintiff is informed and believes the each DOE defendant is resposible for the indebtedness herein alleged. Plaintiff will ask to leave of court to amend this complaint as and when the true names and capacities of Defendants named herein as DOES 1 through 10 have been ascertained.

4. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, were in pricipals, agents, employers, employees, masters, or servants of each of their co-defendants and ratifed, adopted or approved the acts of missions alleged herein, and each defendant, in doing the things alleged, were acting in the course and scope of said authority of such agents, servants, and employees.

5. By this complaint, Plaintiff seeks to recover amounts owed by Defendent. The underlying account that is basis of theis lawsuit is a credit account that Defendand held with creditor Washingston Mutual bank account no. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX9999 (the "Account'0.

6. Prior to filing this complaint, all right, title and interest to the Account were sold and assigned to Plaintiff. Plaintiff owns the Account and stands in the place of the original creditor and is entitled to collect on the Account as if it were the original creditor or its assigns, references herein to Plantiff may include Plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest.

7. Defendent opened, used, and derived benefit from the Account throught Defendant's own use of the Account or by another's use at Defendent's direction. By using the Account, Defendat expressly agreed or impliedly promised to repay Plantiff.

8. Before commencement of this action, in those cases where recovery of costs is dependent on notice, Plaintiff's informed Defendant in writing that it intended to file this aciton and that this action would result in a judgment against Defendant that would include court costs allowed by California Code of Civil Procedure $103(B)(2).

9. Plaintiff Midland Funding, LLC owns portfolios of consumer receivables, which it attemps to collect. When working with individual consumers, Plaintiff Midland Funding, LLC and its affiliates (collectively, "Midland" generally attempt to contact consumers like Defendant thought several means, all in an effort to establish contact and to resolve the underlying obligation. In doing so, Midland attempts to asses each consumer's willingness to pay, through phone calls, letters or other means. Midland attempts to exclude consumer from its collection efforts, where Midland believes those consumers are facing extenuating circumstances or hardships that would prevent them from making any payments.

10. When Midland contacts consumers, it strives to teat consumers with respect, compassion and integrity. Midland works with consumers in an effort to find mutually-beneficial solutions, often offering discounts, hardship plans, and payment options. Midland's efforts are aimed at working with the consumers to repay their obligations and attain financial recovery. Midland strives to engage in dialogue that is honorable and constructive, and to play a positive role in consumer's lives.

11. Despite Midland's effort to reach consumers and resolve the consumer's obligations, only a percentage of consumers choose to egage with Midland. Those who do are often offere discounts or payment plans that are inteded to suit their needs. Midland would prefer to work with sonsumers to establish voluntary payment arrangements resulting in the resolution of any underlying obligations.

12. However, the majority of Midland's consumers ignore calls or letters, and some simply refuse to repay thier obligations despite an apparent ability to do so. When this happens, Midland must decide whether to pursue collection though legal channels, including litiation like the present action against Defendant. Although the Account is now in litigation, Plaintiff remain willing to explore a mutally-beneficial solution through voluntary payment arrangements, if possible.

13. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs.

14. Within the last (4) years, Defendant became indebted on the Account to Plaintiff in the sum of $12,700.99 on an account stated in writing by and and between Plaintiff and Defendant in which it was agreed the Defendant was indebted to Plaintiff.

15. Plaintiff has made demand on Defendant for repayment of the account stated buy Defendant has failed and refused to pay the balance due.

16. There remains due, owing and unpaid the of $12,700.99 plus interest at the due at the rate of 10% from May 13, 2009 and cost of suit.

17. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by refernce the foregoing paragraphs.

18. Within th last (4) years, Defendant became indebted to Plaintiff in the sum of $12,700.99 for the money letn to or paid out the benefit of Defendant at Defendant's request, based on Defendant's use an benefit of the Account.

19. Although payment has been demanded, a balance due, owing and unpaid to Plantiff remains in the amount of $12,700.99 plus interest due at the legal rate from May 13, 2009 and costs of suit.

13. What evidence did they send with the summons? An affadavit? A statement from the OC? Anything else they attached as exhibits?

No

14. What is the SOL on the debt? To find out:

Less than 4 years

Edited by viper007
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been on the forum for the last 6 hours and learning by the minute. Nothing but great people on here. I am going to need a lot of help. Thanks in advance.

