Jump to content

An update... "two cases, 4-5 yrs old, in MI back in court"


Recommended Posts

Previous thread: http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/319874-two-cases-4-5-years-old-in-mi-back-in-court-help-needed/

 

So, I'm due back in court later this month. In the case where the jdb didn't show up to court, I received a phone call where I advised him to communicate with me through postal mail. He then sent me a "final notice" saying that they recently garnished my state tax return, and that they would be "conducting an investigation of your assets within the next 10 business days, after which this office may execute on assets you may have, garnish your income, or conduct a Judgment Creditor's Exam if necessary. Please note that any further legal action taken may result in additional expenses, thereby increasing your overall financial obligation." The letter said I had an unpaid balance of $394.77

 

The garnishment they filed said I had a balance of $464.65. I have to find my last paycheck of 2012, I'm not exactly sure how much they garnished, but for the year of 2013, they garnished $285.82, my tax return was about $75. All together, I believe I overpaid, then they claim that they're still owed almost $400!?

 

I'm not too worried about them, as it seems they won't show up to court and it'll be a matter of getting my money back, but, any recommendations on what I should or can do?

 

Second case, jdb's attorney here showed up to court, judgment was set aside, a week or two later I received a garnishment release form. On the form, it says "any amounts withheld by the garnishee on or after 4/3/13 shall be returned to the defendant and any further withholdings shall be discontinued. I was still garnished on 4/5 and 4/19 which made "my balance with them" zero and "no longer owing to them. I'm 99.99% sure this is illegal, but not sure if I should be contacting jdb or my employer about receiving the money back or how I would go about it, and if this could be used to countersue jdb, would be fantastic.

 

Fast forward a month, I received two packages, about 3 weeks apart.

 

First package:

 

  • certificate of service
  • all bills from oc starting with a zero balance. at the bottom of each bill, it says "this statement is a facsimile - not an original"
  • two "bills of sale" the same as they put in the complaint. One of them, from jdb1 to jdb2 (the one I'm currently battling) even shows a faded court stamp dated "2010 MAR 23" it seems like they lost it and had to obtain a copy from the court.
  • "exhibit 1 -the accounts" an excel printout with everything but my info blacked out.That doesn't state the OC, or jdb1 but does contain a full account number.
  • "business records affidavit" signed by the notary public they used for all previous affidavits which I pointed out in my answer that she had an expired commission. She swears that she is a custodian of records, and it is notarized by someone with a current commission.

Second package:

 

  • a "dear clerk" note
  • a "notice of hearing" page which states the date and time of the hearing.
  • a "certificate of service"
  • "plaintiffs motion to strike answer and for summary disposition" signed by the attorney and not jdb. NOTE: it says "with the last payment by defendant on the account on 9/14/2009 (see account statement with closing date of 9/17/2007)" two different dates, wondering how that helps me.
  • an affidavit, also signed by attorney and not jdb.
  • copy of a cashiers check issued by my bank to them through a garnishment.
  • copy of garnishment disclosure form to my employer
  • "brief in support of plaintiffs motion to strike answer and for summary disposition, also signed by attorney.

 

Second post contains my answer to their complaint, third post is their second package.

 

Thanks ahead of time for your help!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here was my complete answer:

 

 

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER

Now comes the Defendant, MrDearborn (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”), in Pro Se, and states the following for his Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint:

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

1.      Defendant can neither confirm nor deny as defendant is not versed in law and jurisdiction. Defendant will hold Plaintiff is well versed in law and is familiar with venue proper.

2.      Defendant can neither confirm nor deny this holds true. Defendant realleges same as paragraph 1.

3.      Denied. Plaintiff has failed to submit such proof of use of alleged credit card, and does not state when Defendant requested such credit card. Plaintiff does not show that Defendant made or authorized the use of a credit card for charges claimed. The Truth In Lending Act requires that a card issuer show that the use of the credit card was authorized. “In any action by a card issuer to enforce liability for the use of a credit card, the burden of proof is upon the card issuer to show that the use was authorized…” 15 USC § 1643(B). In this case, Plaintiff fails to carry that burden. Furthermore, Plaintiff is not licensed in the state of Michigan to engage in debt collection practices as the Defendant inquired about the licensing of the Plaintiff with the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA). There is no record of JDB, via LARA of the Plaintiff having a license.

