DJP1986

Being sued by Midland Funding in Washington state

Recommended Posts

no your reading it wrong.  If you supboena the witness, you have to do it through a court in their county, within 20 miles.  And you have to attach the fees for them to travel, lodging, meals etc. to the subpoena.  You don't want their witness to show anyway, more work for you.  If they try to put a motion in to appear by telephone, we have an objection for that.  If they allow it, we have questions you could ask.  If the court grants your objection, it is up to the plaintiff to get their witness to the court.  BUT if they didn't give you an address and phone number of the witness, then you could say you could not subpoena the witness, so their affidavit should not be entered into evidence.  

 

They wont even give you a proper name, they will say john doe, or jane doe, or some other employee of jdb plans on testifying.  Then you write an opposition saying they need to give you a name, not just "someone from the jdb"  Even if they let any ole person testify, they cannot lay foundation for the OC records, so if you ask the right questions, their testimony should not matter.

 

Also the we are  a debt collector thing, no they are required by law to put that on their correspondence, I have not heard of anyone getting and FDCPA violation for that.  They are not misrepresenting the debt in any way, not their fault if a person doesn't know what a summons is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I figured I was reading it wrong but I had to make sure!

 

I was reading civil rules for discovery, and found a few things I had questions on:

 

(g) Time for Discovery.  Twenty-one days after the service of
the summons and complaint, or counterclaim, or cross complaint,
the served party may demand the discovery set forth in sections
(a) - (d) of this rule, or request additional discovery pursuant
to section (e) of this rule.  Unless agreed by the parties and
with the permission of the court, all discovery shall be
completed within 60 days of the demand, or 90 days of service of
the summons and complaint, or counterclaim, or cross complaint,
whichever is longer.

 

1) Does this mean that my request for discovery has to be placed within 21 days of receiving the summons?

2) Does this mean they are allowed 60 days to come up with the requested documents?

 

Also:

 

(3) The following requests for production may be submitted by any party:

    (A) Produce a copy of any insurance agreement under which any
person carrying on an insurance business may be liable to satisfy
part or all of any judgment which may be entered in this action,
or to indemnify or reimburse the payments made to satisfy the judgment.

    (B) Produce a copy of any agreement, contract or other
document upon which this claim is being made.

    © Produce a copy of any bill or estimate for items for
which special damage is being claimed.

    (4) In addition to section (B)(3), any party may submit to
any other party a request for production of up to five separate
sets of groups of documents or things without prior permission of
the court.  The requests for production shall conform to the
provisions of CR 34.

 

Does this mean I can only ask those things in my discovery request? The A, B, and C questions? Rule 4 states in addition to, I can ask for up to five separate sets of groups of docs or other things. Would the request racecar wrote up still work?

 

They also give select questions that you can ask for interrogatories, but also state up to 15 requests can be made.

 

My ignorance is fading, however slow it may be currently :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Does this mean that my request for discovery has to be placed within 21 days of receiving the summons?

2) Does this mean they are allowed 60 days to come up with the requested documents?

Yes and no. You need to request it before 21 days after you were served, and you have to be done with it in 60 days after you request, it would be 90 days if you have cross complaint, in order to do both cases.

Looks like they will allow you 5 doc requests and then you need to ask permission for more. Read cr 34 and see if that is right. I think that is in addition to asking for contract or agreement.

See your getting it, that is why knowing your rules are so important, every state is different. My state I can't request any docs without permission from the court, and he denied my request. ( hey I still won);)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's say I ask for the contract or agreement and five other things, and it turns out it was denied, would they be able to object to producing any of the documents?

 

Hmm, I looked up rule 34 and it basically states nothing really to the request of more docs (at least as a procedure to get more) unless I am mistaken again :(

 

This is the pdf of rule 34: http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.rulesPDF&ruleId=supcr34&pdf=1

 

I am slightly confused now. In rule 26, it says I have 21 days from receiving my summons to file for discovery, but on that rule it states that the defendant has 40 days to file in response. Would that mean if they also filed for discovery on what I may have (or admissions rather), would I have 40 days to respond to them?

