Jump to content

So, what relationship, if any do JDBs have with the OC? / Discovery question


Recommended Posts

Hi everyone!

Hope you all are having a swell weekend.

I wanted to throw a question out there, as something has been on my mind lately as I am approaching the discovery phase in my case. I hate to start a new thread, but I wanted to keep the thread concerning my case strictly fact based instead of hypothetical discussion and other what-ifs.

I was interested in knowing what, if any, relationship does the JDB have with the OC post sale of a charged-off debt? I guess what made me pose this question is the fact that based on the research I've done concerning discovery, it seems like JDBs and their respective attorneys take a long time to respond requests for admissions and requests for production of documents. When I research prior cases, I see many times the JDB will ask the courts for an extension to answer. Why is this the case? I mean, either the JDB has evidence or they don't right? Based on case load, it should take no more than a few weeks for a JDB to tell their attorney "Oh, so and so requested to see a signed contract did they? Well, we've got the file right here and we will e-mail you just what they want to see. We'll show them!"

So I wonder, when it comes to discovery involving junk debt cases, are JDBs simply stuck with whatever "evidence" they happened to purchase, or can they go back for more say 3-4 years after the sale? I don't know how long an OC would keep original documents on an account that has already been sold, but do JDBs have dialogue with the OCs after the fact and offer to purchase additional evidence if it'll help their case?

I'm interested in reading your responses, so I can have a better idea how discovery works when the person that is suing you didn't originally facilitate anything with an original account. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is difficult to be specifc, but often a JDB buys only a list of names, amounts, and maybe account numbers.  This is certainly true if the debt has been resold.  So, generally, when someone being sued by a JDB stands up and says "prove it", the JDB may have trouble coming up with the evidence.

 

It is also true that many OC's computer systems transfer "non performing" accounts (i.e., "write offs") into archival storage.  If this happens, the JDB may actually have to pay the OC extra to go find the data.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi everyone!

 

Hope you all are having a swell weekend.

 

I wanted to throw a question out there, as something has been on my mind lately as I am approaching the discovery phase in my case. I hate to start a new thread, but I wanted to keep the thread concerning my case strictly fact based instead of hypothetical discussion and other what-ifs.

 

I was interested in knowing what, if any, relationship does the JDB have with the OC post sale of a charged-off debt? I guess what made me pose this question is the fact that based on the research I've done concerning discovery, it seems like JDBs and their respective attorneys take a long time to respond requests for admissions and requests for production of documents. When I research prior cases, I see many times the JDB will ask the courts for an extension to answer. Why is this the case? I mean, either the JDB has evidence or they don't right? Based on case load, it shouldn't take no more than a few weeks for a JDB to tell their attorney "Oh, so and so requested to see a signed contract did they? Well, we've got the file right here and we will e-mail you just what they want to see. We'll show them!"

 

So I wonder, when it comes to discovery involving junk debt cases, are JDBs simply stuck with whatever "evidence" they happened to purchase, or can they go back for more say 3-4 years after the sale? I don't know how long an OC would keep original documents on an account that has already been sold, but do JDBs have dialogue with the OCs after the fact and offer to purchase additional evidence if it'll help their case?

 

I'm interested in reading your responses, so I can have a better idea how discovery works when the person that is suing you didn't originally facilitate anything with an original account. Thanks!

 

 

Here is some actual discovery from Ohiolawsuit

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/318520-second-opinion-on-my-discovery-responses/

 

and from an another OH debtor

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/312940-sued-by-midland-funding-in-ohio/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer depends upon the terms of the forward flow agreements under which the JDP purchases the accounts from the OC.  Most agreements permit the JDB to obtain additional information--but at a price ( the report notes $5 to $10 per document but I have seen as much as $25 per document).

 

Here is an FTC report on debt purchasing:  http://www.ftc.gov/os/2013/01/debtbuyingreport.pdf

 

 

Two things are important about this report.  First, the FTC notes that most agreements provide that accounts are sold "as is" without any representation as to the accuracy of the information provided (see page 24).  That is a pretty amazing revelation when the debt buyer files an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, pretending to have first hand knowledge that the account is yours and attaches "true and correct" documents evidencing same. 

 

Second, the report notes that agreements typically provide a right to request document for a certain period of time--at a cost!  How does this square with a JDB's claim that it does not have documents you are requesting in discovery?  It doesn't.  And it is inaccurate.  It has the ability to obtain them---it just doesn't want to pay.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is why I keep saying FRAUD to the posters.

 

They claim they have intimate knowledge and they know they do not,

 

I have three jdb cases right now and they all submitted those phony affidavits, I am filing in my counterclaim that the affiant commited fraud, and they attorney who submitted them is guilty of lack of candor becuse it is against our attorney canons to present fraudulent documents.