4.      Denied. Defendant has no such possession of alleged account statements, terms and conditions of the contract and the application or solicitation for credit. Plaintiff’s failure to produce the contract on which its claim is based, as required by MCR 2.113(F), “warrants dismissal of the contract without prejudice.” English Gardens Condominium, LLC v Howell Twp, 273 Mich App LEXIS 207 (Mich Ct of App 2006), Plaintiff’s failure to attach a copy of the real contract to its complaint is fatal to its claim. In addition to the requirements of the court rule, the contract is necessary to support Plaintiff’s claims. Without the real contract, Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that Defendant agreed to pay any particular rate of interest, late charges, or other fees, and it appears that much of the amount Plaintiff claims is comprised of late fees and interest.

5.      Defendant lacks sufficient information of knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the matter, therefore Defendant denies.

6.      Denied. “Assignment must clearly establish that Respondent’s [the Debtor’s] account was included in the assignment. A general assignment of accounts will not satisfy this standard and the full chain of valid assignments must be provided, beginning with the assignor where the debt originated and concluding with the Petitioner [i.e., the assignee-creditor].” Palisades Collection, LLC v Taylor, Hudson & Keyse, LLC v Gregory, Consolidated Nos.08-684-CZ-3, 08-1012-CK-3 Saginaw County Circuit Court (2009) QUOTING MBNA America Bank, N.A. v Nelson, 15 Misc 3d 1148;841 NYS2d 826; 2007 WL 1704618 AND Bullock v Worldwide Asset Purchasing, LLC, 2008 WL 3159921. See also Weston v Card, 96 Mich 373, 377-378; 56 NW 26 (I893)

Furthermore, the Michigan Court of Appeals recently reaffirmed the necessity of proving the assignment, and announced requirements for doing so, in Brown Bark, II LP v Bay Area Floorcovering & Design, 2011 Mich App LEXIS 1003, (May 31, 2011). The court held that the document submitted to prove the assignment of the debt was insufficient for several reasons, including the fact that the Plaintiff did not produce the entire assignment agreement.

While the allonge was presented as evidence, it was not attached to the note; nor did Plaintiff present the agreement referenced in the allonge as evidence.

In the present case, Plaintiff has clearly not produced the entire agreement by which it allegedly acquired the debt, and there is no evidence that any amount involving the Defendant was included in whatever accounts were identified in the “Bill of Sale” referred to in Exhibit A.

 

7.      Denied. Defendant realleges same as paragraph 6.

8.      Denied. Defendant realleges same as paragraph 6.

9.      Denied. Defendant realleges same as paragraph 6.

10.  Defendant lacks sufficient information of knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the matter, therefore Defendant denies.

 

COUNT I – ACCOUNT STATED

11.  Defendant restates and realleges his answers to paragraphs 1 through 10 of Plaintiff’s Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

12.  Defendant lacks sufficient information of knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the matter, therefore Defendant denies.

13.  Defendant lacks sufficient information of knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the matter, therefore Defendant denies. Furthermore, “Exhibit ‘A’” of Plaintiff’s Complaint is not sufficient evidence of a contract.

14.  Denied. No such evidence of use of alleged credit card or any such monthly statements has been documented in Plaintiff’s Complaint.. Defendant realleges same as paragraph 6.

15.  Denied. No such evidence of a “terms of contract” has been documented in Plaintiff’s Complaint.

16.  Denied. No such evidence of a “terms of agreement” has been documented in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff fails entirely to show the amount of damages. The amount Plaintiff claims as damages are not supported by competent evidence. Attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint is an affidavit of (Jane Doe) who states that she is an authorized agent (employee) of JDB, the bad debt buyer. Affidavits must be made on personal knowledge and state with particularity facts admissible as evidence establishing the grounds stated in the Complaint. MCR 2.119(B)(1). If the affidavit refers to any papers, sworn or certified copies of those papers must be attached. MCR 2.116(B)(2). Plaintiff’s affidavit signer does not attach, or even identify the data on which her testimony is based and, as an agent of the assignee rather than the original creditor, lacks the requisite personal knowledge to support the Plaintiff’s claim.
Courts have frequently held that an employee of the assignee of a debt does not have the personal knowledge necessary to testify about events or documents pertaining to the original creditor. See: Martinez v Midland Credit Management, 25o SW2d 481 (Tex Ct of Ap. 2008), Ex 2; Asset Acceptance v Lodge, 325 SW3d 525, (Mo App 2010), Ex 3; CACH v Askew, 2011 Mo App LEXIS 429 (Mo App 2011).
 Furthermore, “Exhibit ‘A’” of Plaintiff’s Complaint is not sufficient evidence of an agreement.

