Jump to content

A$$et's Discovery Response


Swatch
 Share

Recommended Posts

So today, one day before Answers were to be served I receive A$$et's Answers to my discovery.

 

A couple of things I would like to point out before I list some of A$$et's Answers.

 

1. A$$et did not request any Discovery from myself. Not 100% sure what's going on with this.

 

2. In Indiana you are required to send Discovery in both Hard Copy and in an Electronic format. According to A$$et they are not in possession of a disk and Plaintiff was unable to obtain an electronic email address from Defendant.

 

3. A$$et was nice enough not to include the actual Admissions and Interrogatories they just put their Answers and that was it. So having to flip back and forth so this might take awhile.

 

Most of A$$et's Answers were either:

 

Objection to the Request as to the extent the question seeks legal conclusion; or

 

Admit in part, Deny in part. Plaintiff is not the original Creditor and does not presently possess all of the documentation associated with the original account. Plaintiff is currently in the process of obtaining any relevant paperwork from the original creditor and will provide copies of said documents to Defendant upon receipt.

 

The only Documents produced were:

 

1. Claim Summary, generated February 22, 2013

 

2. Bill of Sale and Assignment of Loans from BOA of which I already had. Plaintiff's Exhibit "B" but it's labeled  Exhibit "C" above the title. Included in this is a "Schedule A" which was hand written on the piece of paper but interesting enough this wasn't on the first copy I received.

 

3. One Billing Statement ( Charge Off) Statement which I already had.

 

4. And a " Important Notice of Change in Terms" of which is 16 pages of the Agreement in Boxes on each page. The only date I could find in this Exhibit was 2006 when BOA and MBNA merged. The account was opened in 2005.

 

5. An Affidavit from an employee of A$$et which I already had.

 

6. A Document generated by A$$et which was attached to the Affidavit. Had this one as well.

 

Here are some of the answers I received of which stood out to me: I tried to throw in some trick questions as well.

 

1. Admit or Deny this account is based on an account stated between the Defendant and the Original Creditor. Admit, This was a trick question on my part.

 

2. Admit or Deny Plaintiff has no personal knowledge as to the mailing by the original issuer to Defendant of any Billing Statement for the account. Objection to the Request as to the extent the question seeks a legal Conclusion. In my request for Documents they state " Account Statements were mailed to the Cardholder/debtor each month.

 

3. Admit or Deny neither the Plaintiff nor its attorney possesses a Sworn Statement executed by or on behalf of the Original Creditor which purports to authenticate the genuineness of any documents related to the account. Objection to the Request as to the extent the question seeks a legal Conclusion.

 

4. Admit or Deny Plaintiff does not have possession of and cannot obtain possession of Defendant’s application for the account. Admit in part, Deny in part. Plaintiff is not the original Creditor and does not presently possess all of the documentation associated with the original account. Plaintiff is currently in the process of obtaining any relevant paperwork from the original creditor and will provide copies of said documents to Defendant upon receipt.

 

5. Admit or Deny Plaintiff does not possess and cannot obtain possession of any Sworn Statement which contains the Defendant’s original signature. Admit in part, Deny in part. Plaintiff is not the original Creditor and does not presently possess all of the documentation associated with the original account. Plaintiff is currently in the process of obtaining any relevant paperwork from the original creditor and will provide copies of said documents to Defendant upon receipt.

 

6. Admit or Deny Plaintiff created their own documents to use as exhibits in this case. Admit in part, Deny in part. Plaintiff is not the original Creditor and does not presently possess all of the documentation associated with the original account. Plaintiff is currently in the process of obtaining any relevant paperwork from the original creditor and will provide copies of said documents to Defendant upon receipt.

 

7. Admit or Deny that Crystal R. Barton, Notary of the Plaintiff’s Affidavit was notarized in full compliance of the Michigan Notary Public Act. Admit This is an outright lie as the Michigan Secretary of State's Office sent me a letter stating that the Notary is required to follow ALL of the rules of the MNPA and informed her of such. The Secretary of State only sent her a letter because it was her first offense.

 

8. Admit or Deny Plaintiff creates their own documents to use in legal proceedings. Admit in part, Deny in part. Plaintiff is not the original Creditor and does not presently possess all of the documentation associated with the original account. Plaintiff is currently in the process of obtaining any relevant paperwork from the original creditor and will provide copies of said documents to Defendant upon receipt. Plaintiff's Exhibit "F" was even created on the Plaintiff's own letterhead.

 

9. Admit or Deny Plaintiff created documents to substantiate records of the Original Creditor in this case? Admit in part, Deny in part. Plaintiff is not the original Creditor and does not presently possess all of the documentation associated with the original account. Plaintiff is currently in the process of obtaining any relevant paperwork from the original creditor and will provide copies of said documents to Defendant upon receipt.

 

10. Admit or Deny Plaintiff’s Bill of Sale and Assignment of Loans has no warranty or guarantee of any type from the Original Creditor. Objection to the Request as to the extent the question seeks a legal conclusion. Does A$$et not even look at their own Exhibits? This admission came right out of the Bill of Sale and Assignment of Loans.

 

11. Admit or Deny Plaintiff’s employee A. Dickson-Rekasi cannot testify to the accuracy or accounting of alleged debt purchased from the Original Creditor. Deny

 

12. Admit or Deny Crystal R. Barton is an employee of the Plaintiff. Deny Crystal R. Barton is no longer employed at AALLC.
 

13. Admit or Deny the account is based on a contract between the Defendant and the Original Creditor. Admit If you recall I asked in my #1 Admission if the account is based on an account stated between the Defendant and Original Creditor. And they admitted it was.

 

14. Admit or Deny Plaintiff’s employee A. Dickson-Rekasi cannot testify to any facet of said account prior the purchase of debt from Original Creditor. Objection to the Request as to the extent the question seeks a legal conclusion.

 

15. Admit or Deny Plaintiff’s Bill of Sale and Assignment of Loans does not specifically identify the Defendant. Deny, see Exhibit B.

 

16.  Set forth a particular statement of the items of the claim, their amounts and dates, a calculation in figures of the amount of interest, the payments or credits, if any, and the net amount due.

See Exhibit "A" which shows a balance including interest in the amount of just over $5,000 as of February 22, 2012. However, in the letter I had received from the Attorney back in June it was for an amount over $6,000.

 

17.  Attach to your response to these Interrogatories a copy of each record reflecting all transactions and credits to the account and, in the immediately following space, either state that all records are attached or identify which records are not attached. See Exhibit ©. Plaintiff has enclosed it's relevant presently available records kept in the ordinary course of business for the subject account. Plaintiff will provide any additional relevant documentation received from the original creditor relating to the subject account upon receipt. Exhibit "C" is the (Charge Off) billing statement. The only charge is a late fee.

