Seadragon

If the OC doesn't have records of the account could they be sanctioned for spoilation

Recommended Posts

from wikipedia

In law, spoliation of evidence is the intentional or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding.[1] Spoliation has two consequences: the act is criminal by statute and may result in fines and incarceration for the parties who engaged in the spoliation; also, case law has established that proceedings that might have been altered by the spoliation may be interpreted under a spoliation inference.

The spoliation inference is a negative evidentiary inference that a finder of fact can draw from a party's destruction of a document or thing that is relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding: the finder of fact can review all evidence uncovered in as strong a light as possible against the spoliator and in favor of the opposing party.

The theory of the spoliation inference is that when a party destroys evidence, it may be reasonable to infer that the party had "consciousness of guilt" or other motivation to avoid the evidence. Therefore, the factfinder may conclude that the evidence would have been unfavorable to the spoliator. Some jurisdictions have recognized a spoliation tort action, which allows the victim of destruction of evidence to file a separate tort action against a spoliator.[2]

Spoliation is often an issue in the context where a person claims he has been injured by a defective product which he then discarded or lost.[3] In that circumstance, the defendant manufacturer or distributor may move to dismiss the case on the basis of spoliation (instead of just having to rely on the plaintiff's usual burden of proof: plaintiff's witnesses cannot make up for the lost product because of the spoliation exception).[4]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the key word appears to be the INTENTIONAL witholding or destruction of evidence

so are you saying that in the event a JDB or OC offers up an affidavit instead of the documents that you claim spoilation that they have intentionally lost or destroyed the statements etc and are trying to cover the loss by providing a false affidavit because the records would or could prove they did not have a case against you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, basically, you're saying an OC could be sued because they destroyed all their records when they sold the account to a JDB?

I feel another debate coming on....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, basically, you're saying an OC could be sued because they destroyed all their records when they sold the account to a JDB?

I feel another debate coming on....

not from me but I'll get the popcorn!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time and again I've seen in Court and in initial litigation Collectors claims die because OC's aren't able to produce documentation further back from 18-months. It must be common policy lenders purge their files at this point making audits impossible to produce as are the agreements in effect especially on closed accounts.

Could be a reason creditors desperately attempt to *Flip* account. Sorta like re-aging in a manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Purchase the "accounts" to which I believe(let me know if I'm wrong) is a spoilation issue. The fact that the JDB's "copies" carry more weight than the originals is a prime reason they have evidence spoilation Statutes. This could be a possible gold bullet to pound on them with.

I am presently looking up this issue and will report back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the key word appears to be the INTENTIONAL witholding or destruction of evidence

so are you saying that in the event a JDB or OC offers up an affidavit instead of the documents that you claim spoilation that they have intentionally lost or destroyed the statements etc and are trying to cover the loss by providing a false affidavit because the records would or could prove they did not have a case against you?

I knew you would figure it out:)

Spoilation hear in California has BIG consequences. Since the OC only have computer files all "copies,printouts,whatever" are then afforded the status of the originals when the original computer data is destoyed their is no way for a defendant to compare the Billing records to the billing data, the account notes that the OC has for validation, or any internal memo about the account ie. found the billing address is different than the billing statement so updated to the new address with supervisors so and so's approval.

So it would leave defendant with no evidence. The banks have a duty to preserve the records as FDCPA validation requires the records. The banks persue their own litigation so they have to preserve evidence because they know that the account is ultimately going to end up in litigation or validation.

The OC's by not transfering the files and the JDB's not requireing the transfer of files, allow the spoilation to occur.

This is my idea for a rock solid litigation nuclear weapon. Judges are familiar with spoilation and know how to deal with it.

the plaintiff will have to scramble to fight it.

It also goes into the affirmative defense of estoppel.

let's flesh this out maybe it could save someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
from wikipedia

spoliation is often an issue in the context where a person claims he has been injured by a defective product which he then discarded or lost.[3] In that circumstance, the defendant manufacturer or distributor may move to dismiss the case on the basis of spoliation (instead of just having to rely on the plaintiff's usual burden of proof: plaintiff's witnesses cannot make up for the lost product because of the spoliation exception).[4]

See how that goes that is the key. the spoilation allows the JDB witness to say anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Purchase the "accounts" to which I believe(let me know if I'm wrong) is a spoilation issue. The fact that the JDB's "copies" carry more weight than the originals is a prime reason they have evidence spoilation Statutes. This could be a possible gold bullet to pound on them with.

I am presently looking up this issue and will report back

I think the hurdle is that most States have a clause in the Rules of Evidence that allow for a copy of a document to be introduced in place of the orginal.

I do like your thinking on this topic, it is new waters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the hurdle is that most States have a clause in the Rules of Evidence that allow for a copy of a document to be introduced in place of the orginal.

I do like your thinking on this topic, it is new waters.

Apples and Oranges IMHO

Iwill post some links later about the tack I want totake in my case.

Share this post


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