formerpara

Discover Card Reappeared after 3 years

Recommended Posts

Apparently I was sued by Discover Bank By Michele Sabine (Zakheim) in 9/2008. First of all, they filed in the wrong county, they never served me, a month after it appeared on the court docket they dismissed it and never served me, 2 years later the court dismissed it and they never sent me the notice.

In today's mail I got a form letter from Pollack & Rosen claiming that it was their 2nd letter to me for the Discover Account debt.

I guess I need to go down to the clerk's office and see what Discover did and how the case was dismissed. The SOL runs out at the end of October so Pollack & Rosen ( Midland's slime wads) scooped it up.

Can Discover do this??????????????

Join in all you brilliant minds.........................

Thanks. I'll post more about the docs when I get them tomorrow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently I was sued by Discover Bank By Michele Sabine (Zakheim) in 9/2008. First of all, they filed in the wrong county, they never served me, a month after it appeared on the court docket they dismissed it and never served me, 2 years later the court dismissed it and they never sent me the notice.

In today's mail I got a form letter from Pollack & Rosen claiming that it was their 2nd letter to me for the Discover Account debt.

I guess I need to go down to the clerk's office and see what Discover did and how the case was dismissed. The SOL runs out at the end of October so Pollack & Rosen ( Midland's slime wads) scooped it up.

Can Discover do this??????????????

Join in all you brilliant minds.........................

Thanks. I'll post more about the docs when I get them tomorrow.

If you're asking if Discover could sell the debt, yes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently I was sued by Discover Bank By Michele Sabine (Zakheim) in 9/2008. First of all, they filed in the wrong county, they never served me, a month after it appeared on the court docket they dismissed it and never served me, 2 years later the court dismissed it and they never sent me the notice.

In today's mail I got a form letter from Pollack & Rosen claiming that it was their 2nd letter to me for the Discover Account debt.

I guess I need to go down to the clerk's office and see what Discover did and how the case was dismissed. The SOL runs out at the end of October so Pollack & Rosen ( Midland's slime wads) scooped it up.

Can Discover do this??????????????

Join in all you brilliant minds.........................

Thanks. I'll post more about the docs when I get them tomorrow.

Are you saying these guys bought the account , or they claiming to rep Discover ?

Let us know what the docs said, and if they have filed suit . But as far as these new guys are concerned, Midland's boys, I suggest you reference:

Brent vs Midland ( Brent kicked their butt)

State of Minnesota vs Midland

and the latest I'm aware of ...State of Texas vs Midland

Check your rules of civil procedure...Tenn rules state that a new lawsuit must be brought WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER A SUIT IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Check for similar language in your state.

Also, if an affidavit has been submitted to you, please share the language,,,we might be able to help you rip it to shreds.

Edited by Noway
Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it common for them to send a "Second" letter without having sent the first one?

They claim this is the second letter. When you're talking about debt collectors, whether attorneys or JDBs, you never if they're telling the truth or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying these guys bought the account , or they claiming to rep Discover ? I don't know if they bought it. I received a form letter in the mail today stating that it was their 2nd letter and that the 30 days had passed to validate. I never received a first one.Let us know what the docs said, and if they have filed suit .

They haven't filed suit yet.

But as far as these new guys are concerned, Midland's boys, I know because they are suing me in aother matter for Midland and haven't responded to my discovery requests that were mailed 3/08/2011 yet.

Tenn rules state that a new lawsuit must be brought WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER A SUIT IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Check for similar language in your state. Don't know about this one but if it's true that would be cool.Also, if an affidavit has been submitted to you, please share the language,,,we might be able to help you rip it to shreds. Nothing yet

Edited by formerpara
Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you saying these guys bought the account , or they claiming to rep Discover ? I don't know if they bought it. I received a form letter in the mail today stating that it was their 2nd letter and that the 30 days had passed to validate. I never received a first one.Let us know what the docs said, and if they have filed suit .

They haven't filed suit yet.

But as far as these new guys are concerned, Midland's boys, I know because they are suing me in aother matter for Midland and haven't responded to my discovery requests that were mailed 3/08/2011 yet.

Tenn rules state that a new lawsuit must be brought WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER A SUIT IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Check for similar language in your state. Don't know about this one but if it's true that would be cool.Also, if an affidavit has been submitted to you, please share the language,,,we might be able to help you rip it to shreds. Nothing yet

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it common for them to send a "Second" letter without having sent the first one?

If I were you, I would send them a "second letter" in response to their first letter, demanding to know why they never replied or validated the alleged debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If I were you, I would send them a "second letter" in response to their first letter, demanding to know why they never replied or validated the alleged debt.

Actually the FDCPA says nothing about only 30 days after they send the letter. It is specific to 30 days after the consumer RECIEVES the first communication. Send them a DV and clear state something to the effect of "I received your letter dated XX/XX/2011 on XX/XX/2011 which is the first letter I received from you". They will ignore and violate in all likelyhood which will give you ammo to counter sue if they do sue you. Do not argue, or go on about not getting the first letter, just advise that it is the first letter you have gotten.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It says charged off on my credit report. But my question is...........if they sued me, dismissed it 3 years ago isn't there an SOL on their being able to sue me again? Not sure on that one.

They can sue, but you'd use the SOL as an affirmative defense. Some might say you'd have an FDCPA counterclaim about "misrepresenting the legal status of a debt" (meaning that they sued even though it was no longer legally colectable).

When did you last pay on the debt?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Over the weekend I received another form letter from Midland's Atty's Pollack & Rosen telling me that this is their 3rd letter to me about the debt. Never got the first one. In this they are threatening to sue me if I don't pay. Are they allowed to do that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Over the weekend I received another form letter from Midland's Atty's Pollack & Rosen telling me that this is their 3rd letter to me about the debt. Never got the first one. In this they are threatening to sue me if I don't pay. Are they allowed to do that?

In a previous post, you stated that on your credit report, Discover's TL shows the account was charged off. Does it show the account was "sold/transferred"? You really need to make sure.

If Midland truly owns the debt, it's up to you as to what to do since the debt isn't outside the SOL yet. If it were me, I wouldn't pay Midland a dime, but that's just me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I'm necroposting here but one poster indicated that the "second" letter was actually the first one received, and another poster said the "third" letter was actually the first one received.

I've just been informed of yet another situation where Pollack & Rosen's "third" letter was actually the first one received. It appears that they decide on a whim which letter to use, probably when they receive files that are quickly approaching the statute of limitations date.

Edited by flacorps
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to quote myself here, but it stands repeating. JDBs can say anything they want, but when you memorialize in a letter at the time of the event that it is the first letter you received you have essentially created a business record documenting you have received nothing previously. It is quite different if you stand up in court in the middle of a suit and claim to have never gotten previous letters.

Actually the FDCPA says nothing about only 30 days after they send the letter. It is specific to 30 days after the consumer RECIEVES the first communication. Send them a DV and clear state something to the effect of "I received your letter dated XX/XX/2011 on XX/XX/2011 which is the first letter I received from you". They will ignore and violate in all likelyhood which will give you ammo to counter sue if they do sue you. Do not argue, or go on about not getting the first letter, just advise that it is the first letter you have gotten.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The SOL appears to have run on this, Discover uses Delaware law with a three year SOL. You can argue this, the court has no reason to set aside what you agreed to just so some JDB can make a score. They sued in 9-2008? What was the date of the last payment due that was not made? That established when the account went into default. I'm sure it was before 9-2008, they don't usually work that fast.

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