Can anyone tell me according to the the 1-19 statements which one are the allegations???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone tell me according to the the 1-19 statements which one are the allegations???

They are all allegations. But, if you are concerned with responding to each allegation in your answer, check to see if you can file a general denial. With a general denial, you just deny each and every allegation in the complaint:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/forms/fillable/pld050.pdf

Is the complaint verified (a verification is a statement, under penalty of perjury that someone has read the complaint and believes that the allegations are true)?

Along with your answer, you should send a Bill of Particulars. Check my posts in the last week or so. I have posted a form that you can put on pleading paper and send.

Good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

calawyer,

any ideas on how I should answer some of these allegations or where I can find examples to answer them? Or can I check box 3A, eventhough I am being sued for more than $1000? Nothing on any of the docs has any verfications.

Edited by viper007
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 9 months later...
Guest bbxx

i have the exact same compaint list in my summons.

It would be great if someone can post standard answers to these complaints so i don't have to re-invent the wheel on this. i can't file a general denial because my amount is over $1000.

Edited by bbxx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So do what calawyer says. Look and see at the end of your complaint if it says "under penalty of perjury" if not then its not verified. File the general denial, it's the link that is in calawyer's post. That's the way I responded to their complaint and I'm as green to all this as can be. Get that off before you start stressing about discovery or anything else (that goes for the rest of you in this post too). You'll have a few months to study the forums and learn but if you don't answer you're as good as dead.

Oh and by the way........ I got the same paperwork a few months back. Word for word. Filed a general denial and started my discovery. Got my CMC coming up on Monday so that gives you an idea how long you get to start preping.

Edited by ASTMedic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

March 9 2012

West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw announced Thursday that he has filed a lawsuit against Midland Funding and Midland Credit Management, subsidiaries of Encore Capital Group (Nasdaq: ECPG).

McGraw issued a press release indicating that the suit was “for using false affidavits when obtaining default judgments against West Virginia consumers and for failing to include information required by law when suing a consumer in magistrate or circuit court for an alleged debt,” echoing allegations made by a number of state attorneys general.

The announcement detailed some of the business practices of Encore, giving a rudimentary overview of how debt buying works and noting that “Midland will use false and unreliable mass-produced affidavits as supposed ‘proof’ of consumer debts in lawsuits against individual citizens.”

Encore, and its Midland subsidiaries, have been previously accused of using so-called robo-signing techniques to churn out debt validation affidavits for use in debt collection lawsuits.

The lawsuit, filed in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County (W.Va.) seeks a temporary injunction against Midland’s debt collection activities in the state until the matter is resolved, for all judgments Encore received in the state to be voided and the company repay any money consumers may have paid, and a $5,000 per-violation fine to be levied against the debt buyer.

San Diego-based Encore said late Thursday that the lawsuit was a surprise, and that it has reached out to McGraw’s office to initiate discussions in response.:cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

March 9 2012

West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw announced Thursday that he has filed a lawsuit against Midland Funding and Midland Credit Management, subsidiaries of Encore Capital Group (Nasdaq: ECPG).

McGraw issued a press release indicating that the suit was “for using false affidavits when obtaining default judgments against West Virginia consumers and for failing to include information required by law when suing a consumer in magistrate or circuit court for an alleged debt,” echoing allegations made by a number of state attorneys general.

The announcement detailed some of the business practices of Encore, giving a rudimentary overview of how debt buying works and noting that “Midland will use false and unreliable mass-produced affidavits as supposed ‘proof’ of consumer debts in lawsuits against individual citizens.”

Encore, and its Midland subsidiaries, have been previously accused of using so-called robo-signing techniques to churn out debt validation affidavits for use in debt collection lawsuits.

The lawsuit, filed in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County (W.Va.) seeks a temporary injunction against Midland’s debt collection activities in the state until the matter is resolved, for all judgments Encore received in the state to be voided and the company repay any money consumers may have paid, and a $5,000 per-violation fine to be levied against the debt buyer.

San Diego-based Encore said late Thursday that the lawsuit was a surprise, and that it has reached out to McGraw’s office to initiate discussions in response.:cry:

This is my sad face........... Nope can't do it.

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.