 

Disciplinary rules
DR 1-102 Misconduct
A) A lawyer shall not:
1) Violate a disciplinary rule
2) Circumvent a disciplinary rules through actions of another
3) Engage in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude
4) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentations
5) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice  
6) Engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law

 

So why do we keep etting them get by with this? From now on I will be filing lack of candor before a tribunal when these jdb lawyers presnt thie ficticious, fabricated documents to the courts, knowing good and well they are fraudulent. Any attorney can read an affidavit and determine if the affiant lied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep it comes down to the bottom money line. They may be able to get some documents, but they have to pay for each one. The oc's are done with your account when they sold it. Imagine if you will how much time it would take the oc to pull files from over 2000 account, and bundle it when they sell it. They probably could, but it would raise the cost the JDB has to pay for those accounts. Since most are won on default anyway, the few that don't, they figure it might be worth requesting as you go so to say.

If your account is worth over 5 k, they are more apt to pay. If your account is worth 800.00, they may fudge thru it, if the see their on the losing battle, and paying for the info isn't worth it, they will dismiss and resell.

They want the most profit for least amount spent. When you get 2 and 3 jdb's involved, it gets even harder to aquire those docs. I think some judges are so JDB friendly is because they bring a lot of revenue to the courts. Imagine if they couldn't collect on most, the jdb's would quit filing. (Not such a bad thing lol) that is why it is important to learn your rules, and don't let things slip by.

Personally I think the JDB should be accountable to provide everything. If it were that important to the economy, the OC would be the ones suing and not selling. If you want to hold people accountable for their spending habits, then it should be done by the company it is owed to, otherwise write it off. Jdb's shouldn't be able to profit so much for their pennies. Here's a novel idea...if your the oc, and don't want to sue, sell it to the consumer who owes you. Yea yea yea I know, that would encourage people to live it up, then default. Ok, well maybe to only those that have had their account for over 5 years, and have told you about what ever hardship has caused the default....sell to those people? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! Great stuff here guys. I'm reading everything you have provided and am starting to catch-on to what actually transpires between an original creditor and a debt buyer. Concerning the FTC article, I'm about 1/3 of the way through that, but needed a small break. The information up to that point has really been eye-opening! I know we all assume that JDBs purchase debt portfolios for pennies on the dollar, but to actually read a legitimate study that found an average bid of 4 cents on the dollar for these debts really puts into perspective how sleazy the debt buying industry is. Also, it's remarkable to find that after a JDB purchases debt portfolios, they are still at the mercy of the OC, at least when it comes to litigation that they won't win on default judgments. JDBs still have to sliver their way back to the OC for supporting documents, may have to sit and wait for 60 days to get them, and may have to pay for them, and may have reached their limit of documents obtained. I LOVE IT!

On a side note, does anyone think providing these articles or studies to a judge so they can take judicial notice of the information within is a possible thing to do? Maybe at least to highlight certain segments that are most relevant to my case.

@BTO429 Love the passion man. Thanks for standing up to these thugs in ways that not every consumer can. I'm in agreement with you that the attorneys that represent these clients are equally as culpable and scummy as their clients. It's my object in court to not only win my case, but to really make the plaintiff AND their attorney look like jackasses.

 

@shellieh98 Awesome idea! Say a consumer knows their account is about to be charged-off, why not call the OC and tell them you will pay them 16 cents on the dollar, which is 4x as much as they would get from Midland. Hahahaha! It's a win-win deal for everyone!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I am a retired Marine and had the fortunate ability to be part of a Military project that dated from Vietnam, Blue Book, where the high ranking officers smelled a rat in the wood pile. They took some of their top soldiers off the line and started teaching them the constitution and how to apply it. They still teach it to a certain extent, but you have to know where it is available. I have had the opportunity to go to some of the seminars where those very same vets that learned from project blue book, passed on that knowledge.

 

I have found that when it comes to the constitution, most prosecutors will turn tail and run. I have not had a drivers license for almost twenty years but they know me around here and they leave me alone, they know how far I will push the constitution over bills of attainder(traffic violations) Article I, section 9, clause 3.

 

i am considering not having an attorney license, why? because i do not want my first duty to be to the court. As per the U.S. Supreme court it is a common law right to practice law. Yes common law still exists, and the UCC recognizes it, but you have to know how to put the court in a situation where they have to judge by common law and not maritime(UCC) law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a side note, does anyone think providing these articles or studies to a judge so they can take judicial notice of the information within is a possible thing to do? Maybe at least to highlight certain segments that are most relevant to my case.

