lost_inaz

aw just served today in az By am systems, llc

Recommended Posts

I went to the court house to pick up my complaint was served by clerk.

last payment open 8/23/05 last pay7/11/07

interest 2,537.92

I. that Plaintiff is an Arizona limited liability comany and is at this time, assignee of Defendant's contract with chase bank usa, n.a

II. That defendant(s) is/are /were resident(s) of maricopa county, Arizona and the venue is porper in this Court.

III. That in all matters mentioned herein, the defandants(s) acted as agent for,on behalf of and in furtherance of his or her marital community, if any.

Iv. that heretofore and prior to the filing of this action defendant(s)did, for valuable consideration, enter into a contractual obligation with chase bank usa, n.a. or its assignee as is evidenced by plaintiff's affidavit and statement of account attached hereto as well as in the supporting documentation (when applicable) attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof.

v. that said the defendant(s) has/have failed to pay approprate charges when due.

vI that the balance remaining due and unpaid on said contract at the time of this complaint is the principal amount of 2,643.67 together with accrued and accruing interest and late fee's pursuant to contract from 2/29/08 until paid in full, less payments, adjustments or offsets.

Vii. that said defendant (s) has failed and/or refused to pay said balance despite plaintiff having made upon defendants (s) for such sums due and owing and that said balance is justly due and owing the plaintiff named herein.

Wherefore, Plaintiff demands judgement against defendant (s) and each of them, as follows:

1. for principal sum 2643.67, less payments, adjustments and offsets (if applicable).

2. for the accrued interest and late fees from the original charge-off date of 02/29/08 through 02/28/2012 at the rate of 24.00%

3. for the accruing interest on the principal from 2/28/2012 at the contract rate of 24.00% until paid in full.

4. for court costs incurred herein.

5. for reasonable attorney fees pursuant to contract and/or Ars 12-341.01.

6.for accruing interest on the costs and fees as awarded by the court.

7. for such other and further relief as the court may deem appropriate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't put anything into writing until you understand what you are arguing, would be my only advice.

You might find challenging their standing to be a big thorn in their side. Here is something we have discussed just recently on here. Good Luck !!

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/forums/there-lawyer-house/312714-standing-when-dealing-jdb-3.html#post1154504

Link to post
Share on other sites

Coltfan wrote a great post on standing. He provided the link for you. Also, check out posts by 1stStep. He's from your state.

You need to admit or deny each allegation. For instance, if it were me, I might answer #1 by stating:

Denied. Defendant has no knowledge as to whether or not Plaintiff is an Arizona limited liability company. In addition, Plaintiff has provided no evidence of a contract between Chase and Defendant nor that Plaintiff is an assignee of any alleged contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites

last pay7/11/07

Is this accurate? If so this thing is dead on arrival. The statute of limitations for Chase (Delaware) is three years, period. This is zombie debt, could be a good FDCPA counterclaim for terminal stupidity on the part of lawyers who specialize in this line of work, not to mention pursuing collection on a debt they have no legal right to try to collect. Come on, Dream Team, all 3 of you missed this. Spankings are in order.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess BV80 can do one of those amazing case law search! I'll try that later and see, I got to pick up the kids in a bit. Chase is Delaware for sure I know this cause I got a Wamu card defaulted then went to Chase and I checked thier choice of law just in case the JDB wants to sue later, is now SOL as for Chase, but what choice of law did Wamu got? (off topic sorry)

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 The threshold question concerned the proper analysis for deciding which statute of limitations applied. There are at least three approaches to deciding choice of law questions involving conflicting statutes of limitations. Under the traditional approach, statutes of limitations are viewed as presumptively procedural, in which case the law of the forum applies. Arizona has historically applied this approach. See, e.g., Eschenhagen v. Zika, 144 Ariz. 213, 696 P.2d 1362 (App.1985). This approach was adopted in RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONFLICT OF LAWS §§ 142 and 143 (1971) (hereafter RESTATEMENT). The RESTATEMENT was revised in 1988, however, to employ a type of interest analysis approach recognized by the drafters as the "emerging trend" among courts.[1] Under that approach, a court must analyze conflicts between statutes of limitations, emphasizing the significance of the relationship between the forum and the claims. See RESTATEMENT § 142 (1988) (citing RESTATEMENT OF CONFLICT OF LAWS § 6 (1971)); New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Gourdeau Constr. Co., 419 Mass. 658, 647 N.E.2d 42 (1995). A third approach exists under Uniform Conflict of Laws-Limitations Act § 2. Under that act, not adopted in Arizona, if a claim is substantively based on the law of another state, the limitations period of that state applies. See, e.g., Ellis v. Barto, 82 Wash. App. 454, 918 P.2d 540, 542 (1996). The court of appeals followed the interest analysis approach of revised RESTATEMENT § 142. DeLoach v. Alfred, 191 Ariz. 82, 85-86, 952 P.2d 320, 323-24 (App.1997). The parties do not challenge the use of that section.