 

18. .  Any Receipts, canceled checks or other similar evidences of payments, credits, and entitlements to offsets or deductions your claim that will be used as evidence at trial. Objection; overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that charge slips or other equivalent are not and never were the property of the Plaintiff. Account Statements were mailed to the Cardholder/debtor each month. These represent a true and accurate record of the transactions occuring for that account during each statement period.

 

19. . Any and all Documents, letters, papers or writings which you intend to use to support any defense to or which you intend to offer as evidence at trial. Exhibit "A" Due to the volumes of correspondence Plaintiff incurs in the ordinary course of business, Plaintiff does no retain original copies of all correspondence mailed, but record of said correspondence is contained in Plaintiff's business records.

 

20. Any and all Billing Statements from the Original Creditor which Plaintiff intends to use as evidence at trial. Exhibit "C" (Charge Off) statement.

 

21. Plaintiff to provide a copy of the signed application originating the opening of said account between the Defendant and the Original Creditor. Plaintiff has enclosed it's relevant presently available records kept in the ordinary course of business for the subject account. Plaintiff will provide any additional relevant documentation received from the original creditor relating to the subject account upon receipt.

 

22. Contact information for Crystal R. Barton, Notary for the Plaintiff. Crystal R. Barton no longer is employed by AALLC. Wouldn't A$$et still have to supply contact information for her?

 

23. A signed copy of the original contract and/or Customer Agreement between the Defendant and the Original Creditor. See Exhibit's A through F, Plaintiff is not the original creditor and does not currently possess all of the documentation associated with the account. Plaintiff will attempt to obtain additional documentation received from the original creditor and will provide said documentation upon receipt.

 

24. Contact information for Debra L. Pellicciaro, Assignor of FIA Card Services, N.A..

See Exhibit "B"

 

This was just a mix of Admissions, Interrogatories and Request for Documents of which thought stood out. So to me it seems they are putting the weight of their case on the 6 Exhibits provided. Any thoughts of what I should do next; or see anything that is questionable?








 















 





 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How likely is it that A$$et will provide additional documents?

They have no additional documents and will not provide them.  When they state they are not the original creditor and will obtain and send them to you ,1.)  They do not have them as stated.  2.)  The OC will not have them or provide them if they do.  I would get a second set of admissions ready hitting every single one they either said they could produce at trial, or would obtain.  I am assuming you denyed even having the credit card?  The burden of proof is on them.  Did you submit an affidavate denying knowledge of alleged account etc.. etc..? 

 

2. Admit or Deny Plaintiff has no personal knowledge as to the mailing by the original issuer to Defendant of any Billing Statement for the account. Objection to the Request as to the extent the question seeks a legal Conclusion. In my request for Documents they state " Account Statements were mailed to the Cardholder/debtor each month.

 

I would ask them to admit they have no personal knowledge or proof alleged account statements were mailed.  If personal knowledge is available based in fact please provide the proof of alleged account statements being mailed...

 

i will look through this some more and add my 2 cents as I would see it, I am sure yu will get more help as time moves along.  If they cannot provide the underlaying contract, as you stated above  "4. And a " Important Notice of Change in Terms" of which is 16 pages of the Agreement in Boxes on each page. The only date I could find in this Exhibit was 2006 when BOA and MBNA merged. The account was opened in 2005."  They are unable to produce the underlaying contract as was the same in my case.  The judge ordered them to produce the contract at the pre trial hearing within 21 days.  The contract was never produced i filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice and won.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So today, one day before Answers were to be served I receive A$$et's Answers to my discovery.

 

A couple of things I would like to point out before I list some of A$$et's Answers.

 

1. A$$et did not request any Discovery from myself. Not 100% sure what's going on with this.

 

2. In Indiana you are required to send Discovery in both Hard Copy and in an Electronic format. According to A$$et they are not in possession of a disk and Plaintiff was unable to obtain an electronic email address from Defendant.

 

3. A$$et was nice enough not to include the actual Admissions and Interrogatories they just put their Answers and that was it. So having to flip back and forth so this might take awhile.

Did they use proper format in responding?  i am in Michigan not sure what your Rules state. 

 

Most of A$$et's Answers were either:

 

Objection to the Request as to the extent the question seeks legal conclusion; or

 

Admit in part, Deny in part. Plaintiff is not the original Creditor and does not presently possess all of the documentation associated with the original account. Plaintiff is currently in the process of obtaining any relevant paperwork from the original creditor and will provide copies of said documents to Defendant upon receipt.

 

The only Documents produced were:

 

1. Claim Summary, generated February 22, 2013

 

2. Bill of Sale and Assignment of Loans from BOA of which I already had. Plaintiff's Exhibit "B" but it's labeled  Exhibit "C" above the title. Included in this is a "Schedule A" which was hand written on the piece of paper but interesting enough this wasn't on the first copy I received.

 

3. One Billing Statement ( Charge Off) Statement which I already had.

 

4. And a " Important Notice of Change in Terms" of which is 16 pages of the Agreement in Boxes on each page. The only date I could find in this Exhibit was 2006 when BOA and MBNA merged. The account was opened in 2005.

 

5. An Affidavit from an employee of A$$et which I already had.

 

6. A Document generated by A$$et which was attached to the Affidavit. Had this one as well.

 

Here are some of the answers I received of which stood out to me: I tried to throw in some trick questions as well.

 

1. Admit or Deny this account is based on an account stated between the Defendant and the Original Creditor. Admit, This was a trick question on my part.

 

2. Admit or Deny Plaintiff has no personal knowledge as to the mailing by the original issuer to Defendant of any Billing Statement for the account. Objection to the Request as to the extent the question seeks a legal Conclusion. In my request for Documents they state " Account Statements were mailed to the Cardholder/debtor each month.

Admit Plaintiff has no basis for this statement as fact.  Plaintiff declares account statements were mailed each month in request for documents, then states objection to the same question as it would result in a legal conclusion.( Or save this for trial to attack their credability, you will get different answers on here, I went the way of a second set of admissions to attack everything they contradicted themselves on)

 

3. Admit or Deny neither the Plaintiff nor its attorney possesses a Sworn Statement executed by or on behalf of the Original Creditor which purports to authenticate the genuineness of any documents related to the account. Objection to the Request as to the extent the question seeks a legal Conclusion.

