Standing when dealing with JDB

[Coltfan1972]

I posted yesterday in a thread about standing that I had written some posts about standing and offered to send the poster the link via PM. I got a lot of other requests via PM and questions about standing. So, I decided to take everything in various posts in reference to standing and put it into one post about standing.

As always, it's my opinion, how I see the law and the issue of standing, and my personal experiences. It is in no way legal advice or 100% fact and undisputed. It is my opinion and how I see the issue of standing. I am not an attorney and have never step foot in a law school.

While the rules of hearsay and standing are pretty much the same across the board, you should always check the local rules in your area along with rulings and precedent that is relevant to the court and case you might find yourself facing.

Before you rely on any of this advice or use a strategy based on this post, please contact an attorney. This is not legal advice.

When somebody tells you to challenge their (JDB usually) standing to sue, or make them prove they even own the debt, what does that mean. What is standing to sue, or standing in general, as it pertains to the law.

Standing just means somebody's right to even be asking the court for whatever they are asking for. On this board it almost always refers to a creditor or junk debt buyer to even sue you. In other words, does whoever suing you own the debt and have the right to even ask the court for a judgement ordering you to pay them.

Original creditors, generally speaking, don't have problems with standing. They originated the debt. They entered into the contract/agreement with you. They conducted transactions with you on a regular basis. You might have used the card, they sent you statements, you paid the creditor each month in full or a certain portion. If there were amendments to the agreement or disputes, you settled those or accepted the amendments to the agreement directly with the original creditor. So if an original creditor (a few common examples are Citibank, Chase, Discovery) sues you for an unpaid debt, if the original creditor decides to really fight and spend money to win (which is not a given by any stretch) they have decent odds of proving standing.

They can send a witness to court that will have (or claims to have) personal first hand knowledge of the records which the lawsuit is based. On a side note, and for another discussion, is the fact one can still attack an original creditors records and the witness. Having a witness from the original creditor is not a sure fire slam dunk win, but for this post I'm not going to discuss that. Just remember, it's not a sure fire loss just because it is an original creditor suing you. The odds are a ton greater the original creditor can meet their burden of ownership. I know two posters on this board that have beaten big time original creditors when the original creditor and not a junk debt buyer sued them for the debt.

What happens when those original creditors decide not to sue and sell the debt under the theory of something is better than nothing. They sell the account to what is commonly referred to as a junk debt buyer. Some common ones are Midland, LVNV and Asset Acceptance. There are hundreds out there, those are just some of the more common that you will see in numerous threads on this board.

When a junk debt buyer (JDB) buys the debt from the original creditor (OC) the JDB now steps into the shoes of the OC. In other words the JDB now owns the account and the contract between you and the OC is now between you and the JDB.

The JDB can't change the contract/agreement terms, and all the rights and responsibilities of the OC are now those of the JDB. It works both ways. All of your rights are in no way changed. The same rights you had with the OC, you now have with the JDB.

So to recap with a common example. Original creditor and consumer enter into a credit card contract/agreement. The consumer for some reason can no longer make payments and defaults. The OC after about 6 months charges off the debt (keep in mind charge off is an accounting term and in no way means the debt is not collectible or enforceable simply due to a charge off). The OC decides not to sue and sells the debt to a JDB. The JDB now owns the defaulted, charged off debt. The JDB can now send letters and make calls to the consumer to pay the bill that was once owed to the OC.

The JDB can decide to sue and they will sue in their own name and call themselves the owner of the debt. In other words the lawsuit will look something like, Junk Debt Buyer, Plaintiff VS Consumer. All of this is legal and the JDB right to enforce the contract/agreement of the OC is written in the contract. This is why the defense of lack of privity fails. The agreement allows the OC to sell or transfer your account to another party and you don't get a vote.

So what happens when the JDB sues, you receive the lawsuit and say to yourself, "Who in the heck is (insert JDB name here)." That is actually you, in your mind saying "Does this company even have standing." You're on the right thinking by wondering why the OC is not the one suing. You've never entered into any contract with the JDB and now they are suing you and demanding the amount of the charged off debt plus tons of interest. Again, this is all legal (generally speaking).

When you are sued there are certain things the party suing must prove for them to win. These are called elements. Elements are vital and required in winning and all elements have to be proven for the party suing to win.

