Jump to content

Being sued by law office, NOT original creditor...


Recommended Posts

Right. What I, or anyone else, may or may not be able to do in their state is not the issue.

My state only has one set of Civil Procedure Rules where it sometimes specifies a difference between the low and high court. If it does not specify a difference then it is the same in either court.

I would suggest that you do a search on "dismiss" in your own Rules to see if there is a limitation. The DV, however has nothing to do with anyone's state's Rules. You can send it and expect a qualified reply or that the collector will cease their collection activities.

My stance is that the only time a DV request is useless is when the 30 days has passed. Even then, I would still send a simple "I dispute" letter as the collector must communicate that the debt is disputed else face FDCPA violations. In your case, you haven't even gotten the mini-Miranda warning.

Theoretically, your pre-emptive request for DV is initial communication and the collector is required, by Federal law, to send you the mini-Miranda. It would be interesting to see if they just send the validation without sending the mini-Miranda. If they did, I would include not sending the mini-Miranda as a violation. My thoughts are that the court might say that it wasn't necessary as you had already asked for DV. I would object and appeal on the grounds that the court did not follow the strict instructions of the FDCPA.

Now that you have your 20 posts you should consider sending a pm to a previous poster who said that they had something for you. I think a lot of debtors have had experiences with CapOne and may be able to help you. Their name pops up on a regular basis in this forum. As a matter of fact, you should do a thread search on CapOne, Cap1, Crap1, CrapOne, or you could use Capital One. I think you will find more hits with their pet name, Crap1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 1 month later...

RLN3333,

You probably need to start your own thread with your specific situation and details. I clicked on this thinking it was more recent. I know I'm not going back five pages to figure out what's going on and most others won't either.

You'll get a ton more responses if you start a fresh topic with your specific facts. Welcome to the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

I am having the exact issue with the same law firm:

 

Received a Notice of Claim/Summons on Saturday 2/23/2013 stating,

 

The said plaintiff complains and says: That the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff for reasons stated herein for unpaid balance due. (Plaintiff being Midland Funding LLC as assignee of Citibank). and asks for judgement $$. 

 

I received via regular mail and the service requested was personal. (Not sure if this matters).

 

Attached to the summons was a letter declaring I wasn't active military and an affidavit of debt.

 

Affidavit of debt reads as follows: (Also not notorized).

 

I, name, am of adult age and am an employee of Midland Credit Management, servicing agent for plaintiff, and am fully authorized by plaintiff to make the following representations. Plaintiff purchases portfolios of delinquent accounts from either the original creditor or a subsequent purchaser of the account, and therefore assigns the accounts to MCM to be serviced. Plaintiff does not operator or maintain a computer system. MCM holds the computer records and account information for accounts purchased by plaintiff. I am familiar with the record-keeping practices of MCM. I have reviewed records kept in the normal course of MCM's business, and make the statements herein based upon personal knowledge of those accounts records maintained on plaintiff"s behalf.

 

1.  Defendant has an account balance of $$, which is owed to Plaintiff on account ####.

               a. The type of account is a credit card (Issuing company: CitiBank)

 

2. The plaintiff has obtained this debt from CitiBank (South Dakota).

 

3. The account balance includes MCM's records that there are no late fees after 2/20/09

------

 

The summons was issued 2/11/2013

The first letter I received from this law firm was dated 1/24/2013 

Affidavit dated 1/5/2013

 

The amount is just under $1000.00 

 

I could pay it off and just settle but I'm not sure I should.

First of all, I can't even find a CitiCard listed on my credit report or the original account number. All I find is MCM. I had not had a chance to send a letter of verification prior to the summons. Which, it doesn't look as though they waited 30days anyway! 

 

Now what??

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...