This makes their "Bill of Sale and Assignment" junk

 

4. Admit or Deny Plaintiff does not have possession of and cannot obtain possession of Defendant’s application for the account. Admit in part, Deny in part. Plaintiff is not the original Creditor and does not presently possess all of the documentation associated with the original account. Plaintiff is currently in the process of obtaining any relevant paperwork from the original creditor and will provide copies of said documents to Defendant upon receipt.

Admit you are unable to obtain defendants application for alleged account.

 

5. Admit or Deny Plaintiff does not possess and cannot obtain possession of any Sworn Statement which contains the Defendant’s original signature. Admit in part, Deny in part. Plaintiff is not the original Creditor and does not presently possess all of the documentation associated with the original account. Plaintiff is currently in the process of obtaining any relevant paperwork from the original creditor and will provide copies of said documents to Defendant upon receipt.

Admit same as above

 

6. Admit or Deny Plaintiff created their own documents to use as exhibits in this case. Admit in part, Deny in part. Plaintiff is not the original Creditor and does not presently possess all of the documentation associated with the original account. Plaintiff is currently in the process of obtaining any relevant paperwork from the original creditor and will provide copies of said documents to Defendant upon receipt.

Admit exhibits submitted by Plaintiff were created by the Plaintiff in this case.  You may want to take each exhibit and ask to admit Plaintiff created these documents.

 

7. Admit or Deny that Crystal R. Barton, Notary of the Plaintiff’s Affidavit was notarized in full compliance of the Michigan Notary Public Act. Admit This is an outright lie as the Michigan Secretary of State's Office sent me a letter stating that the Notary is required to follow ALL of the rules of the MNPA and informed her of such. The Secretary of State only sent her a letter because it was her first offense.

I am missing some info here, i think she was not in good standing by looking at this, you could obtain copies of the offense and letter sent ot her, submit them as evidence and move to strike her notorization and the document, however they wil just get it resigned and admitted into evidence, but it shows even though Asset was sued for 2.5 million for deceptive practices that they are still not abiding by the decree that was given them.

 

8. Admit or Deny Plaintiff creates their own documents to use in legal proceedings. Admit in part, Deny in part. Plaintiff is not the original Creditor and does not presently possess all of the documentation associated with the original account. Plaintiff is currently in the process of obtaining any relevant paperwork from the original creditor and will provide copies of said documents to Defendant upon receipt. Plaintiff's Exhibit "F" was even created on the Plaintiff's own letterhead.

Hit them with admissions for each document individually.  Whos to say how those were created by them, you could do the same(you did if you submitted and affidavate denying the alleged account).  Why couldnt you type up someting and say ASSet owes me $5000.00?  Their created documents do not show assignment or ownership of anything.

 

9. Admit or Deny Plaintiff created documents to substantiate records of the Original Creditor in this case? Admit in part, Deny in part. Plaintiff is not the original Creditor and does not presently possess all of the documentation associated with the original account. Plaintiff is currently in the process of obtaining any relevant paperwork from the original creditor and will provide copies of said documents to Defendant upon receipt.

 

10. Admit or Deny Plaintiff’s Bill of Sale and Assignment of Loans has no warranty or guarantee of any type from the Original Creditor. Objection to the Request as to the extent the question seeks a legal conclusion. Does A$$et not even look at their own Exhibits? This admission came right out of the Bill of Sale and Assignment of Loans.

Speciffically quote the statement in their document or highlight and attach asking them to admit the Plaintiff actually has no idea what exhibits state and pertain to as they have no legal proof to state a claim to alleged account, and in their Bill of Sale and assignment it states it has not warranty or gaurentee of any type

 

11. Admit or Deny Plaintiff’s employee A. Dickson-Rekasi cannot testify to the accuracy or accounting of alleged debt purchased from the Original Creditor. Deny

 

12. Admit or Deny Crystal R. Barton is an employee of the Plaintiff. Deny Crystal R. Barton is no longer employed at AALLC.

 

13. Admit or Deny the account is based on a contract between the Defendant and the Original Creditor. Admit If you recall I asked in my #1 Admission if the account is based on an account stated between the Defendant and Original Creditor. And they admitted it was.

 

14. Admit or Deny Plaintiff’s employee A. Dickson-Rekasi cannot testify to any facet of said account prior the purchase of debt from Original Creditor. Objection to the Request as to the extent the question seeks a legal conclusion.

 

15. Admit or Deny Plaintiff’s Bill of Sale and Assignment of Loans does not specifically identify the Defendant. Deny, see Exhibit B.

This one is funny no Bill of Sale specifically identifies a single account that i have ever seen

 

16.  Set forth a particular statement of the items of the claim, their amounts and dates, a calculation in figures of the amount of interest, the payments or credits, if any, and the net amount due.

See Exhibit "A" which shows a balance including interest in the amount of just over $5,000 as of February 22, 2012. However, in the letter I had received from the Attorney back in June it was for an amount over $6,000.

 

17.  Attach to your response to these Interrogatories a copy of each record reflecting all transactions and credits to the account and, in the immediately following space, either state that all records are attached or identify which records are not attached. See Exhibit ©. Plaintiff has enclosed it's relevant presently available records kept in the ordinary course of business for the subject account. Plaintiff will provide any additional relevant documentation received from the original creditor relating to the subject account upon receipt. Exhibit "C" is the (Charge Off) billing statement. The only charge is a late fee.

 

18. .  Any Receipts, canceled checks or other similar evidences of payments, credits, and entitlements to offsets or deductions your claim that will be used as evidence at trial. Objection; overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that charge slips or other equivalent are not and never were the property of the Plaintiff. Account Statements were mailed to the Cardholder/debtor each month. These represent a true and accurate record of the transactions occuring for that account during each statement period.

 

19. . Any and all Documents, letters, papers or writings which you intend to use to support any defense to or which you intend to offer as evidence at trial. Exhibit "A" Due to the volumes of correspondence Plaintiff incurs in the ordinary course of business, Plaintiff does no retain original copies of all correspondence mailed, but record of said correspondence is contained in Plaintiff's business records.

 

20. Any and all Billing Statements from the Original Creditor which Plaintiff intends to use as evidence at trial. Exhibit "C" (Charge Off) statement.

 

21. Plaintiff to provide a copy of the signed application originating the opening of said account between the Defendant and the Original Creditor. Plaintiff has enclosed it's relevant presently available records kept in the ordinary course of business for the subject account. Plaintiff will provide any additional relevant documentation received from the original creditor relating to the subject account upon receipt.

 

22. Contact information for Crystal R. Barton, Notary for the Plaintiff. Crystal R. Barton no longer is employed by AALLC. Wouldn't A$$et still have to supply contact information for her?