In a credit card lawsuit the elements would be;

1. There was a contract (meeting of the minds) between you and the creditor.

2. There was money lent by the creditor to the consumer.

3. The consumer was asked to pay the money back.

4. The consumer did not pay the money back.

5. The consumer owes a certain sum that is allowed under the contract.

6. The creditor has acted according to the contract and the consumer has not.

7. There is a clear amount in the lawsuit demanded and the demand is proper under the terms of the contract.

8. The person or company suing is the legal owner of the debt/account which is the subject of the lawsuit (STANDING).

All of these elements must be proven, not some of them, but all of them (these are general elements and are basically the general elements in cases, as anything with the law, there are exceptions). So, if the party suing can prove everything but # 8 (standing), they lose (assuming there is a trial or dispute challenging standing).

If they can prove you owe 10K, did not pay the money back, in fact, you can even admit you owe the 10K (not recommending that, just saying you could), but if they can't prove you now owe that 10K to them, they lose. In other words, the owing of the 10K is not in question, the only question is who do you owe (Who has standing).

[Coltfan1972]

Of course the JDB is going to say you owe them because they bought your debt from the OC.

Really, you did? Well let's see about that. Would you care to prove you have standing. A fair question of course, so how does the JDB, generally speaking, attempt to do this.

They produce (or should) a bill of sale/assignment/affidavit showing they bought your debt from the original creditor. That is fine and how they would prove ownership of the debt. So, the JDB sends or presents to you a bill of sale that shows on a certain date they bought your account from the OC and there is some legal jargon about how they now have all the rights of the OC.

All of this seems clear cut and in fact it is all legal (generally speaking) to this point. Very praying on the horrible financial times of people who never set out to default on the debt (exceptions to every rule of course, but 99% of people don't set out at the start to default, regardless of what collectors say) and in true vulture form trying to peck your eyes out, but legal.

Okay so how do you challenge standing after everything above has happened? You start asking the JDB to prove their standing. Yes they will most likely present you with some paper documents that will say they own the debt. Pay very close attention to what they produce. A lot of the time it is just a letter written by themselves saying you own the debt. This is what happened to me. The JDB actually presented a letter saying they owned the debt and what day they bought the debt. However, it was written by them and on their own letterhead. The judge was not impressed.

Other common ways they will try to prove ownership is to show a bill of sale for numerous account, sometimes in the thousands. They will show a bill of sale, for example, that shows on XXX date JDB bought 10,000 accounts from the OC. That might be true, in fact for the sake of argument let's say it is 100% true. How does one challenge that bill of sale. The answer is make them prove one of those 10,000 accounts was actually your account. Them simply buying 10,000 accounts and claiming one of those 10,000 accounts was your account is not proof they bought your account. In other words you don't want to discuss or challenge 10,000 accounts, you want them to prove your account was one of the 10,000.

Other ways they will try to prove standing is through affidavits and their word. They will actually just say they own the debt. Unfortuantley, their statement they own the debt will be enough if not properly challenged (generally speaking).

They might also send you admission requests (part of discovery) and ask you to admit they are the owners of the debt. While this is impossible for the consumer to admit, as the consumer was not a party to the alleged sale of the account, this should never be admitted or left unchallenged.

They will also send you discovery and constantly refer to themselves as the owner of the account using some type of legal jargon. The statement(s) they make as fact they own the debt should always be challenged. A JDB knows standing is something that dooms them almost every time if the consumer challenges standing. They will try numerous ways to get you to not challenge or concede their standing.

Again, anytime a JDB refers to themselves as the owner of the debt, it needs to be denied or challenged.

You should wear out the word alleged !!

The JDB will attempt to use hearsay to prove they have standing. This is not a problem if it is not challenged. In fact, thousands of defaults and summary judgements are won all the time with the JDB using nothing more than hearsay.

A common form of hearsay is an affidavit. The affidavit is hearsay by definition, even the JDB won't dispute that. However, the affidavit can be admitted and/or deemed correct and true if unchallenged. This goes for bills of sale and other documents allegedly proving ownership.

I see posts all the time where somebody says this will be inadmissible because it is hearsay. Again, even the JDB is not going to say a piece of paper is not hearsay. The argument is going to be if the hearsay is admissible. Hearsay is admitted into evidence all the time. For what this board is mostly about, the business records exception is the usual exception (and a legit exception in many cases, just not in JDB cases).

