Sign in to follow this  
buddyapple

Update on Asset in Michigan

Recommended Posts

Hi Everyone,

 

First of all, I want to once again thank EVERYONE on this forum whose knowledge and patience as been of such great help to

 

all of us novices who are treading in unfamiliar (and sometimes a little scary) waters! I hope and pray you and yours are well! :)%

 

 

Here are my previous posts for reference:

 

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/319804-answer-filed-received-notice-to-appear-pre-trial-conf-429-help/

 

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/319510-asset-acceptancehsbc-summons-received-in-mi-next-step/

 

 

 

Went to court 4/29. They sent a rent-a-lawyer who had some computer-generated paperwork stating when last payment was made,

 

amount, when account was opened, etc. Didn't look like they had provided Purchase Agreement or any HSBC docs (to him at least).

 

In my answer I attached the DV request letter I had sent to another collector who I guess was working for them last year.

 

Friedman sent a letter 3 weeks ago basically stating what they say I owe. Did not send any of the other paperwork I had requested in

 

the letter from OC (agreement, statements, my signature on any purchases, Purchase Agreement from HSBC, etc.)

 

 

Anyway, it's been 24 days since court and Discovery is 30 days. I have been waiting for them to send something. I have had a

 

server contact me over a week ago, and have been waiting for them to serve me. I don't know if it is from Asset or not.

 

I figured if I got some discovery documents from them I would file an answer requesting all the documents. Should I just go

 

ahead before the 30 days on Wednesday and request all of it?  If so, what should I request, and can one of you let me know where I

 

can find an example touse as a guideline  for MI so I do it right? Just want to do things the right way while not showing my hand.

 

Thanks again,

buddyapple

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why would a process server be calling you, if you are already in court with AA? Do you have another debt that you feel you will be sued on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi peanutrs and bmc100,

 

peanutrs:

 

Sounds like I should file discovery asking for any and all parerwork provided by HSBC to Asset Acceptance including, but not

 

limited to, an original cardmember agreement from HSBC bearing the defedant's signature, any reciepts for purchases bearing

 

my signature and so on.

 

Just don't quite understand how to do it. I'll do my best to find something but I'm so tied up with other things that I just haven't

 

had time to be as diligent on this as I wanted and intended to be. I've got until Wednesday to get it together and filed.

 

 

bmc100:

 

I don't think there is anything else out there. Had a default judgement filed a year or two ago, and maybe they're serving me

 

with something since I haven't paid them anything yet. They attached my Income tax and sent requests out to some of the banks.

 

I was concerned that the process server was the one who was handing me discovery from AA, but she hasn't called me back to

 

arrange a time in almost 2 weeks. She said the time wouldn't start until I received it.

 

 

Any tips on how to proceed would be greatly appreciated!

 

Thanks,

buddyapple

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a good example of a RFD, change the info to reflect yours.

 

