NEW JERSEY Appellate Court Has raised the Bar - AGAIN

[Patz]

This is great news for New Jerseyians:

On appeal, the New Jersey Appellate Division has reversed a judgment, and in doing so, raised the bar a considerable distance to make it harder for lenders to adopt the "because we say so" approach to credit card liability.

The Appellate Division has instructed courts that in order to grant summary judgment on an unpaid revolving credit card account, they must be provided a complete account history identifying all transactions and payments or credits, all the applicable periodic rates of interest on the account, all information showing how finance charges are computed on each billing cycle, and the resulting balances. In essence, the lender has to provide the supporting billing statements.

Although this ruling follows the requirements of New Jersey court rules for a default judgment, there is a very good argument that at a contested trial, the lender will have to provide all the same proofs to obtain a judgment, if the defendant contests liability or the balance due.

This is a standard that few creditors on credit card accounts have been willing to meet. Indeed, the plaintiff is often an entity like LVNV, that bought up a lot of these accounts in bulk, and very likely did not get more than a final statement with the balance owed. Forcing the lender to clear this hurdle creates incentives for settlement.

LVNV Funding LLC v Colvell, decided July 12, 2011 and approved for publication, (Docket No. A-1313-10TC)

[Moments1]

Thanks for the information. I am going to look up the case.

Did you see my post about the NJ Legislature dragging its feet on the

passing bill of #s2818, Consumer Credit Fairness Act?

[rikkivs]

This is great news for New Jerseyians:

On appeal, the New Jersey Appellate Division has reversed a judgment, and in doing so, raised the bar a considerable distance to make it harder for lenders to adopt the "because we say so" approach to credit card liability.

The Appellate Division has instructed courts that in order to grant summary judgment on an unpaid revolving credit card account, they must be provided a complete account history identifying all transactions and payments or credits, all the applicable periodic rates of interest on the account, all information showing how finance charges are computed on each billing cycle, and the resulting balances. In essence, the lender has to provide the supporting billing statements.

Although this ruling follows the requirements of New Jersey court rules for a default judgment, there is a very good argument that at a contested trial, the lender will have to provide all the same proofs to obtain a judgment, if the defendant contests liability or the balance due.

This is a standard that few creditors on credit card accounts have been willing to meet. Indeed, the plaintiff is often an entity like LVNV, that bought up a lot of these accounts in bulk, and very likely did not get more than a final statement with the balance owed. Forcing the lender to clear this hurdle creates incentives for settlement.

LVNV Funding LLC v Colvell, decided July 12, 2011 and approved for publication, (Docket No. A-1313-10TC)

Californians have the Bill of particular device that should accomplish itemization of the account, in principle. However nine times out of ten creditors don't have the evidence necessary to meet a requirement of full itemization. Usually their information is defective and or fabricated and inconsistent especially with interest rate calculations...Credit cards have variable interest rates and it is a difficult thing to account for that variation over the life of the account so usually they fudge the data and have one fixed interest rate over the life of the revolving account and that should be objected to as well! Thanks again for posting this! New Jersey residents should be happy!

[saint al]

Californians have the Bill of particular device that should accomplish itemization of the account, in principle. However nine times out of ten creditors don't have the evidence necessary to meet a requirement of full itemization. Usually their information is defective and or fabricated and inconsistent especially with interest rate calculations...Credit cards have variable interest rates and it is a difficult thing to account for that variation over the life of the account so usually they fudge the data and have one fixed interest rate over the life of the revolving account and that should be objected to as well! Thanks again for posting this! New Jersey residents should be happy!

Yeah I agree I had a bank that provide 3 years worth of statemnts, there were no charges just payments except two debit transactions 1 day after the allege charge off date. The statements where totally bogus for I never had an account with them. So watch out and do do a CSI on everything they send a say is yours. Be Blessd! S.A.

[Patz]

Thanks for the information. I am going to look up the case.

Did you see my post about the NJ Legislature dragging its feet on the

passing bill of #s2818, Consumer Credit Fairness Act?

I just saw it. And I did read about that a while ago. NJ had another bill in re mortgage foreclosures that was first introduced back in 2008 - I think. Never passed. It's dead. NJ tends to be more consumer-oriented than other states, especially in this economy. Maybe s2818 will pass with enough pressure.

[jackson212]

another smack against LVNV. beautiful

[usagi555]

This really irks me.

New Jersey outdoing my state, that is.

[jackson212]

what state are you in again?

NY has some pretty decent laws, the courts just dont apply them as often as i'd like to see