So while an affidavit is hearsay, you can't just assume it won't be admitted. This is where you will have to read your courts rules of procedure. It will tell you if you must challenge the affidavit (usually you do) and if so when and how. A good rule is, if in doubt, challenge.

The most common way a JDB gets their evidence admissible is by sending the consumer discovery, which the consumer either ignores or does not answer properly. This will cause the evidence (generally speaking) to be admitted or if there are requests for admissions, the admissions deemed admitted. This is almost a sure fire way to lose your case if this happens and for obvious reasons should be avoided at all costs.

The JDB will pepper through out their discovery requests; written statements as they are already established facts they are the legal owner. Again, the reason for this is even the JDB knows not proving standing means they can't win and if they don't win they are not getting your money.

A consumer needs to always (in my opinion) dispute anything that even remotely has to do with standing. If the JDB provides a bill of sale, you challenge that bill of sale. If they send an affidavit, you challenge and submit your own affidavit disputing the alleged facts in the JDB affidavit.

You can ask for a witness list from the JDB (assuming you have been sued). That witness list better included witnesses that can authenticate evidence and the JDB standing. Pay careful attention to so called witnesses that will authenticate the evidence. A ton of the time they will just be a witness from the JDB. That JDB witness will simply state the JDB records say you owe them money and they own the debt.

That is worthless and nothing different from the consumer saying they checked their records and don't owe the JDB anything. For a JDB to properly prove standing, the JDB must get a witness form the original creditor to testify to the sale of the account and how the account prior to its sale was kept and maintained. This witness must have personal first hand knowledge of your account specifically.

While there might be a case in some court, to date, I've never seen one case where this happened. It is stated to the consumer all the time this witness will be in court, but I've never seen it happen. The reason is simple, money. The OC once they sell the account no longer has any interest in the account (no dog in the fight).

Many times the terms of the sale to the JDB will state the OC will no longer have anything to do with the account. In other words the JDB agrees they won't be able to demand a witness from the OC to testify in court.

Don't forget that many JDB are second, third and even six or seventh alleged owners of the account. In these cases each owner of the debt must be in court to testify to the alleged sale of the debt. This is referred to as the chain of custody. It is virtually impossible for the JDB to establish a clear chain of custody if there is just one prior owner (OC) and it gets even harder and harder every time the debt is bought and sold.

For example, if Midland bought a debt from Asset Acceptance and Asset bought the debt from LVNV, and LVNV bought the debt from Citibank, to prove the chain of custody in court would have to go something like this.

Witness from Citibank to testify they sold the debt to LVNV.

Witness from LVNV to testify they bought the debt from Citibank and turned around and sold that debt to Asset.

Witness from Asset to testify they bought the debt from LVNV and turned around and sold the debt to Midland.

Witness from Midland they bought the debt from LVNV and why you now owe Midland for the debt that was originally owed to Citibank.

In other words an absolute nightmare for a JDB. Even assuming the one in a million chance all these witnesses show up to court, they all must have specific knowledge about the account, and we are talking about tens of thousands of accounts changing hands.

Finally, the account Midland allegedly bought would have been sold to them, in this example, for about one cent on the dollar. So assume the debt is 5K. That would mean Midland bought the debt for $50.00. Do you even want to do the math on how much it would cost Midland to prove standing in the above example.

Keep in mind they still might not win or if they did there is a good chance the judgement would never be collected. In my opinion, a consumer sued by a JDB should demand not only all documents that would prove standing (you do this in discovery) but the witnesses that are going to authenticate the evidence.

There needs to be a request for a complete accounting of the debt, dates of the alleged sales, and a challenge to each and every document a JDB produces.

[Coltfan1972]

Many times the JDB will provide nothing or object to your requests. These are insane objections, but happen all the time. You will have to determine how you will handle this if the JDB objects. There are two schools of thought, do nothing because the JDB just failed to prove their case, so see you in court, or file a motion to compel. I do nothing and tell them I will see you in court. However, that is something each consumer should research.

In the highly unlikely event the case goes to trial, and proper discovery and challenges to the evidence was done, the JDB stands about a 99.99% chance of losing.