 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS
ASSOCIATE JUDGE DIVISION
STATE OF MISSOURI
MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, XXXXX )
)
) Case No: 99999
Plaintiff, ) Division: 99
)
vs )
)
JANE J DOE )
)
Defendant. )
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO
PLAINTIFF MIDLAND FUNDING LLC
COMES NOW Defendant JANE DOE, pursuant to Civil Rule 58.01, and requests Plaintiff, Midland Funding LLC to produce the following documents for inspection and copying at the law offices of Plaintiff’s attorney, ADDRESS HERE within thirty (30) days or as counsel may mutually agree.
DEFINITIONS
The following definitions are to be used in responding to the following interrogatories.
A. “Plaintiff,” means MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, ASSIGNEE OF XXXXX, or any agent, employee, officer, director, or any other person acting on its behalf.
B. “Defendant” means, JANE DOE an individual.
C. “Document,” means all original writings of any nature or all copies thereof, regardless of whether or not such copies differ in any way from the originals, in your possession or control, wherever located, and includes, but is not limited to, contracts, agreements, records, memoranda, handwritten notes, working papers, letters of correspondence, invoices, statements, purchase orders, bills of lading, minutes and reports. 
D. “Credit Application”, means the Original Signed Application bearing Defendant’s signature for any contract between Plaintiff and Defendant or Defendant and XXXXXX.
DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED
1. ALL documents evidencing any communication between Plaintiff and Defendant in connection with the Agreement described in Plaintiff’s Petition, including letters and correspondence.
2. The alleged credit application from Account Numbers (MIDLAND Acct#) 99999999 and (XXXXX Acct#) 999999999999999 bearing the defendant’s signature;
3. The alleged credit agreement from Account Numbers (MIDLAND Acct#) 99999999 and (XXXXX Acct#) 999999999999999 that states interest rate, grace period, terms of repayment, et cetera;
4. Itemized statements or credit card statements from Account Numbers (MIDLAND Acct#) 99999999 and (XXXXX Acct#) 999999999999999 that demonstrate how the alleged amount of $1000.00 was calculated;
5. A contract, agreement, assignment, or other means demonstrating that Midland Funding LLC had the authority and capacity, and was legally entitled to collect on the alleged debt from Account Number (MIDLAND Acct#) 99999999 and (XXXXX Acct#) 999999999999999;
6. Letter(s) sent to defendant by Midland Funding LLC, demonstrating an attempt to collect on the alleged debt, Account Numbers (MIDLAND Acct#) 99999999 and (XXXXX Acct#) 999999999999999;
7. A notarized statement, if presently existing or otherwise, by a person with original knowledge of the alleged debt, as it was constituted, and who can testify, or be so interrogated in a deposition, that the alleged debt was incurred legally;
8. Any and all further documents that you believe establish that plaintiff had an outstanding account or debt related to Account Numbers (MIDLAND Acct#) 99999999 and (XXXXX Acct#) 999999999999999;
9. Any further documentation, beyond what has been previously requested, that clearly establishes defendant’s liability and/or responsibility to the alleged debt;
10. Any and all written communication, received by the plaintiff and/or plaintiff’s attorney from the defendant, regarding the reporting of the alleged account to any credit reporting agency, as well as plaintiff’s and/or plaintiff’s attorney accessing of defendant’s credit report(s).
11. Any and all communications from plaintiff and/or plaintiff’s attorney to the defendant explaining why plaintiff and/or plaintiff’s attorney may have reported the alleged debt to any credit reporting agency, as well as obtaining defendant’s credit report(s);
12. Any and all credit report(s) plaintiff and/or plaintiff’s attorney obtained from any credit reporting agency concerning the defendant;
13. Any and all notes, memoranda, or likewise, be they handwritten, computerized, or typed, regularly kept in the normal transaction and business of collecting debts, that relate to the defendant and/or Account Numbers (MIDLAND Acct#) 99999999 and (XXXXX Acct#) 999999999999999;
Jane J. Doe
By: _______________________________
Jane. J. Doe, Defendant
Your address & phone number 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the above documents were served on all parties in the above cause by depositing an original and one copy in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, in an envelope addressed to: LAW OFFICES ADDRESS, on 1 /1/00.

__________________________________

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone,

 

Just received a letter from Asset's Law firm with a court date of July 15th. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Answer and for Summary Disposition. They want their

 

submitted paperwork to be Prima Facie evidence, stating the Defendant failed to state a valid defense and failed to file a counter affidavit to theirs.

 

I had sent a Discovery request on the 25th of May requesting the Cardmember Agreement and proof of Initial transactions, along with documents showing

 

default date, charge-off date, the Purchase Agreement and Bill of Sale.

 

It's ironic that they filed their Motion on June 7, just a week after I requested the items above. I will try to post the Motion in the next couple of days for you.

 

I'm assuming this is normal procedure on their part. Just need some advice on how to handle this. Should I be filing anything, or just go in on the 15th and ask

 

the Judge to compel them to produce the CA, initial transaction records, default and charge-off statements, and the Purchase Agreement, letting him know

 

that is ALL I've been asking for all along, and we wouldn't be wasting the court's time if they would just provide it. Here in MI I know of at least one Judge that

 

has requested production of the CAupon the Defendant's request. When they didn't produce it in a timely manner, I believe he dismissed it with prejudice. I

 

hope that more courts begin to take that stance. Once they've provided those documents there's really nothing more to argue about.

