Jump to content

Lost to Midland and Not Sure what to Do Next


Recommended Posts

A suit was brought against me in May of last year by Midland in Franklin County in Columbus, Ohio. Here is a list of what has transpired since then:


5/21- Filed by Midland

6/13 Filed for Definiative Statement

6/28 Plantiff filed for my statement request to be denied


7/18- I filed for a motion to dismiss pending arbitration

8/20- This is denied

9/17 Plaintiff filed to have a default judgment as I never filed an answer

9/24- Filed an answer denying this is my debt

9/24- Motion for Summary Judgement was denied

9/27- Plaintiff served me with Interrogatories and I denied all claims. There was also further documentation filed. An affidavit from a Susan Rassmussen that she knows of their business practices and that this is my debt. They also gave me two statements that had NO purchases, NO payments, and a copy of Midlands Purchase Agreement and their statement

10/02- We went to mediation and it was unsuccessful and we were set for pretrial

10/02- I served the Plantiff with Interrogatories, requesting statements with Payments, date of last payment, any purchase, a statement with a 0 balance and subsequent statements 


The plaintiff returned the interrogatories and said to 90% of them that the information I was requesting was too cumbersome for them to get and that what they provided was enough


12/13 I filed for a motion to compel


1/9 Midland opposed my motion


1/17 My motion to compel was denied


We had a pretrial that was pretty much a waste of time as the Judge wasn't there and we were to just talk ourselves to try and work something out.


2/12 Plaintiff filed for Leave to be able to file for Summary Judgement on the grounds that if this went to trial it is obvious they would win based on the information they have provided


2/19 The Judge granted their motion and their Summary Judgement was filed


2/25- I filed my opposition to this motion based on the main fact that at this point they have not provided everything they need to provide to validate this debt including the statement or date of the last payment which we would need to ascertain if the debt was mine but also if the statute of limitations had expired.


2/25- I also filed a Motion for Summary Judgement that the Plaintiff is unable to prove their case and so it should be dismissed


The judge ruled in favor of the Plaintiff. There is NO basis for this! They do not even have 1 piece of paper that establishes this as my debt. What is my next move?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does someone do that? What were my violations, other than there is no true documented proof this is my debt. Here is what I am also thinking.. I am open to any ideas or feedback. I am still looking for an Ohio Case that I can reference, one using Susan would be awesome!


Yesterday I received a notice that we have a pretrial on 4/22 and then I looked online and it said the case was now closed and there was a note at the top that said Judgement for the Plaintiff on 3/7/2013. I have not received any documentation from the court. I plan on waiting to get my official notice. In the meantime I am going to research filing a motion to reconsider. I do think this is a long shot. But it is not in question that the Plaintiff has offered nothing that establishes this as my debt. I can only assume he used the affidavit as an establishment of my debt.  I am thinking of filing on the basis of new information that has come up and will bring Susan Rasmussens credibility in question with the cases she is listed as a robosigner from Midland. He has at this point not been presented with that information.


Here is what I have come up with so far but am not done researching and am not doing anything until I am notified by the court of the ruling:





Now comes the Defendant respectfully requesting the court to reconsider the Summary Judgment awarded to Plaintiff for reasons documented below:


  1. New Information the court did not have that may have impacted the decision
    1. Facts presented


  • Plaintiff produced two statements that were dated July 1, 2009 and August 1, 2009.  (exhibit A) Neither statement listed a purchase, payment, nor how the balance was calculated to determine validity.
  • Plaintiff produced a “Bill of Sale.” (Exhibit B) The Bill of Sale also did not list any purchases or any documentation as to the last payment date to determine the Plaintiff to be within the Statute of Limitations or if there is a credit relationship with the Defendant.
    • Defendant implores upon the Court for close examination of these statements against the standard set forth by both Defendant and Plaintiff in their arguments.
  • Plaintiff produced an Affidavit from Susan Rassmussen, an employee of Midland, verifying their business practices are in line with the Fair Credit Act. No where in the affidavit is any purchase or last date of payment that can determine the statute of limitations.
  • Information the court did not have that may have impacted the decision

Plaintiff argues that the affidavit of Susan Rasmussen is sufficient to establish a credit relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant.  Defendant is left to believe this was the basis for the decision as the documentation presented did not establish a credit relationship. Plaintiff is currently defending a number of law suits throughout the United States which allege abusive credit collection practices under various state and federal laws. Susan Rasmussen is personally named in some of those law suits. Susan Rasmussen is listed in class action lawsuit, Minnesota AG case of Swanson V Midland Funding as a robosigner. Robosigners are hired by debt collection companies to sign a blanket of avidavits without actually having the proof of the information. Currently, West Virginia’s Attorney General is suing Midland Credit Management and Midland Funding, LLC, both affiliates of Encore Capital.  The suit alleges that robo-signers were used to obtain default judgments in violation of state and federal law. There are several lawsuits across all states, including Ohio, that call Midland Funding’s debt collection practices.  Based on the proven violations against Plaintiff’s business practices, particularly regarding the affidavits filed, Defendant argues that the affiants personal knowledge should at least be subject to examination at trial and is not worthy of consideration at the summary judgment phase of this case.


         For the reasons stated above, Defendant respectfully asks that the Court grant Defendants Motion to Reconsider.




Any input or thoughts are welcome! Thanks!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Have you been representing yourself all this time? If so, I'd get a lawyer. If they cannot or refuse to validate your debt then you have grounds to sue them.

How did it get this far? Shouldn't have this been handled during the first collection process?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you been representing yourself all this time? If so, I'd get a lawyer. If they cannot or refuse to validate your debt then you have grounds to sue them.

How did it get this far? Shouldn't have this been handled during the first collection process?


The poster was already sued.  Validation has nothing to do with this.  In addition, you cannot sue a debt collector just because they refuse to validate a debt.  First, you have to send a timely DV request.  Even then, the debt collector doesn't have to validate as long as they don't attempt to collect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • 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.