 

Also, just to throw it out there for the 60 day time frame, what would be considered a complete discovery? When they provide everything that was asked of them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys, just wanted to throw something out there. I talked to a buddy today who works for a collection agency to get his input, just to see how things go at his place. He said they sue people and obtain default judgments as well, and he says that his place of work has collected for Midland in the past. He said they are one of the largest debt purchasers in the world, and they could obtain the information they need to win if given the right amount of time. I know the request for discoveries only allows 30 days, which gave me some hope, but he tried to beat me down into calling the law firm and telling them I never got an FDCPA letter from midland and if I don't get it they are violating federal law. He said that they can and will bury me in court, and I can turn this $1198 debt into a $4-5,000 bill with legal and attorney fees.

 

Can it actually rack up that high? How likely is the court to award excessive amounts in fees like that considering the amount in question?

 

I guess my conversation with him instilled some doubt in me, and scared me when hearing what the bill could become. I guess I am just in search of reassurance :( Thanks guys!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

check your mail updated discovery

Are you sure he is a buddy.

Why cant you bury them in court and make them pay you.

Just do the right things right, and don't let your friend(s) scare you.

I bet we have beat down midland 500 times here on cic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Racecar and Shellie are giving you some GREAT advice here :-)

 

 

Evergreen division is in Monroe...it's not that far out of the way tbh...could be Lynnwood.  The fair is in town now, might be worth it to take a weekday and visit the fair, and then hit the courthouse on your way over or back (it's right there on hwy 2, adjacent to the fairgrounds), get yourself familiar with the Clerk and have face-to-face chat with them.  I've found (at least when i go in for traffic infraction stuff) that's a good way to get some intel.

 

 

 

Here's another word of advice:  stop talking to your friend who works at a collection agency.  STOP IT.  i don't give a flying you-know-what if he's your frat bother or your neighbor's sister's brother in law.  Do NOT talk to him about any aspect of your case, capisce?

 

 

You'll be fine...the amount is not that high, and to be honest, it looks as if they don't have much evidence anyhow.  Target is original bak, then midland, then stupid and hammertime...S/H is the one suing you, yes?  On Bahalf of Midland, or as themselves?  Look at chain of custody of the debt...how did it get to midland...that sort of thing.  As mentioned before, you didn't ever have an account with midland.

 

Not sure if you've already done so or not, but look up cases invloving midland in WA state and see how they've gone.  Most will be default judgments.  Ignore those ones, since you're not gonna let them get a Default against you since your'e going to fight this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you racecar and amerikaner!

Yeah S/H is the one who is representing, but Midland is the plaintiff. I tried looking online, googled "midland funding cases in WA" but found nothing. Any suggestions? Can I access the cases via the WA courts site?

The clerk and I chatted earlier, and she said that I can come to the court and look at public records of cases but have to be specific on what I ask for. So I am assuming I cant just walk in and ask to see Midland Funding cases as the plaintiff, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for those debtzapper! Looking at the first case, the affidivat the defendant countered with was too vague so they granted a win for MRC? That kind of sucks.

Also, any good sites I can use as a tip for learning how to properly search for good articles in scholar? Haha

It looks as though the proof they need is a little more strict here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this case on scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6881248198285580411&q=Nicholas+R.+Filer&hl=en&as_sdt=4,48

 

It appears as though the court allowed generic evidence into the case? That seems bogus! unless, of course, it was up to the defendant to object to evidence and didn't? The case file does document no affidavit was filed to counter the plaintiff's within the allotted time.

 

I also found this case: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2856639468281518963&q=Nicholas+R.+Filer&hl=en&as_sdt=4,48

 

Would Midland be subject to providing the same evidence as in this case? If so, it would be hard to do, I think.

 

  • Itemized, detailed report of card usage
  • Proof of payments
  • Agreement between card holder & lender

Would this only be required for an appeal case? I am assuming a civil hearing would not be this demanding of evidence if most of these cases found are in a court of appeals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this case on scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6881248198285580411&q=Nicholas+R.+Filer&hl=en&as_sdt=4,48

 

It appears as though the court allowed generic evidence into the case? That seems bogus! unless, of course, it was up to the defendant to object to evidence and didn't? The case file does document no affidavit was filed to counter the plaintiff's within the allotted time.