 

THANKS AGAIN to all of you who have been of such great help here!

 

Best to you,

buddyapple

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well MI has very very specific rules on how you have to answer a complaint.  I did not read your other threads, but did you answer with a denial, then state a reason after each count?  and did you state any affirmative defenses?  Look at bmc100's thread, he kinda layed it all out there, it sounds like they are trying to get you on a procedural error.  I do not know the rules of MI, just know they suck lol.  so I am not of much help here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you file a counter affidavit?

Did you get any response to your discovery requests?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi shellieh98 & Savoir,

 

Good to hear from you. Hope you are doing well.

 

shellieh98 - Thanks again for the help with the discovery req. Even though you're not in MI, your input is always insightful and helpful!

 

Savoir - No response to discovery as of yet. I'm thinking that since their motion was dated June 7, that's a week after they received it.

 

I think they're trying to push the motion through because they CAN'T produce the OCA , statements showing I actually used it myself,

 

etc, and don't want to produce the full Purchase Agreement and Bill of Sale- give me your input and thoughts on that. Attached to the

 

MSD they attached a photocopy of a "Bill of Sale" page,and piggy-backed a page produced in-house with a bunch of "X"s and in the

 

middle of the page my name an account number and a balance. Not an HSBC document from the PA, but generated by AA.

 

I did submit a counter - affidavit, but looking at it now, it does look more like an argument about their affidavit. Maybe not the brightest

 

bulb on the tree here!

 

Input from you, no matter HOW painful, is ALWAYS welcome!

 

Here it is:

                                    EXHIBIT "B"

STATE OF MICHIGAN    )
                )  ss.
COUNTY OF ALLEGAN    )

AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT (COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT)

I, XXXXXXX, Defendant, being over 18 years of age and competent, in response to each statement made by XXXXXXX, an employee of ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, in the Affidavit of Account dated February 12, 2013, submitted by the Plaintiff as Exhibit "A", hereby affirm the following is true and correct under penalty of perjury, depose and states as follows:


1.    DENY.  
    Although I have received a Summons and Complaint from ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, I have had no contact with any person named XXXXXXX, or any personal knowledge that any such person exists, or is under employ by ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC,  so I cannot accept this statement as truthful.

2.    ADMIT, IN PART.   

    If ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, does have in it's employ the person listed in the Plaintiff's Affidavit, XXXXXXXX,  then I would admit this employee would be familiar with the manner and method by which ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC creates and maintains it's business records pertaining to this account.

    That being stated, alleged employee, or any employee of ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, would not, and could not, have any personal knowledge, and thereby cannot attest to the accuracy or authenticity of any records allegedly purchased by Plaintiff as required by the MICHIGAN RULES OF EVIDENCE, RULE 602.  In order for an Affiant to have any personal knowledge of any alleged account the Defendant may have established with HSBC BANK, NEVADA NA, it would require the individual creating the Plaintiff's Affidavit to be an employee of HSBC BANK, NEVADA NA. This individual is not. Therefore, the Defendant cites Lack of Knowledge of and by the Plaintiff.

3.    DENY.

    Again, this alleged employee, or any employee of ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, would not, and could not, have any personal knowledge, and thereby cannot attest to the accuracy or authenticity of any records allegedly purchased by Plaintiff as required by the MICHIGAN RULES OF EVIDENCE, RULE 602. In order for an Affiant to have any personal knowledge of any alleged account the Defendant may have established with HSBC BANK, NEVADA NA, it would require the individual creating the Plaintiff's Affidavit to be an employee of HSBC BANK, NEVADA NA. This individual is not. Therefore, the Defendant cites Lack of Knowledge of and by the Plaintiff.