I was a party to one of those rare cases that went to court. So you might ask, what happens when the JDB thinks the rules of evidence don't apply to them and moves forward with the trial. You point out the rules of evidence to apply to them and object to their hearsay for the reasons stated above.

Here is a personal experience and how this specific judge ruled in my specific case. While I think this would be the common ruling in most courts, this is how a judge ruled in my case and does not mean a judge will rule the same in your case. They should and if not, in my opinion, you would have an excellent slam dunk appeal if they did not.

The JDB tried to admit their evidence of standing by affidavit and a bill of sale., They also had disclosed no witnesses from the original creditor that would testify. In other words I had won before the judge took the bench.

I objected of course. The other side argued to the judge that the records should be admitted under the business records to hearsay exception.

This was the ruling and almost a word for word quote from the judge.

"You can't take somebody else business records, drop those business records in your file (as the judge picks up a piece of paper and drops it in a file he had on the bench), put that file in your file cabinet, shut the file cabinet, and then claim those records are now your own business records and are admissible under the business records exception to hearsay." Objection sustained.

Of course that meant case over as the JDB had now failed to meet the element of standing.

If I owed the debt and all the other elements the JDB would have to prove were now irrelevant. They just lost their standing so they just lost their whole case.

The issue of owing the debt never even made it to argument. In fact, I conceded the element of owing the debt (not saying you should be any means). I knew they could not prove standing so to speed things up I just stipulated to owing the debt (again not saying you should).

The main thing to remember is the party suing you has the burden of proving their case and all the elements of their case. You need to make sure you follow the rules of the court and the rules of procedure for the state you find yourself in. Not following the rules can turn a slam dunk winning argument into a loser and an overall loss for the case.

Finally, don't be intimidated. Send discovery, dispute their evidence, make them prove their case and when they fail to do this or don't comply with the rules of evidence, attack.

When you fight back, you have just done what 98% don't do, fight back. Think that number is too high. Go to your local state court and pull the cases from the JDB that files the most cases. See if you can find even one that went to a full blown trial that was for less than 15K allegedly owed. What you will find is tons of defaults, settlements and granted motions for summary judgement.

And of course if sued, if you have even a remotely legit violation on the other side, file a counterclaim. JDB don't like people who fight back and they really don't like people that not only fight back but who turn the tables on them and sue them.

[1stStep]

Coltfan -

Excellent work!

[legaleagle]

Great job as usual, Coltfan. Now I would like to do a follow up based on legal strategy and the JDB business model. Most posters do not understand this.

The first thing posters should know is how this business model works. These companies (Midland, etc) buy literally tens of thousands of defaulted credit card accounts from the original banks like Chase, Citi, etc for as little as 2 cents on the dollar. That right there should tell you something. Why would a bank sell a debt that cheaply? Because they did their homework, and they think that the people who own these accounts have nothing to collect. If they did, they'd sue you themselves. They consider you to be deadbeats, busted out losers with no job, etc. They never consider the fact that they let you run up 30 grand in charges when they thought they could get 29% interest, though.

So, the JDB steps in and starts their aggressive collection tactics, hoping that you, the consumer, won't know the law and will panic. Most do. Most never even answer the summons, and get a judgment against them. Some come here, and win. The disadvantage the JDB has is the money / business model. They will not spend endless money defending cases against informed litigants for no gain. They view you as the bottom of the barrel, and hope that some day you may get a job or own something they can attach. If they win, which they do 95% of the time due to the above reason. They even sell the judgments to rat companies like JD Wentworth.

The strategy comes in by making them bleed money. They never expect you to know the law or court procedure. When you do, they fold. It isn't personal on their part, it's just the business model. Once you understand the business model, you can defeat it. It's the same as any war. General Patton clearly stated this principle.....I'll paraphrase....it isn't your job to die for your country, it's your job to make the other poor SOB die for his country. Make the JDB die for his company.

[kutuzov]

Love it!!! Graet JOB!!!!!!!!!

[1stStep]

To expand a little more... the JDBs have a break even point on these accounts - a $10k debt purchased for say $200, plus sinking $500 in legal fees means that any costs over $700 and the debt becomes unprofitable and eats into profit.

The moment a debtor files an answer, the less profitable this account becomes. Once a debtor begins to request discovery, the costs go up - to which point, a JDB either has to decide to see a suit out to trial and hope they win, or dismiss the case and lick their wounds.