Put here on a witness list and subpeona her should be able to google her wherabouts...

 

23. A signed copy of the original contract and/or Customer Agreement between the Defendant and the Original Creditor. See Exhibit's A through F, Plaintiff is not the original creditor and does not currently possess all of the documentation associated with the account. Plaintiff will attempt to obtain additional documentation received from the original creditor and will provide said documentation upon receipt.

 

24. Contact information for Debra L. Pellicciaro, Assignor of FIA Card Services, N.A..

See Exhibit "B"

 

This was just a mix of Admissions, Interrogatories and Request for Documents of which thought stood out. So to me it seems they are putting the weight of their case on the 6 Exhibits provided. Any thoughts of what I should do next; or see anything that is questionable?

 

 

 

 

So today, one day before Answers were to be served I receive A$$et's Answers to my discovery.

 

A couple of things I would like to point out before I list some of A$$et's Answers.

 

1. A$$et did not request any Discovery from myself. Not 100% sure what's going on with this.

 

2. In Indiana you are required to send Discovery in both Hard Copy and in an Electronic format. According to A$$et they are not in possession of a disk and Plaintiff was unable to obtain an electronic email address from Defendant.

 

3. A$$et was nice enough not to include the actual Admissions and Interrogatories they just put their Answers and that was it. So having to flip back and forth so this might take awhile.

 

Most of A$$et's Answers were either:

 

Objection to the Request as to the extent the question seeks legal conclusion; or

 

Admit in part, Deny in part. Plaintiff is not the original Creditor and does not presently possess all of the documentation associated with the original account. Plaintiff is currently in the process of obtaining any relevant paperwork from the original creditor and will provide copies of said documents to Defendant upon receipt.

 

The only Documents produced were:

 

1. Claim Summary, generated February 22, 2013

 

2. Bill of Sale and Assignment of Loans from BOA of which I already had. Plaintiff's Exhibit "B" but it's labeled  Exhibit "C" above the title. Included in this is a "Schedule A" which was hand written on the piece of paper but interesting enough this wasn't on the first copy I received.

 

3. One Billing Statement ( Charge Off) Statement which I already had.

 

4. And a " Important Notice of Change in Terms" of which is 16 pages of the Agreement in Boxes on each page. The only date I could find in this Exhibit was 2006 when BOA and MBNA merged. The account was opened in 2005.

 

5. An Affidavit from an employee of A$$et which I already had.

 

6. A Document generated by A$$et which was attached to the Affidavit. Had this one as well.

 

Here are some of the answers I received of which stood out to me: I tried to throw in some trick questions as well.

 

1. Admit or Deny this account is based on an account stated between the Defendant and the Original Creditor. Admit, This was a trick question on my part.

 

2. Admit or Deny Plaintiff has no personal knowledge as to the mailing by the original issuer to Defendant of any Billing Statement for the account. Objection to the Request as to the extent the question seeks a legal Conclusion. In my request for Documents they state " Account Statements were mailed to the Cardholder/debtor each month.

 

3. Admit or Deny neither the Plaintiff nor its attorney possesses a Sworn Statement executed by or on behalf of the Original Creditor which purports to authenticate the genuineness of any documents related to the account. Objection to the Request as to the extent the question seeks a legal Conclusion.

 

4. Admit or Deny Plaintiff does not have possession of and cannot obtain possession of Defendant’s application for the account. Admit in part, Deny in part. Plaintiff is not the original Creditor and does not presently possess all of the documentation associated with the original account. Plaintiff is currently in the process of obtaining any relevant paperwork from the original creditor and will provide copies of said documents to Defendant upon receipt.

 

5. Admit or Deny Plaintiff does not possess and cannot obtain possession of any Sworn Statement which contains the Defendant’s original signature. Admit in part, Deny in part. Plaintiff is not the original Creditor and does not presently possess all of the documentation associated with the original account. Plaintiff is currently in the process of obtaining any relevant paperwork from the original creditor and will provide copies of said documents to Defendant upon receipt.

 

6. Admit or Deny Plaintiff created their own documents to use as exhibits in this case. Admit in part, Deny in part. Plaintiff is not the original Creditor and does not presently possess all of the documentation associated with the original account. Plaintiff is currently in the process of obtaining any relevant paperwork from the original creditor and will provide copies of said documents to Defendant upon receipt.

 

7. Admit or Deny that Crystal R. Barton, Notary of the Plaintiff’s Affidavit was notarized in full compliance of the Michigan Notary Public Act. Admit This is an outright lie as the Michigan Secretary of State's Office sent me a letter stating that the Notary is required to follow ALL of the rules of the MNPA and informed her of such. The Secretary of State only sent her a letter because it was her first offense.

 

8. Admit or Deny Plaintiff creates their own documents to use in legal proceedings. Admit in part, Deny in part. Plaintiff is not the original Creditor and does not presently possess all of the documentation associated with the original account. Plaintiff is currently in the process of obtaining any relevant paperwork from the original creditor and will provide copies of said documents to Defendant upon receipt. Plaintiff's Exhibit "F" was even created on the Plaintiff's own letterhead.

 

9. Admit or Deny Plaintiff created documents to substantiate records of the Original Creditor in this case? Admit in part, Deny in part. Plaintiff is not the original Creditor and does not presently possess all of the documentation associated with the original account. Plaintiff is currently in the process of obtaining any relevant paperwork from the original creditor and will provide copies of said documents to Defendant upon receipt.

 

10. Admit or Deny Plaintiff’s Bill of Sale and Assignment of Loans has no warranty or guarantee of any type from the Original Creditor. Objection to the Request as to the extent the question seeks a legal conclusion. Does A$$et not even look at their own Exhibits? This admission came right out of the Bill of Sale and Assignment of Loans.

 

11. Admit or Deny Plaintiff’s employee A. Dickson-Rekasi cannot testify to the accuracy or accounting of alleged debt purchased from the Original Creditor. Deny

 

12. Admit or Deny Crystal R. Barton is an employee of the Plaintiff. Deny Crystal R. Barton is no longer employed at AALLC.

 

13. Admit or Deny the account is based on a contract between the Defendant and the Original Creditor. Admit If you recall I asked in my #1 Admission if the account is based on an account stated between the Defendant and Original Creditor. And they admitted it was.

 

14. Admit or Deny Plaintiff’s employee A. Dickson-Rekasi cannot testify to any facet of said account prior the purchase of debt from Original Creditor. Objection to the Request as to the extent the question seeks a legal conclusion.