4.    DENY.
    
    Again, this alleged employee, or any employee of ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, would not, and could not, have any personal knowledge, and thereby cannot attest to the accuracy or authenticity of any records allegedly purchased by Plaintiff as required by the MICHIGAN RULES OF EVIDENCE, RULE 602.  In order to have any personal knowledge of any alleged account the Defendant may have established with HSBC BANK, NEVADA NA, it would require the individual creating the Plaintiff's Affidavit to be an employee of HSBC BANK, NEVADA NA. This individual is not. Therefore, the Defendant cites Lack of Knowledge of and by the Plaintiff.

5.    DENY.

    Again, this alleged employee, or any employee of ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, would not, and could not, have any personal knowledge, and thereby cannot attest to the accuracy or authenticity of any records allegedly purchased by Plaintiff as required by the MICHIGAN RULES OF EVIDENCE, RULE 602.  In order for the Affiant to have any personal knowledge of any activity on any alleged account the Defendant may have established with HSBC BANK, NEVADA NA, it would require the individual creating the Plaintiff's Affidavit to be an employee of HSBC BANK, NEVADA NA. This individual is not, and could not have any personal knowledge of any actions taken by any predecessor(s)-in-interest on any alleged contract involving Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant cites Lack of Knowledge of and by the Plaintiff.

6.    DENY.

    Again, this alleged employee, or any employee of ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, would not, and could not, have any personal knowledge, and thereby cannot attest to the accuracy or authenticity of any records allegedly purchased by Plaintiff as required by the MICHIGAN RULES OF EVIDENCE, RULE 602. In order for the Affiant to have any personal knowledge of any alleged account the Defendant may have established with HSBC BANK, NEVADA NA, it would require the individual creating the Plaintiff's Affidavit to be an employee of HSBC BANK, NEVADA NA. This individual is not. Therefore, the Defendant cites Lack of Knowledge of and by the Plaintiff.

    Furthermore, this individual would either need to be a direct participant, personally present as a first-hand witness or an actual party to the signing and transfer of any alleged Purchase Agreement or Bill of Sale between HSBC BANK, NEVADA NA, and ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC in order for this statement to be truthful and accurate. This would also require an employee of HSBC BANK, NEVADA NA, who was a direct participant in any such Purchase Agreement or Bill of Sale to confirm this employee's direct participation in said transaction. Therefore, the Defendant cites Lack of Knowledge of and by the Plaintiff.

7.     DENY.



    Signed this 4th Day of April, 2013.




    ________________________________
 

 

 

THANKS AGAIN to you both!

ba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HI bmc100 and Savoir,

 

Like I said, no matter HOW painful, constructive criticism is always appreciated!

 

bmc100 - yep, that's my counter-affidavit. I know, I look at it now and it's pretty painful. Realize now it should have been "I have no documents listing the alleged

 

account" etc. But, it is what it is at this point. Just wondering what to do from here. Court date for MSD is 7/15. All they have supplied is the last page of a

 

"Bill of Sale" from HSBC, and are trying to piggy-back a single page, generated by AA, with a bunch of x's and right near the middle of the page (Psychology

 

101), an HSBC account number, my name and a balance due. Generated by AA on 6/13.

 

Whatever you can advise, being the MI "guru" :twothumbsup: here, will be of great help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone,

 

Just received a letter from Asset's Law firm with a court date of July 15th. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Answer and for Summary Disposition. They want their

submitted paperwork to be Prima Facie evidence, stating the Defendant failed to state a valid defense and failed to file a counter affidavit to theirs.

 

I had sent a Discovery request on the 25th of May requesting the Cardmember Agreement and proof of Initial transactions, along with documents showing default date, charge-off date, the Purchase Agreement and Bill of Sale.

 

It's ironic that they filed their Motion on June 7, just a week after I requested the items above. I will try to post the Motion in the next couple of days for you.

 

I'm assuming this is normal procedure on their part. Just need some advice on how to handle this. Should I be filing anything, or just go in on the 15th and ask the Judge to compel them to produce the CA, initial transaction records, default and charge-off statements, and the Purchase Agreement, letting him know that is ALL I've been asking for all along, and we wouldn't be wasting the court's time if they would just provide it.

 

Here in MI I know of at least one Judge that has requested production of the CA upon the Defendant's request. When they didn't produce it in a timely manner, I believe he dismissed it with prejudice.