 

I also found this case: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2856639468281518963&q=Nicholas+R.+Filer&hl=en&as_sdt=4,48

 

Would Midland be subject to providing the same evidence as in this case? If so, it would be hard to do, I think.

 

  • Itemized, detailed report of card usage
  • Proof of payments
  • Agreement between card holder & lender

Would this only be required for an appeal case? I am assuming a civil hearing would not be this demanding of evidence if most of these cases found are in a court of appeals.

 

Trial courts MUST follow the rulings of appeals courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"the court's questioning of Ryan was entirely pertinent to the relevant legal issues."

The judge will sometimes as you some questions. learn how to answer them.

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/legal/what-to-say-in-court.shtml

 

How to Answer Distressing Questions Truthfully, but in Your Favor

Judge: Is this your debt?
You: Your Honor, the Plaintiff has provided no proof of this debt. To the best of my knowledge and evidence provided, this is not my debt.

Judge: Did you ever have a card with Bank A?
You: Yes, I did Your Honor, but to the best of my recollection, this card was paid off. In addition, the Plaintiff has provided no proof the debt is unpaid or even that this PARTICULAR debt is mine.

Plaintiff's Attorney - Introduction of Evidence

Spoken Statements:
if the Plaintiff is a collection agency or junk debt buyer, object to anything the attorney says as hearsay.

The attorney and the plaintiff do not have intimate knowledge of the creation of the debt.

Written Evidence:

  1. If the Plaintiff's attorney shows anything wasn't included in the original summons/complaint package, or wasn't provided in discovery, object on the basis that it wasn't included in discovery and cannot now be submitted. You can also object if the evidence is not authenticated, meaning that the evidence cannot absolutely be substantiated as a true copy of an original document.
  2. If any evidence isn't authenticated, object to it as hearsay. "Authenticated" means there is a letter from the issuing company stating that these are true copies of the original.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I would focus on the "Bridges," case, which "Ryan" cites.  It has a good summary of the proof Midland must have to prevail.

Note that is was successfully argued by husband and wife pro se.

 

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14765562245446551771&q=credit+card+assignment&hl=en&as_sdt=4,10,48&as_ylo=2009

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks a million you guys! If i do go to trial, would I want to reference the case in my opening statement, or cite it later? Also, for discovery, does that go to Midland or Suttell and Hammer? Thanks again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the help you guys! I really appreciate it! It has been a quite few weeks since I fired off my answer and requests for production of documents.

 

Speaking of which, they have until Thursday to provide the discovery, and I haven't seen anything yet.

 

From this angle, I would want to file a motion to compel discovery, correct?

 

Also, I would have to wait until the full 30 days expires, right?

 

Thanks a lot guys!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys. So I just found out today that my court date is on Mar 11, and they are filing for a motion for summary judgment. They included 7 pieces of "evidence", one of which is from the OC saying they sold a bunch of accounts that were in default. How long do I have to file my opposition? And the affidivats? Not really sure where to go next. Not at home at the moment but I will post their evidence zs soon as I get there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay I am home now, and I will post what they sent me. Keep in mind, I answered with a denial and also sent them a discovery request via certified mail that they signed for in early September, but they never sent me anything!

Page 1:

The first page is a motion calendar basically saying they are filing for a motion for summary judgment and my hearing is on March 11.

Page 2: Declaration of mailing

Basically this is the page where some lady whom I have yet to see named anywhere in the complaint is saying she mailed this packet to me, even though it was to my old address and my answer and discovery request had my current address.

Page 3: Motion for Summary Judgment

Them asking the court for the judgment amount originally indicated in my first post, and then them saying the facts are I became indebted to them on account of goods and services, and payment has not been received although often demanded.

Their list of proof of evidence is as follows:

- Affidavit of balance as provided by plaintiff

- Affidavit of sale of account as provided by plaintiff

- Asset sale agreement as provided by plaintiff

- Copies of periodic statements as provided by plaintiff

- Copy of CLRJ 56

- Attached declaration of plaintiff's attorney

- Records and files herein

They then say that they are entitled to this money and ~$140 in filing and service fees.