 

15. Admit or Deny Plaintiff’s Bill of Sale and Assignment of Loans does not specifically identify the Defendant. Deny, see Exhibit B.

 

16.  Set forth a particular statement of the items of the claim, their amounts and dates, a calculation in figures of the amount of interest, the payments or credits, if any, and the net amount due.

See Exhibit "A" which shows a balance including interest in the amount of just over $5,000 as of February 22, 2012. However, in the letter I had received from the Attorney back in June it was for an amount over $6,000.

 

17.  Attach to your response to these Interrogatories a copy of each record reflecting all transactions and credits to the account and, in the immediately following space, either state that all records are attached or identify which records are not attached. See Exhibit ©. Plaintiff has enclosed it's relevant presently available records kept in the ordinary course of business for the subject account. Plaintiff will provide any additional relevant documentation received from the original creditor relating to the subject account upon receipt. Exhibit "C" is the (Charge Off) billing statement. The only charge is a late fee.

 

18. .  Any Receipts, canceled checks or other similar evidences of payments, credits, and entitlements to offsets or deductions your claim that will be used as evidence at trial. Objection; overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that charge slips or other equivalent are not and never were the property of the Plaintiff. Account Statements were mailed to the Cardholder/debtor each month. These represent a true and accurate record of the transactions occuring for that account during each statement period.

 

19. . Any and all Documents, letters, papers or writings which you intend to use to support any defense to or which you intend to offer as evidence at trial. Exhibit "A" Due to the volumes of correspondence Plaintiff incurs in the ordinary course of business, Plaintiff does no retain original copies of all correspondence mailed, but record of said correspondence is contained in Plaintiff's business records.

 

20. Any and all Billing Statements from the Original Creditor which Plaintiff intends to use as evidence at trial. Exhibit "C" (Charge Off) statement.

 

21. Plaintiff to provide a copy of the signed application originating the opening of said account between the Defendant and the Original Creditor. Plaintiff has enclosed it's relevant presently available records kept in the ordinary course of business for the subject account. Plaintiff will provide any additional relevant documentation received from the original creditor relating to the subject account upon receipt.

 

22. Contact information for Crystal R. Barton, Notary for the Plaintiff. Crystal R. Barton no longer is employed by AALLC. Wouldn't A$$et still have to supply contact information for her?

 

23. A signed copy of the original contract and/or Customer Agreement between the Defendant and the Original Creditor. See Exhibit's A through F, Plaintiff is not the original creditor and does not currently possess all of the documentation associated with the account. Plaintiff will attempt to obtain additional documentation received from the original creditor and will provide said documentation upon receipt.

 

24. Contact information for Debra L. Pellicciaro, Assignor of FIA Card Services, N.A..

See Exhibit "B"

 

This was just a mix of Admissions, Interrogatories and Request for Documents of which thought stood out. So to me it seems they are putting the weight of their case on the 6 Exhibits provided. Any thoughts of what I should do next; or see anything that is questionable?

 

 

 

 

So today, one day before Answers were to be served I receive A$$et's Answers to my discovery.

 

A couple of things I would like to point out before I list some of A$$et's Answers.

 

1. A$$et did not request any Discovery from myself. Not 100% sure what's going on with this.

 

2. In Indiana you are required to send Discovery in both Hard Copy and in an Electronic format. According to A$$et they are not in possession of a disk and Plaintiff was unable to obtain an electronic email address from Defendant.

 

3. A$$et was nice enough not to include the actual Admissions and Interrogatories they just put their Answers and that was it. So having to flip back and forth so this might take awhile.

 

Most of A$$et's Answers were either:

 

Objection to the Request as to the extent the question seeks legal conclusion; or

 

Admit in part, Deny in part. Plaintiff is not the original Creditor and does not presently possess all of the documentation associated with the original account. Plaintiff is currently in the process of obtaining any relevant paperwork from the original creditor and will provide copies of said documents to Defendant upon receipt.

 

The only Documents produced were:

 

1. Claim Summary, generated February 22, 2013

 

2. Bill of Sale and Assignment of Loans from BOA of which I already had. Plaintiff's Exhibit "B" but it's labeled  Exhibit "C" above the title. Included in this is a "Schedule A" which was hand written on the piece of paper but interesting enough this wasn't on the first copy I received.

 

3. One Billing Statement ( Charge Off) Statement which I already had.

 

4. And a " Important Notice of Change in Terms" of which is 16 pages of the Agreement in Boxes on each page. The only date I could find in this Exhibit was 2006 when BOA and MBNA merged. The account was opened in 2005.

 

5. An Affidavit from an employee of A$$et which I already had.

 

6. A Document generated by A$$et which was attached to the Affidavit. Had this one as well.

 

Here are some of the answers I received of which stood out to me: I tried to throw in some trick questions as well.

 

1. Admit or Deny this account is based on an account stated between the Defendant and the Original Creditor. Admit, This was a trick question on my part.

 

2. Admit or Deny Plaintiff has no personal knowledge as to the mailing by the original issuer to Defendant of any Billing Statement for the account. Objection to the Request as to the extent the question seeks a legal Conclusion. In my request for Documents they state " Account Statements were mailed to the Cardholder/debtor each month.

 

3. Admit or Deny neither the Plaintiff nor its attorney possesses a Sworn Statement executed by or on behalf of the Original Creditor which purports to authenticate the genuineness of any documents related to the account. Objection to the Request as to the extent the question seeks a legal Conclusion.

 

4. Admit or Deny Plaintiff does not have possession of and cannot obtain possession of Defendant’s application for the account. Admit in part, Deny in part. Plaintiff is not the original Creditor and does not presently possess all of the documentation associated with the original account. Plaintiff is currently in the process of obtaining any relevant paperwork from the original creditor and will provide copies of said documents to Defendant upon receipt.

 

5. Admit or Deny Plaintiff does not possess and cannot obtain possession of any Sworn Statement which contains the Defendant’s original signature. Admit in part, Deny in part. Plaintiff is not the original Creditor and does not presently possess all of the documentation associated with the original account. Plaintiff is currently in the process of obtaining any relevant paperwork from the original creditor and will provide copies of said documents to Defendant upon receipt.

 

6. Admit or Deny Plaintiff created their own documents to use as exhibits in this case. Admit in part, Deny in part. Plaintiff is not the original Creditor and does not presently possess all of the documentation associated with the original account. Plaintiff is currently in the process of obtaining any relevant paperwork from the original creditor and will provide copies of said documents to Defendant upon receipt.