17.  Denied. Defendant realleges same as paragraphs 6 and 16..

18.  Denied. Plaintiff has made no such demand prior to filing their Complaint. Furthermore, Defendant has no such possession of alleged account statements, terms and conditions of the contract, or the application for credit.

19.  Denied. No such evidence of a “terms of the agreement” has been documented in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Furthermore, Plaintiff has no right to declare any balance due without clearly establishing that said account was included in the assignment. Palisades Collection, LLC v Taylor, Hudson & Keyse, LLC v Gregory, Consolidated Nos.08-684-CZ-3, 08-1012-CK-3 Saginaw County Circuit Court (2009) QUOTING MBNA America Bank, N.A. v Nelson, 15 Misc 3d 1148;841 NYS2d 826; 2007 WL 1704618 AND Bullock v Worldwide Asset Purchasing, LLC, 2008 WL 3159921. See also Weston v Card, 96 Mich 373, 377-378; 56 NW 26 (I893)

Furthermore, Defendant inquired on the status of the notary public used to notarize the affidavit submitted in the complaint. Using the Michigan Secretary of State Services website, Defendant discovered that the notary public, (Jane Doe 2), had a commission that expired in February 2, 2007 and was not renewed until February 22, 2013. The affidavit was notarized on March 9, 2010 when the Notary Public was not commissioned to notarize documents. While the Plaintiff argues that “service of a complaint with attached affidavit and account statement ‘shall be deemed prima facia evidence of indebtness’” it should be noted that the affidavit must be notarized by a valid Notary Public with a current commission.

COUNT II – COMMON LAW ACCOUNT STATED

20.  Defendant restates and realleges his answers to paragraphs 1 through 19 of Plaintiff’s Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

21.  Denied. Plaintiff does not show a common law account stated. To probe an account stated, a party must show that the other party agreed he owes the amount claimed. “An account stated means a balance struck between the parties on a settlement.” Watkins v Ford (syllabus) 69 Mich 357 quoted in Kaunitz v Wheeler, 344 Mich 181, 185; 73 NW2d 263 (1955). Kaunitz is similar to the present case. In that case, the Plaintiff sent a statement of account to the defendant indicating a balance due of $29,427.10 and Defendant replied with a litter in which it stated “we hereby acknowledge our indebtness to you…” Nevertheless, the court held that the trail court erred in granting Plaintiff summary judgment. Defendant’s acknowledgment of an indebtness was not sufficient to show that Defendant admitted it owed Plaintiff the amount claimed.

“The conversion of an open account into an account stated is an operation by which the parties assent to a sum as the correct balance due from one to the other; and whether this operation has been performed or not, in any instance, must depend upon the facts. That it has taken place, may appear by evidence of an express understanding, or of words and acts, and the necessary and proper inferences from them. When accomplished, it does not necessarily exclude all inquiry into the rectitude of the account.” White v Campbell, 25 Mich 463, 468

To the same effect, see Kusterer Brewing Co. v Friar, 99 Mich 190; Thomasma v Carpenter, 175 Mich 428 (45 LRA NS 543, Ann Cas 1915A, 690). Id.

Merely sending a bill does not create an account stated. There must be some acknowledgement by the party billed that he admits owing the debt and that he further admits that the amount claimed is accurate. Unlike Kaunitz, the present Plaintiff does not show that Defendant ever acknowledged he owes the Plaintiff anything and there has been no acknowledgement by Defendant that he owes the Plaintiff the amount claimed.

COUNT III – BREACH OF CONTRACT

22.  Defendant restates and realleges his answers to paragraphs 1 through 21 of Plaintiff’s Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

23.  Defendant lacks sufficient information of knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the matter, therefore Defendant denies.

24.  Denied. No such evidence of use of the alleged credit card has been documented in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Furthermore, Defendant has no such possession of “the Contract” or “terms and conditions.”

25.  Denied. No such evidence of alleged monthly bills, monthly payment due, or total balance due has been documented in Plaintiff’s Complaint.

26.  Denied. No such evidence of alleged contract has been documented in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Furthermore, Defendant realleges same as paragraphs 6 and 16.