Exhibit A: Affidavit of Jessica Vogt

This is basically a statement that the plaintiff is the current owner of the obligation sued upon, and was assigned all the rights, title, and interest to defendants TARGET NATIONAL BANK account XXXXXXXXXX2979 (my Midland # here), and that she has reviewed the account and is authorized to make this affidavit.

In paragraph 2, she goes on to say basically that Midland basically creates and maintains account records regularly, and purchasing said account is how they obtained.

She finishes off with saying if called upon, she would be able to competently testify to all facts stated within the affidavit.

Exhibit B: Affidavit of Sale of Account by Original Creditor

This is a guy who worked for TARGET NATIONAL BANK saying that Target, a Minnesota limited liability company, sold "a pool of charged off accounts by a forwarded flow and a bill of sale to Midland Funding. As part of the sale of the accounts, electronic records and records were transferred on individual Accounts to the debt buyer. These records were kept on behalf of Target in the ordinary course of business."

He says the accounts were sold on or around Dec 14, 2012, and he is not aware of any errors on the accounts.

Then, there is a Certificate of Conformity attached, which I will write in full.

I, Susan Smith, an attorney-at-law of the State of Minnesota who resides in the State of Minnesota and is fully acquainted with the laws of the State of Minnesota pertaining to the acknowledgement of proof of deeds of real property to be recorded herein, do hereby certify that I am duly qualified to make this certificate of conformity pursuant to Section 299-a of the Real Property Law of the State of New York and hereby certify that the acknowledgement or proof upon the foregoing document was taken by Shannon Solberg, a notary public in the State of Minnesota, in conformity with the laws of the State of Minnesota, being the state in which the Affidavit was executed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my signature, this 10th day of January, 2013.

Of course, she signs it, and then it's done. I am wondering where she got New York from, and who the hell Shannon Solberg is. She is not even named in any of the other affidavits they sent me!!

Exhibit C: Asset Sale Agreement

This basically says Target sold the accounts listed in the electronic file identified in Appendix 1 as provided in the "redacted" asset sale agreement dated March 28, 2012. (The Target affidavit said they sold them on or around Dec 2012...)

The second and third paragraphs of this document says:

With respect to Account Information (as defined in the Agreement), for the Accounts listed in the above-referenced electronic data file, Sellers represent and warrant to Buyer that (i) the information provided to Buyer from Sellers constitutes Sellers own business records, as maintained by Sellers' service provider, Target Corporation, a Minnesota corporation ("Target Corporation"), (ii) to Sellers' actual knowledge, without duty to investigate, Account material respects, the information on such database, (iii) such information was kept in the regular course of Target Corporation's business as service provider to Sellers and (iv) it is the regular practice of Target Corporation's business as provider to Sellers to maintain and control such data.

Expect as provided in the immediately preceding paragraph and the Agreement, this Bill of Sale is executed without recourse and without representation or warranties, including, without limitations, warranties as to collectability, enforceability or documentation.

No warranty? I remember reading this one is fun for people being sued by JDB.

Then there is an attachment saying the closing date was Dec 14, 2012. The cut-off date was Dec 10, 2014. Then, the info is redacted for: Number of accounts, purchase price percentage, aggregate account balance, purchase price.

Exhibit D: "Periodic statements as provided by plaintiff"

I put it in quotations because it is two "letters" of invoice sent by Midland starting in Dec 2012 when they originally purchased their pool of accounts, and one more 30 days later, and that's it. NOTHING from target!

Exhibit E: motion for summary judgment

This looks like a big legal block of text that basically describes what they are wanting to do and the rules of the affidavits and the case and stuff.

Then it goes on to show my "active duty status", followed by a statement from someone who tried to serve the exact same complaint to my girlfriend, and it goes on to describe her and how she refused to give them any information.

Finally, they have the judgment summary and they are asking for the original balance, said costs mentioned earlier, and want 12% interest per annum.

So, there you have it. Looks like nothing proving I actually owed the debt to Target. I know I have to file to oppose the summary judgment, but do I just take it to the hearing or do I have to file it first? Also, how about the opposition to the bogus affidavits?