///

Some JDBs are becoming more sophisticated with their analysis...for example, I ran across a position for Encore (Midland parent) that was to "create a behavior analysis model...using Oracle...to maximize the return of our investment portfolio. The incumbent will be able to use a cross platform of data including financial, location, and other relevant criteria to develop, test and deploy the model" In other words, they were spending millions of dollars to create an AI program to figure out how to get us to pay...

[Coltfan1972]

Thank you Legal and 1stStep for the compliment and for adding to the topic. Maybe we can get everybody that has great knowledge on this subject and/or has applied the strategy successfully, to keeping adding to this thread.

That way when a new poster, or anybody for that matter, asks about a JDB and standing, all the info can be in one thread. That is why I decided to try and put all the info in one thread. There is a ton of great info about standing, on this site, but it's all over the place in different threads.

Keep adding and anybody else that can add accurate information, case law, or personal experience, please do so.

[stormie]

I really do think that for the time being, this should be made into a sticky

[BTO429]

That poster you were referring to was me.

I am a law student for those who do not know. I saw so many threads on the issue of standing that I thought I would start a thread that had to do with the issue.Plus is was a big debate in class at the time.

I was trying to get through to posters that standing is the legal basis of a suit, if there is no standing there is no suit. That is why I try to tell most posters to disprove standing first, if you disprove that right out of the gate you kill their case.

If they prove standing you then move on to the other issues they claim.

The issue I was trying to argue is that the very first collection agency hired by a collector other than for contract debts, things like doctor bills, electric bills and other such debts, sue a person in the name of the collection agency.

I stated that a collection agency suing in their own name and not by and for their assignor, has no standing, no legal right to sue at all in their own name. The suit must be by and for their client. But collection agencies, at least in my area tend to sue in their own name and not by and for their client, and have no right to do so. But the courts let them get by with it all the time.

The reason I was digging into this so hard is, if I can determine for sure, I plan to use this angle against several collection agencies here local. I have a lot of friends and friends of friends approach me with the same three collection agencies suing them, in the name of the collection agency. Some times with their own attorneys when the law clearly states the need to hire an outside attorney to represent them.

[Coltfan1972]

That poster you were referring to was me.

There were a lot of posters that sent me a PM. It is by far a strategy that many want to learn about. Thanks for starting the ball rolling on this.

[kittymamma]

Coltfan and legaleagle again wonderful advice, many thanks, you guys are my heroes

BTO I think it is wonderful that a law student is actually looking to help people and not hurt them the way these young lawyers who work for the JDB collections do, I wonder if they were among the not so bright that they had to end up taking a job like this? personally I would rather work for McDonalds and hold my head up than work for a JDB and hang my head

[1stStep]

The two holes in the armor for any JDB suit are always going to be standing to sue and chain of title...

A defendant attacks those and the case is essentially torpedoed.

[NJdefendant]

very usefull so much info for my upcoming trial... good stuff thank you for posting

[Coltfan1972]

very usefull so much info for my upcoming trial... good stuff thank you for posting

No problem, hope it helps. Make sure you let us know how the trial works out.

[legaleagle]

I wonder if they were among the not so bright that they had to end up taking a job like this?

You go to the head of the class for this observation. You have just formulated 50% of the defense against JDBs.

I have faced a couple of these JDB lawyers in court and on paper, they are totally incompetent idiots. Stuttering, stammering morons who don't have a clue as to the law. Most of them have only been lawyers for a couple of years. The "senior" lawyers at these JDB firms never go to court. They send the young dummies to be chopped up by pro se litigants who spent 6-8 hours a day for 4 years studying ONE specific area of law, when the hapless lawyer may have had only a couple of classes on that topic.

I ruined a JDB lawyer in court to the point where he wouldn't even look at me, much less say "hi, how are you," and be cordial. I have faced accomplished veteran attorneys in court in my pro se cases.....REALLY good ones, and they were always courteous to me whether they prevailed or not. This lack of decorum and professionalism reveals a deep seated meanness and something that borders on uninformed crusaderism. This is the bottom of the barrel, we see it over and over again here. Natsy intimidators who think they can run you over because they have a law degree. Okay, try to run ME over. Try to run Coltfan over. Let's see how that works out for you.