27.  Denied. Defendant realleges same as paragraphs 6 and 16.

COUNT IV – MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED AND/OR MONEY PAID

28.  Defendant restates and realleges his answers to paragraphs 1 through 27 of Plaintiff’s Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

29.  Defendant lacks sufficient information of knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the matter, therefore Defendant denies.

30.  Denied. No such evidence of use of the alleged credit card has been documented in Plaintiff’s Complaint.

31.  Denied. Defendant realleges same as paragraphs 6 and 16.

COUNT V – UNAUTHORIZED USE OF CREDIT CARD AND RELIANCE ON APPARENT IR ISTENSIBLE AUTHORITY AS NEGLIGENT WAIVER OF RIGHT TO DISPUTE THE BALANCE DUE

32.  Defendant restates and realleges his answers to paragraphs 1 through 31 of Plaintiff’s Complaint as though fully set herein.

33.  Denied. No such evidence of “contract terms and conditions” has been documented in Plaintiff’s Complaint.

34.  Defendant lacks sufficient information of knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the matter, therefore Defendant denies.

35.  Defendant lacks sufficient information of knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the matter, therefore Defendant denies.

36.  Defendant lacks sufficient information of knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the matter, therefore Defendant denies.

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

37.  Denied. Neither Plaintiff nor its attorney has made contact with Defendant prior to filing their Complaint. Furthermore, Defendant realleges same as paragraphs 6 and 16.

ATTORNEY FEES

38.  Denied. No such evidence of “terms of the cardholder agreement” has been documented in Plaintiff’s Complaint.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court enter a judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff, dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint against Defendant with prejudice, ordering Plaintiff to permanently cease all collection activities relating to this case, ordering Plaintiff to delete negative items on Defendant’s credit report relating to this case, awarding Defendant’s monies be returned including any fees incurred, punitive damages, and any other relief this Court deems appropriate.

      Dated: April 16, 2013

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@mrdearborn

 

two "bills of sale" the same as they put in the complaint. One of them, from jdb1 to jdb2 (the one I'm currently battling) even shows a faded court stamp dated "2010 MAR 23" it seems like they lost it and had to obtain a copy from the court.

 

Is March 23, 2010 a date related to your case?  For instance, is that a date for your case in which they would have filed that bill of sale with the court?

 

 

"plaintiffs motion to strike answer and for summary disposition" signed by the attorney and not jdb. NOTE: it says "with the last payment by defendant on the account on 9/14/2009 (see account statement with closing date of 9/17/2007)" two different dates, wondering how that helps me.

 

I don't believe this helps you.  The closing date on statement is merely the closing date of that billing month.  The dates on the statement (charges and payments) won't necessarily be the same as the closing date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What they fail to understand is that I'm not really debating the issue of the actual cc debt, I'm contesting their right to collect on that debt.

The JDB must prove they OWN the debt. 

 

Didn't you have 2 judgments against you ....

Then you had them BOTH vacated...

And this is where you are at now. ?

Case 1

I believe you needed to file a Counter-claim, with your answers to claim the amounts that were garnished from the judgment #1.

Are you following through with this vacated judgment  on Case 1 ?

 

Case 2

Are the above materials (copies) in reference to just case 2 ?

If monies were collected already via that judgment #2 you vacated... Again, I believe you will need to file a Counter-Claim with your answers to retrieve garnishments that have already been taken out from the vacated judgment #2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@mrdearborn

 

 

Is March 23, 2010 a date related to your case?  For instance, is that a date for your case in which they would have filed that bill of sale with the court?

 

 

 

I don't believe this helps you.  The closing date on statement is merely the closing date of that billing month.  The dates on the statement (charges and payments) won't necessarily be the same as the closing date.

 

Yes, March 23, 2010 is the date they filed the suit with the court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The JDB must prove they OWN the debt. 

 

Didn't you have 2 judgments against you ....

Then you had them BOTH vacated...

And this is where you are at now. ?

Case 1

I believe you needed to file a Counter-claim, with your answers to claim the amounts that were garnished from the judgment #1.

Are you following through with this vacated judgment  on Case 1 ?

 

Case 2

Are the above materials (copies) in reference to just case 2 ?

If monies were collected already via that judgment #2 you vacated... Again, I believe you will need to file a Counter-Claim with your answers to retrieve garnishments that have already been taken out from the vacated judgment #2.

 

Yes, two judgments, both vacated.