Any help would be awesome!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crap, with the help of BV80 finding some more concrete details, it appears as though I pretty much have tomorrow to file my opposition to their MSJ. I would like to ask for a continuance, but am going to try and assume the worst about it.

I took pictures of the info they gave me, and have uploaded them to the following directory: http://www.setina.com.au/Docs/

They mailed this stuff on 2/21/14, to my OLD address even though they had my new one from my Answer and ignored request for discovery. It was not given to me until today, and now I am panicking. :(

Any help in the right direction for writing my opposition would be nice! Don't want to lose by default :(

I want to argue all of their evidence, but have no clue on how to do it on paper in a legal proceeding. I have been searching the forums for MSJ stuff and so far a lot of what I am finding seems to be specific to certain state law and that's it :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Negative, it is going to be a civil case. When I asked my court, they said this case would not be held in small claims, which I wish it was--would make it easier! :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I threw together an opposition to the MSJ, in fear of I may not be able to get a continuance. Can anyone take a look over it for me? :(

 

IN THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

EVERGREEN DIVISION, SCDC

Midland Funding LLC

Plaintiff(s)

vs.

DJP1986

Defendant(s)

No. xxxxxxxxx

DEFENDANT'S REPLY AND OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

COMES NOW the defendant, DJP1986, Pro Se, and files this REPLY AND OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT in response to Motion for Summary Judgment filed herein by Plaintiff, Midland Funding L.L.C..

I. INTRODUCTION

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is the successor to an account between Defendant and the alleged original creditor, Target National Bank, and that the account is in default. This Opposition challenges the sufficiency of Plaintiff's evidence to prove all elements of its claim, and lack of standing to sue.

Plaintiff claims Defendant became indebted to Plaintiff with the use of a credit card but has provided no evidence to prove the existence of the account in question. No billing statements or other documentation from Target National Bank has been provided that reference Defendant or Account Number XXXXXXXXXXXX2979.

Plaintiff claims Defendant owes the principle sum of $1198.51, however no established proof of said account, or assignment of referenced account, exist.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Defendant received summons the 17th day of August, 2013. Defendant answered the request on the 3rd day of September, 2013.

Defendant sent Plaintiff a Request for Production of Documents on the 2nd day of September, 2013, and was received by the Plaintiff on the 4th day of September, 2013. Documents requested from plaintiff included any documentation of relationship between Midland Funding L.L.C. and Target National Bank, the alleged original creditor, any payment history, and any breakdown of the sum requested by the plaintiff, a contract signed by the Defendant, any evidence of a contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Defendant cannot make a legitimate defense on claims by the Plaintiff that are undocumented.

Defendant did not receive a production of documents from Plaintiff, henceforth Plaintiff has failed to prove ownership, or existence, of account in question.

Defendant received Calendar Note, Motion for Summary Judgment, Affidavit of Service, Proposed Order of Summary Judgment, and Declaration of Mailing on the 27th day of February, 2014.

Motion for Summary Judgment hearing is set for the 11th day of March, 2014.

III. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS

Defendant submits this Statement of Material Facts in support of his Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment. As this Opposition pierces the pleadings and tests the sufficiency of Plaintiff's evidence, Plaintiff, who bears the burden of proof, must submit a record of admissible evidence to grant summary judgment.

Statement of Material Facts

1. There is no admissible evidence as to the purchase by Plaintiff of the alleged account which is the subject of this Complaint either directly from Target National Bank or through intermediate debt buyers.

2. There is no admissible evidence of true and correct copies of periodic statements, as Plaintiff claims to provide, that shows any true balance owed by Defendant.

3. Defendant has not made payments due to the fact that Defendant does not owe the alleged debt, and no evidence has been provided to prove otherwise.

4. There is no admissible evidence as to the debits, credits, and payments associated with the alleged account, including the fees, charges, and interest from which to determine the amount purportedly due.

5. There is no admissible evidence regarding the mailing of any written agreements by Target National Bank to the Defendant.

6. There is no admissible evidence regarding the mailing of any billing statements by Target National Bank to the Defendant.