 

7. Admit or Deny that Crystal R. Barton, Notary of the Plaintiff’s Affidavit was notarized in full compliance of the Michigan Notary Public Act. Admit This is an outright lie as the Michigan Secretary of State's Office sent me a letter stating that the Notary is required to follow ALL of the rules of the MNPA and informed her of such. The Secretary of State only sent her a letter because it was her first offense.

 

8. Admit or Deny Plaintiff creates their own documents to use in legal proceedings. Admit in part, Deny in part. Plaintiff is not the original Creditor and does not presently possess all of the documentation associated with the original account. Plaintiff is currently in the process of obtaining any relevant paperwork from the original creditor and will provide copies of said documents to Defendant upon receipt. Plaintiff's Exhibit "F" was even created on the Plaintiff's own letterhead.

 

9. Admit or Deny Plaintiff created documents to substantiate records of the Original Creditor in this case? Admit in part, Deny in part. Plaintiff is not the original Creditor and does not presently possess all of the documentation associated with the original account. Plaintiff is currently in the process of obtaining any relevant paperwork from the original creditor and will provide copies of said documents to Defendant upon receipt.

 

10. Admit or Deny Plaintiff’s Bill of Sale and Assignment of Loans has no warranty or guarantee of any type from the Original Creditor. Objection to the Request as to the extent the question seeks a legal conclusion. Does A$$et not even look at their own Exhibits? This admission came right out of the Bill of Sale and Assignment of Loans.

 

11. Admit or Deny Plaintiff’s employee A. Dickson-Rekasi cannot testify to the accuracy or accounting of alleged debt purchased from the Original Creditor. Deny

 

12. Admit or Deny Crystal R. Barton is an employee of the Plaintiff. Deny Crystal R. Barton is no longer employed at AALLC.

 

13. Admit or Deny the account is based on a contract between the Defendant and the Original Creditor. Admit If you recall I asked in my #1 Admission if the account is based on an account stated between the Defendant and Original Creditor. And they admitted it was.

 

14. Admit or Deny Plaintiff’s employee A. Dickson-Rekasi cannot testify to any facet of said account prior the purchase of debt from Original Creditor. Objection to the Request as to the extent the question seeks a legal conclusion.

 

15. Admit or Deny Plaintiff’s Bill of Sale and Assignment of Loans does not specifically identify the Defendant. Deny, see Exhibit B.

 

16.  Set forth a particular statement of the items of the claim, their amounts and dates, a calculation in figures of the amount of interest, the payments or credits, if any, and the net amount due.

See Exhibit "A" which shows a balance including interest in the amount of just over $5,000 as of February 22, 2012. However, in the letter I had received from the Attorney back in June it was for an amount over $6,000.

 

17.  Attach to your response to these Interrogatories a copy of each record reflecting all transactions and credits to the account and, in the immediately following space, either state that all records are attached or identify which records are not attached. See Exhibit ©. Plaintiff has enclosed it's relevant presently available records kept in the ordinary course of business for the subject account. Plaintiff will provide any additional relevant documentation received from the original creditor relating to the subject account upon receipt. Exhibit "C" is the (Charge Off) billing statement. The only charge is a late fee.

 

18. .  Any Receipts, canceled checks or other similar evidences of payments, credits, and entitlements to offsets or deductions your claim that will be used as evidence at trial. Objection; overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that charge slips or other equivalent are not and never were the property of the Plaintiff. Account Statements were mailed to the Cardholder/debtor each month. These represent a true and accurate record of the transactions occuring for that account during each statement period.

 

19. . Any and all Documents, letters, papers or writings which you intend to use to support any defense to or which you intend to offer as evidence at trial. Exhibit "A" Due to the volumes of correspondence Plaintiff incurs in the ordinary course of business, Plaintiff does no retain original copies of all correspondence mailed, but record of said correspondence is contained in Plaintiff's business records.

 

20. Any and all Billing Statements from the Original Creditor which Plaintiff intends to use as evidence at trial. Exhibit "C" (Charge Off) statement.

 

21. Plaintiff to provide a copy of the signed application originating the opening of said account between the Defendant and the Original Creditor. Plaintiff has enclosed it's relevant presently available records kept in the ordinary course of business for the subject account. Plaintiff will provide any additional relevant documentation received from the original creditor relating to the subject account upon receipt.

 

22. Contact information for Crystal R. Barton, Notary for the Plaintiff. Crystal R. Barton no longer is employed by AALLC. Wouldn't A$$et still have to supply contact information for her?

 

23. A signed copy of the original contract and/or Customer Agreement between the Defendant and the Original Creditor. See Exhibit's A through F, Plaintiff is not the original creditor and does not currently possess all of the documentation associated with the account. Plaintiff will attempt to obtain additional documentation received from the original creditor and will provide said documentation upon receipt.

 

24. Contact information for Debra L. Pellicciaro, Assignor of FIA Card Services, N.A..

See Exhibit "B"

 

This was just a mix of Admissions, Interrogatories and Request for Documents of which thought stood out. So to me it seems they are putting the weight of their case on the 6 Exhibits provided. Any thoughts of what I should do next; or see anything that is questionable?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. A$$et did not request any Discovery from myself. Not 100% sure what's going on with this.

 

Probably too busy with other cases or collecting defaults to be bothered. I've yet to see any discovery requests from them either but there's still 2 month remaining in the discovery period in my case. 

 

A number of the answers are contradictory. They've also objected in many cases just so they don't have to answer. Like this one:

 

 

3. Admit or Deny neither the Plaintiff nor its attorney possesses a Sworn Statement executed by or on behalf of the Original Creditor which purports to authenticate the genuineness of any documents related to the account. Objection to the Request as to the extent the question seeks a legal Conclusion.

 

How is possession of a document a legal conclusion?

 

Their case is very weak and a single billing statement without charges isn't enough evidence to prove an unwritten contract between yourself and the OC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am also in Indiana and was sued recently by Asset and won because their paperwork was shoddy.  What was the lawyer?  Ours was Greene and Cooper.

I would check the bill of sale.  In our case I asked them to admit that Citibank directly sold them the account.  They admitted but then the Bill of Sale was from World Financial Network Bank to Asset Acceptance.  Also the date of sale on the Bill of Sale did not match the date of sale  on the affidavit by Asset's employee.

They never sent me any discovery either.

I promptly submitted an MSJ challenging standing because they had no proof they owned the account and also on the basis that everything they submitted was hearsay.  Nothing they submitted was reliable.

Within a week they sent me a Stipulation of dismissal without prejudice.  I changed what they sent me to a dismissal with prejudice and stated in a note that I would only stipulate to a dismissal with prejudice.  I signed it and sent it back.  A couple of weeks later I got the dismissal with the judges signature attached.