 

Case 1: Just got back from pretrial, judge seemed to be on the lawyers side, they were all buddy buddy with each other. I did though get 30 days for discovery and a final pretrial in a few months. I told the judge I wanted legal proof of their assignment with my information on there and a chain of custody of ownership. Judge was telling me that at this point, they have too much to lose for such a little amount, but "if this is what will bring you peace" we need the plaintiff to do so. The plaintiff's lawyer then said he ordered them from OC and will be coming shortly. Seriously!? You filed a suit against me and you don't have any proof of ownership. What he has never mentioned is that OC sold it to another JDB who sold it to them.

 

In the original affidavit, the "keeper of records" named as an employee for the JDB sent me a letter back in 2011 under the attorney's letterhead. I'm 99% sure that violates federal law.

 

Anyways, how would one go about filing a counterclaim and what would be my defense for this?

 

EDIT: is there anything else I should request in discovery? Should I request witnesses to come to court ie keeper of records, OC keeper of records, etc., and how would I do that?

 

Case 2: yes those are copies from just case 2. Sorry for the late response, I started another job and its been pretty busy for me. I'm in retail loss prevention now and have been going to court a lot on work related matters.

 

Money was collected after judgment was vacated, submitted answers without counterclaim, is it too late?

 

We were supposed to go to court last week, but I had to reschedule as I was to be in court for work that day, so it was adjourned until next month, actually a few weeks from now. Plaintiff sent me a motion to strike answer and for summary disposition which is included in the 3rd post. No instructions came from the court.

 

Anyways, I'm pretty much lost, and I have read through all the links and honestly, my cases are unique for the simple fact that they were vacated years later. Any help will be appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might have a FDCPA violation for the JDB sending you a letter on an attorney's letterhead. They don't have the goods, even after 2 years to prove their claims.

 

Send out your discovery requests. Both parties have 28 days to respond. Only having 30 days for discovery, the Plaintiff will most lilkely not respond and you will have no time to send out a second request or letter to confer.

 

The good thing is the Plaintiff has very little time to secure documentation, which they should have already had in their possession prior to filing suit. I will PM you with a consumer law attorney who can tell you if anything else is needed to file a FDCPA suit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might have a FDCPA violation for the JDB sending you a letter on an attorney's letterhead. They don't have the goods, even after 2 years to prove their claims.

 

Send out your discovery requests. Both parties have 28 days to respond. Only having 30 days for discovery, the Plaintiff will most lilkely not respond and you will have no time to send out a second request or letter to confer.

 

The good thing is the Plaintiff has very little time to secure documentation, which they should have already had in their possession prior to filing suit. I will PM you with a consumer law attorney who can tell you if anything else is needed to file a FDCPA suit.

 

Thank you so much for your quick response, do you have a guide for discovery requests?

 

The violation occurred in 2011, but I have read somewhere that the year SOL starts when I actually discover the violation, is this true? Also the JDB and attorney share the same office, I know that is against state law, maybe even federal law, what can I do to make sure these guys get what they deserve? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, two judgments, both vacated.

 

Case 1: Just got back from pretrial, judge seemed to be on the lawyers side, they were all buddy buddy with each other. I did though get 30 days for discovery and a final pretrial in a few months. I told the judge I wanted legal proof of their assignment with my information on there and a chain of custody of ownership. Judge was telling me that at this point, they have too much to lose for such a little amount, but "if this is what will bring you peace" we need the plaintiff to do so. The plaintiff's lawyer then said he ordered them from OC and will be coming shortly. Seriously!? You filed a suit against me and you don't have any proof of ownership. What he has never mentioned is that OC sold it to another JDB who sold it to them.

 

In the original affidavit, the "keeper of records" named as an employee for the JDB sent me a letter back in 2011 under the attorney's letterhead. I'm 99% sure that violates federal law.

 

Anyways, how would one go about filing a counterclaim and what would be my defense for this?

I would think something to this effect...

 

Plaintiff received monies in the total  amount of ________, on a Default Judgment  case number _______entered on ___________, which is currently now a vacated judgment, case number _________. 

 

EDIT: is there anything else I should request in discovery? Should I request witnesses to come to court ie keeper of records, OC keeper of records, etc., and how would I do that?

 

Case 2: yes those are copies from just case 2. Sorry for the late response, I started another job and its been pretty busy for me. I'm in retail loss prevention now and have been going to court a lot on work related matters.

 

Money was collected after judgment was vacated, submitted answers without counterclaim, is it too late?