IV. LEGAL ARGUMENTS

Lacking Evidence to Prove its Case, Plaintiff's Complaint Should be Dismissed with Prejudice

This is a suit by a debt buyer asserting that it is the owner of an alleged Target National Bank account in default. Plaintiff, Midland Funding L.L.C., filed a Complaint alleging:

1. " By the use of said credit account, said defendant became indebted on said account for goods, services, and monies with the charge off balance of $1198.51, and a current unpaid balance $1198.51 which is fully due and owing to plaintiff, together with such greater sum as may be proved at the time of trial, together with interest thereon at the highest legal rate."

1. Defendant disputes that he used alleged credit card, as Plaintiff has failed to produce documentation to sufficiently prove Defendant used alleged credit card with detailed, itemized proof of said card usage. In addition, Plaintiff fails to show Defendant acknowledges debt with evidence such as payment documentation. Plaintiff has failed to establish a proper claim without documentation to support acknowledgement or usage of the card. " —acceptance of terms and acknowledgment of credit card account may be established by evidence of cancelled checks or online payment documentation." Discover Bank v. Bridges, 154 Wn. App 722, 726, 226, P.3d 191 (2010).

Plaintiff's Attached Exhibit B "Affidavit of Sale of Account as provided by the plaintiff" fails to state Defendant had an account with Target National Bank, and therefore fails to support the claim Defendant's alleged account was sold to Plaintiff.

A bill of sale with no name, account number, or any other information identifying Sunde's debt as having been sold or assigned to Unifund is insufficient to establish that U.S. Bank assigned the rights and obligations on Sunde's contract to Unifund. Unifund CCR Partners v. Sunde, 163 Wash. App. 473, 489, 260 P.3d 915, 920 (2011).

Plaintiff's Attached Exhibit A "Affidavit of Balance as provided by Plaintiff" fails to prove the existence of Defendant's alleged account. In Plaintiff's Affidavit in Support of Summary Judgment, Jessica Vogt states that "Plaintiff is the current owner of the obligation sued upon, and was assigned all the rights, title, and interest to defendant's Target National Bank account XXXXXXXXXXXX2979. I have reviewed the records pertaining to the account and am authorized to make this affidavit on plaintiff's behalf based on such review."

However, there are no records in the form of billing statements or any other documentation that reference Defendant's name or the account number XXXXXXXXXXXX2979. Absent such documentation, it is unknown what Ms. Vogt claims to have reviewed. Plaintiff fails to establish Defendant had any account with Target National Bank, delinquent or not. In MRC Receivables Corp. v. Zion, 218 P. 3d 621 - Wash: Court of Appeals, 1st Div. 2009, "—where debt collector provides no direct or even indirect proof of any written assignment by the original debt holder, reversal of summary judgment is appropriate."

Proof of Contract and Terms

Regarding the contract, there must be written terms. The Truth in Lending Act at 15 U.S.C. § 1637(a) requires the essential terms of a credit card account be disclosed in writing. In addition, creditors are required to post on the internet "the written agreement between the creditor and the consumer for each credit card account under an open-ended consumer credit plan." 15 U.S.C. § 1632(d)(1).

Even in the absence of federal law, Plaintiff cannot prove the basis for any finance or interest charges, late fees and other charges, payment due dates, or even whether Defendant breached an obligation, without a contract.

Consequently, someone with the requisite personal knowledge must be able to identify the controlling contract and, in the absence of Defendants' signature, demonstrate what conduct, if any, demonstrated mutual assent to the purported terms. In this present case an employee of the Plaintiff is not a competent witness with sufficient personal knowledge to authenticate and lay the proper foundation for the admission of a contract that was allegedly formed before the Plaintiff’s alleged ownership of the alleged account.

Turning to breach and damages, Plaintiff must have a competent witness who can establish that each charge was authorized because the Truth in Lending Act imposes that burden on Plaintiff. 15 U.S.C. § 1643( B).

Plaintiff's failure to come forward with sufficient evidence as to each element of its prima facie case compels the denial of summary judgment for Defendant.

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant, respectfully requests that summary judgment be denied in his favor and against Plaintiff, Midland Funding L.L.C. and that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice.

Respectfully submitted this ____th day of February, 2014.

___________________________

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.