 

I hope that more courts begin to take that stance. Once they've provided those documents there's really nothing more to argue about.

 

THANKS AGAIN to all of you who have been of such great help here!

 

Best to you,

buddyapple

 

If that hearing on the 15th is for Summary Disposition, you have until the 8th to file an Opposition to Summary Disposition and send a copy to the attorney. MCR 2.116 (G)(1)(a)(ii)

Check your court docket to determine if the hearing has, indeed, been scheduled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all the movant must clearly be entitled to relief on the merits, here must be no “substantial questions for the court to decide. What they are saying is if the judge wades through all the papers, he or she will come to see that the plaintiff’s case is so strongthat there is no need to hold a trial. The moving party bears the burden of persuading the trial court that there are no triable issues of fact; the opposing party bears the burden of showing that there are issues of fact that the court must hear and decide.

 

Some issues to look at, Check for any procedural issues, is the motion timely, is their supporting evidence admissible, is the motion substantially defective, have they misstated or ignored facts, have they misstated or ignored the law?

 

All you have to show to prevail is the summary is to show the court that there are indeed issues of fact that must be heard by the court. If the facts are disputed, you must say so.

 

First attack Standing; Make them prove that they actually own the debt. Did they provide a bill of sale?, did that bill of sale specifically mention your alleged debt? These are issues you need to bring up.

 

Did their accounting start from a zero balance, if not how can you be sure that the amount alleged is accurate? How can they prove it is accurate? Did they claim breech of contract? if so did they provide a signed contract?

 

You see where I am going with this?,,,everything they claim you have to show the court that there are facts that have to be examined for each claim they make.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi BTO429,

 

Great to hear from you on this as well! Thanks for the tips. I believe in their original they may have stated a breach of contract or

 

agreement, and have since decided to use the account stated wording. Attached a "Bill of Sale" page (final page with HSBC

 

signature only) and generated their own "page" listing the alleged account and my name (conveniently near the middle of the page)

 

with numerous others x'd out.

 

 

Getting ready to put together my opposition. I thought I saw an example one here somewhere.

 

Just in case I can't locate and one of you comes across it, post the link if you can.

 

 

Also, it has been 33 days since they received my discovery request and nothing received yet. I guess they kind of "answered"

 

with the Motion, since it was prepared a week after they received the discovery requests for OC agreement, statements, etc.

 

But, they ARE still required to provide me with an answer in that 30 days after receiving the request, right?

 

If that is the case, let me know. And, would I put in my opposition that they failed to answer, and instead filed the Motion to Strike?

 

THANKS AGAIN!!!!

ba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peanutrs (also from Michigan) graciously posted her Opposition to Summary Disposition; maybe that's what you are looking for? She gives credit to bmc100 for crafting it so, it's gotta be good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

Went to court Monday. There was a different rent-a-lawyer than the first time. He asked me if I wanted to talk. I said, "Sure, why not?"

 

He was a little more agressive with me, saying "Why don't you just settle?"

 

I told him I don't recall the card they are claiming debt on, and he looked at me and said, "Come on, you're gonna lose", but I kind of

 

just walked away and said "Let's just let the judge do his job", and went back to my seat. Anyway, Judge came in, and the lawyer was

 

a little overly friendly towards the Judge. I know the Judge a little, and I don't think that was an issue. He claimed I didn't file an answer

 

to their motion, which the judge had in his file, and I neverfiled a counter-affidavit with my original answer. All the basic arguments to

 

make his case. I basically concentrated on my not genuinely recalling the account, and that I had other HSBC accounts that were

 

either closed satisfactorily, or were active and sold to Capital One. I did not recognise this one.

 

I argued that there was more than one person with the same name as I in the state, and all they had produced was paperwork that I

 

could have created myself with a laptop, internet access and a printer. That the ONLY document from HSBC was a photocopied final

 

page "Bill of Sale", and they were piggy-backing an in-house created document, not HSBC'S, with my name on it as proof of the

 

purchase. And that I had been asking for the Original agreement ro something with my signature or something that would prove

 

me as the cardholder, statements showing activity by me, etc. since last year, without success. And I felt that instead of answering

 

my request for discovery, they decided to file the motion to strike and for summary disposition because they don't have the

 

documents I have been requesting. I told him if they had produced what I had asked for, we wouldn't be in court today taking up

 

valuable time.