 

Check everything they send you!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone for your responses.

 

Irish- That is the same firm as in my case. A$$et is so shoddy that at my Status Conference the judge signed an order making the Attorney file an appearance. With G and C, you never know who is going to be handling the case. So far I have had three different Attorneys from G and C dealing with me. The Attorney at my Status Conference wanted to talk about a Settle and I said sure (Even though I knew I wasn't going to settle) the Attorney had nothing to offer! LOL

 

Since A$$et did not ask me for any discovery, how do I go about submitting my evidence? The reason I ask is because what I have received from both A$$et and G and C (On behalf of Asset) could be possible FDCPA violations.

 

Having just received Discovery response from A$$et is it too late to file a counterclaim? No trial date has been set, just a "hearing" on the 29th.

 

Does anyone know if the supposed "Schedule A" is from the Original Creditor or the Debt Buyer? G and C sent me (Schedule A) as part of their debt validation of which was received after suit was filed (honestly, I don't remember the exact date I asked for it). The "Schedule A" received with the debt validation was just a piece of paper with account information on it. However, the "Schedule A" that was provided in Discovery has "Schedule A" handwritten at the top along with a handwritten account number. Not sure if this amounts to being a doctored document or nothing to worry about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UPSman- Well, so far I haven't found anything in regards to formatting discovery rules in my State's Rules of Procedure.

In Indiana: "once a party has answered discovery they are under no duty to supplement his response to include information thereafter acquired" So sending a second set of admission is up in the air.

I've been trying to find this Crystal Barton since this whole case started. A$$et did give me names (I should say initials with last names) of other employees but the only information provided were their titles and A$$ets address.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point in time you have some options. Since you are still coducting discovery and rogs and since they have sent absolutely nothing you could file a motion to preclude any evidence they may try to submit in the future.

 

You could continue the course and wait for them to answer more rogs, this is time cinsuming.

 

In indiana Each time a new attorney appears for a case they have to comply to trial rule 3.1. They cannot appear in the case until they file the appearance noice, that is why the Judge ordered them to file their appearance.

Indiana Rles of Trial Procedure can be found here:

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/trial_proc/index.html#_Toc341261748

 

Another question I have.

Process of service, did they claim personal service? Is there a process of service affidavit? If they claim personal service, did you sign that you received it?

I ask these questions because of Indiana rule 4.16 (a) which states when service is made upon him personally, the defendant must acknowledge receipt of the papers in writing over his signature. If you did not sign, and they claim personal service then that is a false statment and can constitute fraud upon the court. It can be grounds for an imediate dismissal with prejudice.

This also goes toward default judgments, A court cannot, I repeat cannot, give a judgment of any kind if service of process has not been completed correctly.

 

Was there an affidavit of non military status, whether or not you are in the military or not this document has to be filed.

 

Even if you were handed the summons and complaint in person, if you were not asked to sign the process of service recept, process of service has not been propounded upon a person in the correct manner. I say this because a lot of process servers in this state wil hang the service on your door, mailbox, fence post or anywhere else they can find and claim they had personal service. Personal service can only be proven when there is a signature by the defendant.

 

You claim to get a dismissal with prejudice is the fact they perjured themselves by stating they had personal service, when in fact, by the rules of this state , they did not.

 

Rule 4.16. Summons: Duties of persons to aid in service

(A)    It shall be the duty of every person being served under these rules to cooperate, accept service, comply with the provisions of these rules, and, when service is made upon him personally, acknowledge receipt of the papers in writing over his signature.

 

The Plaintiff will argue they had personal service because of rule 4.16 (a) (1) which states,   Offering or tendering the papers to the person being served and advising the person that he or she is being served is adequate service.

 

If they donot state in the service of process affidavit that they handed the summons to the defendant they have failed to abide by the rules.

 

Noe come rule 4.16  © No person through whom service is made under these rules may impose any sanction, penalty, punishment, or discrimination whatsoever against the person being served because of such service. Any person willfully violating any provision of this rule may be subjected to contempt proceedings.

 

Another argument they can use is rule 4.15 (F)   Defects in summons. No summons or the service thereof shall be set aside or be adjudged insufficient when either is reasonably calculated to inform the person to be served that an action has been instituted against him, the name of the court, and the time within which he is required to respond.

 

The reasonably calculated portion makes process servers think they can drive by your house and toss the summons in your door or yard and claim personal service, this is wrong. This for of service is called substituted service. This type of service has to be explained in the service of process receipt and the affidavit. Sub service can only be made after several reasonable attempts to serve the defendant have been made.

 

There is no provision in the Indiana rules that state process can be made by what we call "sewer service" Which means anything less than what is required by the rtp's.

 

I quit rambling about this now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UPSman- Well, so far I haven't found anything in regards to formatting discovery rules in my State's Rules of Procedure.

In Indiana: "once a party has answered discovery they are under no duty to supplement his response to include information thereafter acquired" So sending a second set of admission is up in the air.

I've been trying to find this Crystal Barton since this whole case started. A$$et did give me names (I should say initials with last names) of other employees but the only information provided were their titles and A$$ets address.

 

UPSman- Well, so far I haven't found anything in regards to formatting discovery rules in my State's Rules of Procedure.

In Indiana: "once a party has answered discovery they are under no duty to supplement his response to include information thereafter acquired" So sending a second set of admission is up in the air.

I've been trying to find this Crystal Barton since this whole case started. A$$et did give me names (I should say initials with last names) of other employees but the only information provided were their titles and A$$ets address.

If you cannot find or have this person in court to examine you file a motion to deem hearsay. A piece of paper cannot answer quetions and attest to the fact that the state made are true and correct, nor can a piece of apaer or a statment from another personbe used by someone other than the person whom made the statement.

 

It would be the same as going to court and saying :your honor an attorney who goes by the name Gunny on a credit forum stated the this affidavit is hearsay, you cannot use what i say unless i am in court with you. But you can use the knowledge you gain on this forum to your advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since A$$et did not ask me for any discovery, how do I go about submitting my evidence? The reason I ask is because what I have received from both A$$et and G and C (On behalf of Asset) could be possible FDCPA violations.

 

Disclosure prior to trial typically.

 

Having just received Discovery response from A$$et is it too late to file a counterclaim? No trial date has been set, just a "hearing" on the 29th.

 

You'll need to check your local rules. In my State, counterclaims need to be part of your answer. 