[kittymamma]

Legaleagle, you and coltfan are the only reasons I have made it as far in my case as I have......I lurked for months just reading reading and more reading.....it was Coltfan who inspired me to use the lack of standing for my defense, and I do believe I am going to win!!!

I am dealing with Javitch Block and Rathbone, and yes this attorney is a spoiled little rich girl just out of law school.....I filed for summary judgment before she got to it and used lack of standing due to the bill of sale did not have my account or name on it....she opposed it (of course) and said that because Midland buys in bulk, listing separate accounts on the bill of sale is "infeasible" funny huh? Coltfan kindly shared with my last night on how to rip her a new one with this information......Monday I send out my opposition to their opposition......will let everyone know how this turns out, but I feel good that it will work out in my favor.....fingers crossed

[Coltfan1972]

I filed for summary judgment before she got to it and used lack of standing due to the bill of sale did not have my account or name on it....she opposed it (of course) and said that because Midland buys in bulk, listing separate accounts on the bill of sale is "infeasible" funny huh? Coltfan kindly shared with my last night on how to rip her a new one with this information.

The "infeasible" argument she used is one of the more (actually most I can think of in recent memory) assanine arguments I've seen.

Your Honor that's assanine !!

(A) I don't know, you could say the argument is completely lacking any meritorious legal theory and/or case precedent, fails miserably using the best evidence standard, and Midland is the direct and proximate cause why they find themselves having to make the completely flawed and nonsensical argument claiming "infeasibility."

( But in all honesty, "That's so assanine Your Honor, do I really need to waste this courts valuable time responding. I feel if I even respond to such jackassery buffoonery, it somehow will mean opposing counsels pathetic attempt at a legal argument in someway has even a sentila of credibility."

In other words Your Honor, it's like I was taught as a kid. If you feed stray animals they will just keep coming around. If we even entertain this jackassery argument for even one second, it can only lead to continued attempts at buffoonery by opposing counsel. Like a stray cat keeps coming around hoping against all hope for a small handout. Let's just go ahead and put this argument to sleep and out of its misery, like you would a lame animal that is suffering.

We can only assume opposing counsel was forced by her superiors to make such an assanine argument, and of course has more common sense than an inbred Hillbilly on a moonshine bender. Actually comparing her argument to that of an argument an inbred Hillbilly on a moonshiner bender would make, is actually an insult to inbred Hillbilly's. But you get the point Your Honor.

That is a tough call, but I'm going option (, taking my contempt of court fine and maybe a night in jail. Just could not pass it up. You don't get 40 MPH fastball right down the middle ready to hit a grand slam with everyday.

[legaleagle]

Midland buys in bulk, listing separate accounts on the bill of sale is "infeasible" funny huh?

My argument would go like this: (photoshop some crap and bring it with you)

"Your honor, the plaintiff has admitted in their argument that they have no admissible evidence establishing ownership of this account because it is "infeasible" to produce said admissible evidence. I could, and do now, produce a similar "bill of sale" for demonstration purposes only. This bill of sale shows that the professional wrestler "The Undertaker" bought 15,000 accounts from Midland. Unfortunately, your honor, one of them is claimed by the Undertaker to be yours. He has retained counsel; McMahon, McMahon, and The Heartbreak Kid Shawn Michaels, to represent him. He claims that you owe one million dollars to him. He wants his money, and if you fail to pay, you will have to particiapte in a "coffin match" with him at the next WWE pay per view per the terms of the agreement which he cannot feasibly produce. All this, your honor, is designed to somewhat comically demonstrate the complete lack of any legal foundation in the plaintiff's case. The attorney for the plaintiff has come to court, but forgot to bring her case with her. Then again, she has no case.

[Coltfan1972]

The attorney for the plaintiff has come to court, but forgot to bring her case with her. Then again, she has no case.

Your Honor I object, I have a case, it's just infeasible to prove.

[legaleagle]

A few good quotes

"I object. I STRENUOUSLY object. Even though I have chicken legs, they're better than his and you should give me deference."

What was it Winston Churchill said......some old skank called him out at a dinner after he insulted her. He called her ugly. She said "You sir, are drunk." He smirked at her and said "Yes, but I'll be sober in the morning. You'll still be ugly."

Another alleged woman attacked him and said "If you were my husband, I would poison your tea."