 

 

To make a long story short, the Judge found there was standing, and stressed to me that there would be no further arguments heard

 

on lack of standing, BUT he did feel there was an issue regarding my having recollection of the account.

 

He stated that in the interest of justice and fairness, even though my argument was "thread-bare", he felt my asking for some actual

 

account records to verify that it is actually me who had created activity on the account was fair. The lawyer pushed the fact that they

 

had proven standing, and argued that their motion for judgement should be granted, and they shouldn't have to produce anything

 

else showing that it was my account.

 

 

He requested $500 bond because they would "have to incur a lot of expense and time to produce the documents requested by the

 

court". The judge did grant them the request, and I had 24 hours to post it. I objected to the bond amount (but I would honor his final

 

decision) on the grounds that I felt they had plenty of time since April to produce the documents, and had since received discovery

 

requests on June 1. The judge was very patient with me on that, but let me know that if I was not going to agree to the bond, that he

 

would be making his decision during this proceeding, and I probably wouldn't want that. He let me know that it would be returned to me

 

if the case was determined in my favor, and to let the system do it's work. Which is OK with me.

 

All I know is the Lawyer made sure several times of the deadline time to post, since if I didn't post it the case could be defaulted. I

 

know the reason behind the lawyer's request was to see how serious I was about not settling, and hoping I wouldn't post the bond in

 

time.

 

 

So, I posted within 4 hours, same day, and the Judge gave them 10 days to produce documentation to the court and myself, and

 

hearing on the 29th, the weekend after 10 days is up.

 

 

Well, everybody, Let me know your thoughts!! And thanks again to ALL of you, 

 

Best,

ba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the judge only ave them 10 days? They wont be able to produce anything. The judge even suggesting that they have standing or they have the goods to prove their claims would be insulting. He treated you like a deadbeat who does not pay your bills.

 

As I recall this isnt the same judge, it was the magistrate? or I might be confusing your case with someone elses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, sounds like you might be in better shape than it sounds. It is unlikely they already have the documents and have to order them. From what I have read and been told it is very unlikely that they will get them within 10 days. From what I have been told it is common to take 2-12 months or more  depending on the circumstances. In my case I have been waiting for those same things and asking for them for over a year way before they even brought suit.

 

All things considered I think the Judge just gave you a huge break and put it back in the plaintiff's lap. Produce in 10 days or else. So what is the hearing on the 29th for? Was this scheduled prior to Mondays hearing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They will not be able to get the docs, period. The OC has washed their hands of this account long ago and once it is off of their books, they delete the records from their files. This argument that JDBs make stating "They have to Order Docs" is a bunch of BS. All they are really stating is that they do not have them and they never will have them. It is a stall tactic.

 

Then district judges, who have to hear at least 50 of these cases a week should know how these JDBs work. The hard part is most of these cases never get to where you are at since 99% of them are won by default. These same collection atorneys are in their courts every month winning by default and these judges get to know the attorneys. For you as a Defendant, you need to have a few strong arguments. Once the judge hears those arguments, the Plaintiff is left to produce the docs they do not have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

Haven't been able to get back here in a few days, so I've just caught up with the responses.

 

 

I did get a call from the law firm 3 days after I posted the bond money. I missed the call, they didn't leave a message. Should I bother

 

calling them back or just let it play out?

 

 

bmc100 - my case is not the one you were thinking of. But still, I hear you on the judge and the finding on standing. His opinion was

 

that if they can prove that it's actually my debt, that they have shown enough to have the right to proceed. But he wants them to

 

produce documents based on my not recalling the alleged debt. I told him I had other cards with HSBC as the provider,

 

but they were either closed satisfactorily or currently active with no issues.

