cap1 fsb vs cap1 NA

[Bobby2012]

Interesting Defense. Cap1 FSB listed on Agreement. Sued by Cap1 USA, NA.

Cap1 FSB aquired by Cap1, NA.

Cap1 USA NA is a totally different company than Cap1, NA.

Easily proven.

Cap1 corporate is the mothership who has both companies as subsidiaries.

So there's no crossover.

[Bobby2012]

So agreement can be tossed when it doesn't match Plaintiff and Plaintiff has no standing.

[legaleagle]

In your wildest dreams. These are just name changes and divisions of companies within companies. It's all the same legal entity. Forget this defense and concentrate on something that will work.

[Bobby2012]

Any opinions on this?

[Bobby2012]

Not divisions of Companies. Subsidiaries. Two different things. A subsidiary is a company in itself.

Let's say I decide to start a company called all in one, inc.

From there, I form two separate companies:

1 called couches inc.

the other chairs inc.

I agree with Couches inc. to credit.

Chairs inc. has no standing to sue even though both companies are majority owned by all in one, inc.

That is unless an assignment and sale occurred just as if the Couches Inc. sold the debt to someone else.

These aren't divisions...Read Cap1 Annual Report. They are separate entities designed to focus on certain aspects of Cap1 business.

[inthesticks]

I don't think you have a viable defense here. According to CRA decision 139 May 2007, the Treasury Department approved "an internal reorganization of various Capital One Financial Corporation (“COFC”) depository institution subsidiaries and certain affiliates." This was at the time that Capital One FSB became Capital One FSB NA and then merged with Capital One NA. I think it would probably be very easy for them to show that at the time of reorganization the credit card accounts owned by Capital One FSB were transferred to Capital One (USA) NA. Capital One's current SEC filings show that Capital One (USA) NA is their subsidiary that deals with credit cards.

Throw it in as a defense if you want but don't count on it working.

[legaleagle]

If you can win a case based on a corporate name change, you will have effectively wiped out the entire credit card industry. No judge is going to go for that. This is stuff that only happens on TV, if even then. You know, a guy being acquitted of murder because they spelled his name wrong on the search warrant.

[Bobby2012]

This is not a misspelling of a name. This is two separate companies. (As you put it two separate people....one who committed murder and the other one who is being charged for it).

Anyone have a legitimate reason why this defense won't work? I have the SEC filings and the FDIC records and the CAP1 Annual Report which shows what I'm saying is true.

It's much like the securitization defense in mortgage foreclosures. And the defense that a debt was sold and where's the chain of title from CAP1 FSB to CAP1 BANK USA NA IF CAP1 FSB was never moved into CAP1 BANK USA NA?

[legaleagle]

Okay, file a motion with the court to dismiss the case based upon wrong party in interest. Take somebody with you to tape the hearing, then you can post it on Youtube with Martin Scorsese's video. Nascar knows who I mean. I really don't think this will work, but it would be great to see you make the argument. I've studied over 500 credit card cases in the last year, and not one time was a case thrown out or lost because of what you propose. Maybe we'll break new ground here, you never know.

[Bobby2012]

IntheSticks....

Thanks for the detail and analysis. I will use it as a defense to see if I can have the Agreement tossed and also use it in conjunction with Securitized defense.

[racecar]

When an account goes into default and is charged off as uncollectable, it is automatically transferred back to Capital One Funding, LLC.

They have a proxy statement on line you could read.I would be working on other things such as answering plaintiffs complaint,production, interrogatories,good case law from your state.and how to make proper documents for your court.dont waste time on junk theories,Time goes by fast you have alot to learn.There is no magic way to make your case go away.It takes work and commitment.Set goals learn something each day,lots of study material here,look for pdf files of fla cases see how people win and how they lose.list of things to buy black ink pens,notbook,folders,envelopes legal size,

lots of ink for your printer,paper,high lighter pens,suit to wear.post your case people here will assist you or point you in the right direction if that is what you want.Your case will only go away when you win it.

Edited February 2, 2012 by racecar

[racecar]

Securitized defense again dont waste your time it does not work,it has been tried over and over.STUDY STUDY STUDY IF THAT DOES NOT WORK STUDY STUDY STUDY.

FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Capitol One v Robert C. Cuellar,

County Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District

in and for Hillsborough County, Florida

CIVIL DIVISION, Case No. 07-CC-12751

Court rules that Capitol One's contract specifying Virginia law to be used in governing contracts which set an SOL for three years is applicable to the collections case.

Cruellar was being sued on for a Capital One account in Florida and held Capital One to the Virginia Law standard in the contract, and it was determined that the breach of contract occurred in Virginia and under current conflict of laws standards, the law in the state where the breach occurred applies. Virginia SOL applied, and the Defendant Cuellar won summary judgment against the plaintiff for a time-barred debtl.

Cuellar wins summary judgement on breach of contract

The core of the decision is:

Accordingly, the Court finds that the arrangement between the parties constitutes an “unwritten” contract or purposes of the statute of limitations analysis, that Florida procedural law applies, that Florida procedural law, i.e., borrowing statute, dictates that Virginia’s shorter, three year statute of limitations applies and application of the three-year statute mandates that Defendant prevails on its Motion for Summary Judgment on the breach of contract count.

Edited February 2, 2012 by racecar

[chumpsey44]

so you won based on Va statues?

[legaleagle]

Thanks for the detail and analysis. I will use it as a defense to see if I can have the Agreement tossed and also use it in conjunction with Securitized defense.

Excellent. Two worthless defenses instead of one. Some people just refuse to be helped.

[Patz]

This is not a misspelling of a name. This is two separate companies. (As you put it two separate people....one who committed murder and the other one who is being charged for it).

Anyone have a legitimate reason why this defense won't work? I have the SEC filings and the FDIC records and the CAP1 Annual Report which shows what I'm saying is true.

It's much like the securitization defense in mortgage foreclosures. And the defense that a debt was sold and where's the chain of title from CAP1 FSB to CAP1 BANK USA NA IF CAP1 FSB was never moved into CAP1 BANK USA NA?

What you're saying may be true and your point valid. But all may be moot to the judge. And that's all that matters.

Case in point: Everybody knows the mortgage lenders committed fraud when they stole millions of home in foreclosure proceedings. Had the average person commited such fraud, we would be in a cell next to Madoff. But "THEY" got away with it umpteen times in the courts.

[Bobby2012]

Here's where you're wrong. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. and Capital One, N.A. both still support and issue credit cards. (See Cap1 website agreements).