I believe you can counter anytime. (not completely sure on that, call  your court house, also legal aide)

I think that you need to counter to be able to retrieve the money you have already paid on the debt from the default judgments.

 

 

We were supposed to go to court last week, but I had to reschedule as I was to be in court for work that day, so it was adjourned until next month, actually a few weeks from now. Plaintiff sent me a motion to strike answer and for summary disposition which is included in the 3rd post. No instructions came from the court.

You need to do an Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.

 

Anyways, I'm pretty much lost, and I have read through all the links and honestly, my cases are unique for the simple fact that they were vacated years later. Any help will be appreciated.

 Did you include a Defendants affidavit with your answers?

If not, you will want to work one in on your Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

when you get it, post it and we can help you out. :)

A week went by and nothing was received. Called them and had them just email it to me. Its a 4 page PDF file. Page 1 has a bill of sale dated 10-31-2008 from National Loan Exchange. Page two, another bill of sale, same exact wording, same date but from US Bank National Association. Page three and four is a list of people with information crossed off with a marker.

None of the bills of sale are from OC (comerica) or or the first jdb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A week went by and nothing was received. Called them and had them just email it to me. Its a 4 page PDF file. Page 1 has a bill of sale dated 10-31-2008 from National Loan Exchange. Page two, another bill of sale, same exact wording, same date but from US Bank National Association. Page three and four is a list of people with information crossed off with a marker.

None of the bills of sale are from OC (comerica) or or the first jdb.

Sounds good for you...

The Plaintiff must show proper chain of title from the OC on thru to the current JDB.

Also, the Bill of Sales must show a reference to you and/or your account number etc.

Look close at the documents, I would bet they all refer to another agreement, but did NOT include with statement.

In addition, the documents MUST BE AUTHENTICATED.

 

My argument would be that the documents are NOT authenticated, all refer to another agreement, which the Plaintiff did not include.

None of the documents refer to the  Defendant , name, account number etc. 

Plaintiff  alleged "Bill of Sales Documents", has NOT PROVEN proper chain of assignment of the debt nor that the debt is truly the Defendants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds good for you...

The Plaintiff must show proper chain of title from the OC on thru to the current JDB.

Also, the Bill of Sales must show a reference to you and/or your account number etc.

Look close at the documents, I would bet they all refer to another agreement, but did NOT include with statement.

In addition, the documents MUST BE AUTHENTICATED.

 

My argument would be that the documents are NOT authenticated, all refer to another agreement, which the Plaintiff did not include.

None of the documents refer to the  Defendant , name, account number etc. 

Plaintiff  alleged "Bill of Sales Documents", has NOT PROVEN proper chain of assignment of the debt nor that the debt is truly the Defendants.

We're in discovery stage so I'm going to also ask for the contract and a chain of custody. Anything else I should ask for?

In my opinion the judge should have actually thrown it out because the affidavit wasn't notarized. I guess I'll mention that in my MSJ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're in discovery stage so I'm going to also ask for the contract and a chain of custody. Anything else I should ask for?

Here is a link that the Admin of this site created POD  (Defendants request to Plaintiff for PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS)

 

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/252142-sample-motions-forms-affirmative-defenses/?p=945423

In my opinion the judge should have actually thrown it out because the affidavit wasn't notarized. I guess I'll mention that in my MSJ.

 

It's your job to point out all of the errors the Plaintiff has made.  Glad you have their affidavit working for you as well.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're in discovery stage so I'm going to also ask for the contract and a chain of custody. Anything else I should ask for?

Here is a link that the Admin of this site created POD (Defendants request to Plaintiff for PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS)

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/252142-sample-motions-forms-affirmative-defenses/?p=945423In my opinion the judge should have actually thrown it out because the affidavit wasn't notarized. I guess I'll mention that in my MSJ.

It's your job to point out all of the errors the Plaintiff has made. Glad you have their affidavit working for you as well.

I misread some info. First BOS is from US Bank to National Loan Exchange. US Bank's Elan financial is the underwriter for Comerica Bank. Second BOS was from National Loan Exchange to jdb. Both have the same date and mention an exhibit. I'll upload a copy if needed.

I called Comerica, transferred to Elan who said account was sold 10-30-2008 (day before stated on BOS) to National Loan Exchange. National Loan Exchange stated the account was sold 10-31-2008 to jdb's attorney not the jdb as stated in the BOS.

I have 3 days before discovery ends. Looking for advice.

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.