 

 

 

If they are going to produce anything, it has to be submitted no later than Thursday, so I should receive it no later than Saturday. I will

 

post what I get as soon as I get it. The hearing on the 29th is basically a continuance of the summary dispo hearing. It's not clear to

 

me what the judge will do if theyfail to produce anything at that point. A non-jury trial is scheduled a week or so after that.

 

 

My whole issue is that I do not recall the account. So the judge has asked them to provide account statements. I asked for something

 

with my signature on it showing I opened the account, and statements showing it was actually used by me and payments were made

 

by me. I don't know for sure whatthe judge is going to accept as proof, but he did state that I do have a right to be shown whether it is

 

legitimately mine or not.

 

 

Thanks again for all the feedback and advice. May you all be blessed for your efforts!

 

Best,

ba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Everyone,

 

Ok. Today was the 10th day for the Plaintiff to produce documents. Here is what was FAXED to the court yesterday, and overnighted to me on the 9th day:

 

Notice of Hearing

 

Please take notice that Plaintiff's Motion for Adjournment will be brought at the court July 29th 2013.

 

PLAiNTIFF'S MOTION FOR FIRST ADJOURMENT OF NON-JURY TRIAL

 

NOW COMES Plaintiff, xxx, by and through it's attorney, xxx  and for it's Motion For First Adjournment of Non-Jury Trial and states to

 

this Honorable Court as follows:

 

1. Neither party has previously requested an adjournment.

 

2. Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court grant an adjournment of the Non-Jury trial set for August 5, 2013 because

 

Plaintiff's counsel will not be available due to a pre-paid vacation.

 

3. Plaintiff would be unduly prejudiced if trial commenced without Plaintiff's attorney.

 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff's attorney respectfully requests that this honorable grant its motion for first adjournment of Non-Jury trial.

 

 

PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF FIRST ADJOURNMENT OF NON-JURY TRIAL

 

A Motion for Adjournment based on MCR 2.503 ( b )(2) States that a motion or stipulation for adjournment must state:

 

a ) Which party is requesting the adjournment;

 

b )The reason for it, and;

 

c ) Whether other adjournments have been granted in the proceedings and, if so, the number granted.

 

In this case, Plaintiff is requesting it's first adjournment on the grounds that Plaintiff's attorney will be on vacation and out of the

 

country. In addition, Defendant would not be prejudiced in the granting of Plaintiff's motion.

 

According to MCR 2.503 (D)(1), the Court in it's discretion may grant an adjournment to promote the cause of justice.

 

Plaintiff submits to the court that the reason states stated above, the granting of Plaintiff's motion would promote the cause of justice.

 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff's attorney respectfully requests that this honorable grant its motion for first adjournment of Non-Jury trial.

 

 

They "supposedly" typed this up on the 18th, 3 days after I posted the $500 bond for them to produce. They waited until July 24 to fax

 

it to the court and overnight to me.

 

I know they are probably trying to stall because they don't have anything to present. I'm calling the courthouse in the morning just to

 

make sure they didn't slip something in on Thursday (10th day).

 

Here's the kicker: On EVERY document the Plaintiff has filed with the court up to this one, they have listed 4 attorneys for the

 

Plaintiff!! And they've known since the beginning of May that the trial was scheduled for the beginning of August.  It's like once they

 

knew I had put up the bond money, they decided that instead of producing any documents, they would check which one of the 4 was

 

going to be on vacation and use that as an excuse to stall.

 

Don't know what to do from here, going in on Monday morning. Should I file an answer with the court, or request a judgment for

 

Defendant when I see the judge Monday??  Hate to ask, but might need some help writing something up. This might be my best

 

opportunity to get dismissal since they haven't produced any documents within the 10 day window. I argued to the judge on the 15th

 

that I had been asking for them since this all started, and he granted the request based on my lack of knowledge of the account.

 

 

THANKS AGAIN EVERYONE!!!

 

ba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like you could ask for with prejudice since they didnt follow court order to produce. Maybe an opposition stating there are 3 other attorneys that filled an appearance, and also at the same time file a motion to preclude those documents. Then you could do a meet and confer with the lawyer saying you will not oppose if they file with prejudice.

Share this post


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