He smiled and said "And I would gladly drink it."

Years ago, Wliiam F. Buckley had a TV show, somebody called in and complained about the fact that he used words nobody could understand. She asked him what she should do. He threw his head back, licked his lips in typical Buckley stye, and and said "Madam, buy a dictionary."

[calawyer]

she opposed it (of course) and said that because Midland buys in bulk, listing separate accounts on the bill of sale is "infeasible" funny huh?

Infeasible.

Boy, that ticks me off.

It is incredible your Honor, that Midland's business model renders it inconvenient to establish a threshold requirement in this case: that it actually owns the debt in question and that it therefore has standing to pursue its claim in this Court.

However, standing is more than just a "legal nicety". Debt collectors sell their portfolios time and time again. A single debt may be sold 3 or 4 times or mauybe more. If the Court is not familiar with that fact, the Missouri Supreme Court's opinion in CACH v. Askew is instructive: http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=51954 (Debt transferred from Providian to WAMU to Worldwide Asset Purchasing II to CACH).

If the Court is to render a judgment in this matter, it should dispose of this controversy forever. But if Midland doesn't actually own this debt, there is nothing to prevent Portfolio Recovery Associates or CACH or Worldwide Asset Purchasing or any other bottom feeder from suing again on this same debt.

However, Midland is not an occasional visitor in this Court. Its entire business practice consists of purchasing debt and suing to recover it. If it finds it "infeasible" or "inconvenient" to prove standing, it should revise its business practices rather than contend it should somehow be excused from establishing an indispensible element of its claim.

Just saying.

[Rivertime]

Infeasible.

Boy, that ticks me off.

It is incredible your Honor, that Midland's business model renders it inconvenient to establish a threshold requirement in this case: that it actually owns the debt in question and that it therefore has standing to pursue its claim in this Court.

However, standing is more than just a "legal nicety". Debt collectors sell their portfolios time and time again. A single debt may be sold 3 or 4 times or mauybe more. If the Court is not familiar with that fact, the Missouri Supreme Court's opinion in CACH v. Askew is instructive: http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=51954 (Debt transferred from Providian to WAMU to Worldwide Asset Purchasing II to CACH).

If the Court is to render a judgment in this matter, it should dispose of this controversy forever. But if Midland doesn't actually own this debt, there is nothing to prevent Portfolio Recovery Associates or CACH or Worldwide Asset Purchasing or any other bottom feeder from suing again on this same debt.

However, Midland is not an occasional visitor in this Court. Its entire business practice consists of purchasing debt and suing to recover it. If it finds it "infeasible" or "inconvenient" to prove standing, it should revise its business practices rather than contend it should somehow be excused from establishing an indispensible element of its claim.

Just saying.

Two Words!

KA POW!!!

rt

[Coltfan1972]

Infeasible.

Boy, that ticks me off.

It is incredible your Honor, that Midland's business model renders it inconvenient to establish a threshold requirement in this case: that it actually owns the debt in question and that it therefore has standing to pursue its claim in this Court.

However, standing is more than just a "legal nicety". Debt collectors sell their portfolios time and time again. A single debt may be sold 3 or 4 times or mauybe more. If the Court is not familiar with that fact, the Missouri Supreme Court's opinion in CACH v. Askew is instructive: http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=51954 (Debt transferred from Providian to WAMU to Worldwide Asset Purchasing II to CACH).

If the Court is to render a judgment in this matter, it should dispose of this controversy forever. But if Midland doesn't actually own this debt, there is nothing to prevent Portfolio Recovery Associates or CACH or Worldwide Asset Purchasing or any other bottom feeder from suing again on this same debt.

However, Midland is not an occasional visitor in this Court. Its entire business practice consists of purchasing debt and suing to recover it. If it finds it "infeasible" or "inconvenient" to prove standing, it should revise its business practices rather than contend it should somehow be excused from establishing an indispensible element of its claim.

Just saying.

In other words, Your Honor that's assanine !!

[kittymamma]

You guys are so funny, there have been many times I have sat and laughed over some of the posts and honestly having to go thru this ridiculous stuff with Midland hasnt left me much to laugh about so it is a welcome diversion

I plan on taking bits and pieces from everything you fellas have posted and use them in my actual opposition to her opposition.....it should make for some good reading for the judge.....infeasible indeed......