Sign in to follow this  
gwheelock915

Unifund v Shah, ICAA does not apply to JDBs...

Recommended Posts

That was an amazing read! It doesn't apply to us in the 9th I'm sure but it was plainly laid out, with visual aids to boot!

Thanks for the find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The jdb's do not want the courts to know they only are awardeable at most 2% of the amounts they claim as actual damages. Maybe we out to argue that point in the future. Why don't we argue that plaintiffs are only actually damaged in the amount of $40.00 and thus cannot claim more.  would be awesome to crush a JDB like that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a great approach to damages, however in multiple sale assignments all the damage is "Self-Inflicted" as the JDB's had both the option to purchase or not purchase the list of pools then again to sue or not sue any of the listed assets (debtors) in the assignment.

 

Since that argument won't fly and the amount paid will never be disclosed it's a standoff and the Judges will automatically revert back to what ever process gets the most cases through the system. In Oregon that's Court Adjoined Arbitration and that's a completely corrupt process with an automatic win for the Plaintiff/Creditor/JDB. Good deal for the Judge whom doesn't have to take the responsibility or face unnecessary angry voters for his next term. 

 

It's nice to know that there are a few Judges willing to require all the aspects of the law are applied and not swayed by the volume of business brought into the Court by some of these mammoth Junk Debt Buyers. 

 

Thanks for the read - it restores a little faith. http://www.state.il....ict/1113658.pdf

 

 

HP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a classic example of why you should always demand in discovery the complete bill of sale with all of its exhibits and attachments (or in some cases the complete purchase agreement that the bill of sale itself is an attachment to) and forward flow agreement.  They are unable to provide proof that any specific account was included in any bulk purchases of defaulted debts.  They can't even provide such proof to an appelate court to back up their own appeal! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ruling is positive though and ICAA still applies to assigned debts like it was intended to. There's also some nice discussion on the ubiquitous spreadsheets JDBs like to attach to their bills of sale and how redacting all information isn't acceptable to prove a particular account was part of a sale,

Share this post


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