Delaware statute of limitations - Google Scholar

Arizona or is procedual and does not apply or if there's significance of the relationship between the forum and the claims, then they DO apply. Someone with more legal knowledge maybe gives us a light on this.

Edited by kutuzov
Link to post
Share on other sites

Be careful Legal...it may not be SOL...they will try to sneak this in under AZ's change in the SOL - 6 years for CC debt...

Of course they will. Too bad the contract wasn't made in AZ. I would wave the credit card agreement in front of their star witness, if they had one. "Is this the agreement you insisted consumers agree to?" Ugh, yes, gulp. "Does the contract CLEARLY state that the laws of Delaware apply?" Ugh, gulp, yes. It does say that. "Do you have any documentation that would prove to this court that the defendant declined to be bound by the laws of Delaware?" Oops, no, I do not. "Then based upon your admissions, what possible reason can the plaintiff have for attempting to void their own agreement (waving it again at the jury) other than the fact that the plaintiff's attorneys don't know what the statute of limitations in Delaware is?" Uh, Jeez, I guess I want to invoke your SOL because mine is expired. PLEEEEEZE can't I just win and go home? I don't like court. "No, you cannot. You have to sit here and take an a$$ kicking courtesy of CIC (optional) Tell this court why you should be allowed to invoke the statute of limitations of another state when your OWN AGREEMENT clearly states that Delaware law applies. I'd love to hear this."

You get the point, failed argument in my humble opinion. Act of desperation born of stupidity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess BV80 can do one of those amazing case law search! I'll try that later and see, I got to pick up the kids in a bit. Chase is Delaware for sure I know this cause I got a Wamu card defaulted then went to Chase and I checked thier choice of law just in case the JDB wants to sue later, is now SOL as for Chase, but what choice of law did Wamu got? (off topic sorry)

My case law search for this hasn't been too amazing. There is case law regarding choice of law and the Restatement (second) of Conflict of Laws, but nothing that relates to a statute of limitations regarding debt.

I found a case regarding choice of law and statute of limitations for a deficiency judgment, but I don't know if that would apply to this situation.

As you stated earlier, the courts also apply an interest test to choice of law cases...which state has the most interest in the outcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Coltfan wrote a great post on standing. He provided the link for you. Also, check out posts by 1stStep. He's from your state.

You need to admit or deny each allegation. For instance, if it were me, I might answer #1 by stating:

Denied. Defendant has no knowledge as to whether or not Plaintiff is an Arizona limited liability company. In addition, Plaintiff has provided no evidence of a contract between Chase and Defendant nor that Plaintiff is an assignee of any alleged contract.

Do I send a subpoena duces tecum for the bill of sale/ account history/ proof of their standing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would take a shot at the SOL, be clear that they insisted on DE law, you agreed, and the court has no reason to step in and modify a contract between the parties. I did a lot of research into this a while back, most of the cases where it was an issue were car wrecks, believe it or not. In cases where there was a clear agreement, the court let it go according to whatever choice of law the parties specified.

Ten pages from AZ on choice of law, didn't read 'em all, could be some credit card cases in there

"choice of law" - Google Scholar

Bank cases

bank "choice of law" - Google Scholar

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't read those cases, from my point of view (not legal expert), the choice of law applies goes with what state got the most interest. If they got 1 monthly statement with interest over the those allowed in Arizona, then the choice of law DOES apply, since they applied Delaware interest rates and NOT Arizona. They could argue that purchases etc. where done in Arizona, and then you could object that payments for such transactions where done from Delaware. So it will be in the end up to the judge, but start reading all those cases, you might find something interesting there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SOL is grounds for dismissal. If the debt is timed barred they have no legal right to collect. This can also be the basis for a counterclaim. Lawyers are supposed to know the SOL before they sue you and cause you all this trouble.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SOL is grounds for dismissal. If the debt is timed barred they have no legal right to collect. This can also be the basis for a counterclaim. Lawyers are supposed to know the SOL before they sue you and cause you all this trouble.

Got to teach me this one when times come, if I get SOL cause of Delaware SOL, in Florida, how do I do a counterclaim :) :) :)

Anyway I was gonna post, that late fees and all fees, are considered interest, so when looking at those monthly statement add them as interest rate, legaleagle just posted this on some one else post. so check the case law is there.

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