 

Does anyone know if the supposed "Schedule A" is from the Original Creditor or the Debt Buyer? G and C sent me (Schedule A) as part of their debt validation of which was received after suit was filed (honestly, I don't remember the exact date I asked for it). The "Schedule A" received with the debt validation was just a piece of paper with account information on it. However, the "Schedule A" that was provided in Discovery has "Schedule A" handwritten at the top along with a handwritten account number. Not sure if this amounts to being a doctored document or nothing to worry about.

 

They need to authenticate the document somehow. It's obviously suspect with the title handwritten across the top. I'd say it's unlikely that it's from the OC. In my case, the spreadsheet they sent was an Asset document as it had the wrong exhibit name on it and a footer that was clearly an Asset job number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disclosure prior to trial typically.

 

 

You'll need to check your local rules. In my State, counterclaims need to be part of your answer. 

 

 

They need to authenticate the document somehow. It's obviously suspect with the title handwritten across the top. I'd say it's unlikely that it's from the OC. In my case, the spreadsheet they sent was an Asset document as it had the wrong exhibit name on it and a footer that was clearly an Asset job number.

Hearsay,,,,,file your motion to deem it as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like this one. 

 

12. Admit or Deny Crystal R. Barton is an employee of the Plaintiff. Deny Crystal R. Barton is no longer employed at AALLC.

 

Assuming she signed an affidavit, keep this in your back pocket if the file an MSJ. Grasp this concept. Affidavits at an MSJ are not weighed as far as what the affiant said, they are weighed as to what the court can EXPECT them to say at trial. If Crystal Barton no longer works for the plaintiff, she will not be there to testify, therefore, absolutely nothing is EXPECTED to be heard at trial. 

 

Just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hearsay,,,,,file your motion to deem it as such.

 

Of course it is hearsay. You need to attack the fact that it is not admissible hearsay under the business records exception without authentication.

 

One place a lot of people go wrong is when the just shout out "Objection, hearsay". You can feel the judge thinking, "Yes, and...". The plaintiff will then explain that it is admissible under the business records exception (usually just by the rule number so the defendant doesn't know how to respond) and the defendant whines, "But your honor, it's hearsay". We need to make sure people understand that it is all hearsay but some is admissible and some is not. You have to know the difference and also WHY it is not admissible.

 

I know you know that Gunny, I just want to make sure everybody gets that.

:)%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like this one. 

 

12. Admit or Deny Crystal R. Barton is an employee of the Plaintiff. Deny Crystal R. Barton is no longer employed at AALLC.

 

Assuming she signed an affidavit, keep this in your back pocket if the file an MSJ. Grasp this concept. Affidavits at an MSJ are not weighed as far as what the affiant said, they are weighed as to what the court can EXPECT them to say at trial. If Crystal Barton no longer works for the plaintiff, she will not be there to testify, therefore, absolutely nothing is EXPECTED to be heard at trial. 

 

Just a thought.

 

Crystal Barton was the notary of the affidavit, not the affiant.

 

And Asset has been changing up notary people since that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spikey, I've looked at the Trial Rule in regards to Counter-Claims for my state and unless I'm not reading it correctly, or I have missed something I can't find anything about when it needs to be filed. I hope it doesn't have to be filed when I answered the complaint because I just noticed the possible FDCPA violation after receiving A$$ets discovery answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's Rule 13

 

 

(E)   Counterclaim maturing or acquired after pleading. A claim which either matured or was acquired by the pleader after serving his pleading may, with the permission of the court, be presented as a counterclaim by supplemental pleading. A counterclaim or cross-claim which is not due may be asserted against a party who is insolvent or the representative of a party who has been subjected to insolvency proceedings, if recovery thereon will be impaired because of such party’s insolvency.

(F)   Omitted counterclaim. When a pleader fails to set up a counterclaim through oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when justice requires, he may by leave of court set up the counterclaim by amendment.

 

You need to get permission of the court at this point. File the motion for leave of court and attach your counterclaim for the judge to look at. Make up a good excuse why it's late.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Bruno, that's the rule I read but it went right over my head. ::idea2::

 

The only excuse that I have at this point is the FDCPA violation was just discovered when I received A$$et's discovery answers.

 

Can a Counterclaim for FDCPA violations be heard in Circuit Court?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it is hearsay. You need to attack the fact that it is not admissible hearsay under the business records exception without authentication.

 

One place a lot of people go wrong is when the just shout out "Objection, hearsay". You can feel the judge thinking, "Yes, and...". The plaintiff will then explain that it is admissible under the business records exception (usually just by the rule number so the defendant doesn't know how to respond) and the defendant whines, "But your honor, it's hearsay". We need to make sure people understand that it is all hearsay but some is admissible and some is not. You have to know the difference and also WHY it is not admissible.

 

I know you know that Gunny, I just want to make sure everybody gets that.

:)%

This is a very good point, and I have argued with several posters that just because it is hearsay does not automatically make inadmissable. Most tend not to agree.

 

Naybe after bowling tonight or tomorrow I will start a thread and explain this isue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Bruno, that's the rule I read but it went right over my head. ::idea2::

 

The only excuse that I have at this point is the FDCPA violation was just discovered when I received A$$et's discovery answers.

 

Can a Counterclaim for FDCPA violations be heard in Circuit Court?

FDCPA violations can be heard in any competent court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a debt collection attorney sends a dunning letter on behalf of his client would any possible FDCPA violations that arise from that dunning letter be against the Client (Plaintiff), Plaintiff's Attorney or possibly both?

 

Can you use trick questions in Discovery?

 

Example: If I know I requested Debt Validation could I say, Admit that at no time has Defendant requested Debt Validation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a debt collection attorney sends a dunning letter on behalf of his client would any possible FDCPA violations that arise from that dunning letter be against the Client (Plaintiff), Plaintiff's Attorney or possibly both?

 

Can you use trick questions in Discovery?

 

Example: If I know I requested Debt Validation could I say, Admit that at no time has Defendant requested Debt Validation.

Read the fdcpa. If that attorney normal business practice is the collection of debt than they are a debt collector and subject to the fdcpa.

 

It would be up to you to prove that the attorney regularly engages in the practice of collecting debts.

 

Its called vicarious liability, Because original creditors are not subject to the FDCPA, courts have recognized they may not be held vicariously liable for the FDCPA violations of the debt collectors they retain. See Wadlington v. Credit Acceptance Corp., 76 F.3d 103, 108 (6th Cir. 1996) (assignee of an auto loan not vicariously liable for FDCPA violations of its attorneys: “We do not think it would accord with the intent of Congress, as manifested in the terms of the Act, for a company that is not a debt collector to be held vicariously liable for a collection suit filing that violates the Act only because the filing attorney is a ‘debt collector.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.