 

  I think it would sure help you get a copy of the forward flow agreement if you had to file a motion to compel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.americanbanker.com/issues/177_62/bofa-credit-cards-collections-debts-faulty-records-1047992-1.html?zkPrintable=1&nopagination=1

 

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/329732-chase-palisades.html

On page 26 of 2008 Chase to Palisades Credit Card Purchase Agreement (aka Forward Flow Agreement):

"Purchaser's Duty to Keep Information Confidential

From and after the execution of this Agreement, Purchaser shall keep confidential,and shall cause its officers, directors, employees and agents to keep confidential the terms of this Agreement and all information related to the Charged-Off Accounts sold hereunder (other than as may be necessary to disclose in order to collect on those Charged-Off Accounts or to report Charged-Off Account experience to credit bureaus) and, any and all information obtained from Seller concerning the assets, properties, and business of Seller, and shall not use such Confidential Information for any purpose other than those contemplated by this Agreement, provided, however, the Purchaser shall not be subject to the obligations set forth in the proceeding clause with respect to any such information provided to it by Seller which either (i) was in Purchaser's possession at the time of Seller's disclosure, (ii) is lawfully obtained by Purchaser from a third party, or (iii) is or becomes a matter of public knowledge, (iv) is required to be disclosed to any governmental authority, court or regulatory agency. Purchaser agrees that Seller would suffer irreparable harm and that damages caused by a breach of this Section 26 would be impossible to calculate and would, therefore, be an inadequate remedy. Accordingly, the Purchaser agrees that Seller shall be entitled to temporary and permanent injunctive relief against the Purchaser and/or its agents for any threatened or actual breach hereof. In the event Seller initiates any action to enforce the obligation of the Purchaser or its agents hereunder, the Purchaser agrees to reimburse Seller for all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by Seller in this regard. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to limit Purchaser's obligation under any provisions of any confidentiality agreement entered into between Purchaser and Seller."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I think the JDB should be accountable to provide everything. If it were that important to the economy, the OC would be the ones suing and not selling. If you want to hold people accountable for their spending habits, then it should be done by the company it is owed to, otherwise write it off. Jdb's shouldn't be able to profit so much for their pennies. Here's a novel idea...if your the oc, and don't want to sue, sell it to the consumer who owes you. Yea yea yea I know, that would encourage people to live it up, then default. Ok, well maybe to only those that have had their account for over 5 years, and have told you about what ever hardship has caused the default....sell to those people? :-)

 

Liking this idea, it's pitfalls are obvious, but it makes sense to me.  Would probably never happen though, too many OC's would get reputations as either hard-liners or marshmallows and it would effect their own credit worthiness to investors and clients.  As a consumer I would definitely look for a lender who had a track history of ultimately selling the debt back to me in the future at a discount comparable to JDB's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted to pose another question regarding discovery, especially as it pertains to request for admissions and interrogatories. I want to catch the JDB and attorney off guard and ask them questions about evidence I haven't seen yet, but know they likely have in their possession. Certain questions might spearhead their entire case and force them to withdraw...

 

For example. Can I ask the Plaintiff to admit to signing a forward flow agreement that specficially states (Whatever the language is concerning no warranties of the accuracy of the account info or collectibilty, etc...) I'll have to find the exact wording as there are several samples of the Bill of Sale from the OC that can be found on the internet.

 

If the plaintiff admits to a question like this it could be a dagger to their heart. If they deny it, and take an oath doing so, they can't possibly be dumb enough to then submit the Bill of Sale into evidence so that I can rip them to shreads with it at trial.

 

Do you guys kind of get where I am going with this? I want to ask very specific questions which will either make them look horrible if they admit to, or be forced to withhold certain evidence if they deny my questioning. Of course, I don't want to play around too much and make it appear that I acknowledge that their collection efforts are valid in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@shellieh98 Awesome idea! Say a consumer knows their account is about to be charged-off, why not call the OC and tell them you will pay them 16 cents on the dollar, which is 4x as much as they would get from Midland. Hahahaha! It's a win-win deal for everyone!

 

Then they issue you a 1099C for the rest and you pay taxes on it. No thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted to pose another question regarding discovery, especially as it pertains to request for admissions and interrogatories. I want to catch the JDB and attorney off guard and ask them questions about evidence I haven't seen yet, but know they likely have in their possession. Certain questions might spearhead their entire case and force them to withdraw...

 

For example. Can I ask the Plaintiff to admit to signing a forward flow agreement that specficially states (Whatever the language is concerning no warranties of the accuracy of the account info or collectibilty, etc...) I'll have to find the exact wording as there are several samples of the Bill of Sale from the OC that can be found on the internet.

 

If the plaintiff admits to a question like this it could be a dagger to their heart. If they deny it, and take an oath doing so, they can't possibly be dumb enough to then submit the Bill of Sale into evidence so that I can rip them to shreads with it at trial.

 

Do you guys kind of get where I am going with this? I want to ask very specific questions which will either make them look horrible if they admit to, or be forced to withhold certain evidence if they deny my questioning. Of course, I don't want to play around too much and make it appear that I acknowledge that their collection efforts are valid in the first place.

I have asked this question in 2 parts:

 

1) Per the Purchase Agreement between OC and JDB, ADMIT the OC made no warranties or guarantees as to the accuracy of the information allegedly sold the the Plaintiff?

 

2) Per the Purchase Agreement between OC and JDB, ADMIT the OC made no guarantees as to the collectibility of the alleged amount the Plaintiff is claiming is due and owing?

 

The attorney will object to both of these admissions, but when you hit them with a meet and confer and challenge them on their answer you will force them to answer. They will break down and say they do not have the document or the document has been requested by their client. (which is a bunch of BS).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a couple of different approaches here, but it does seem that these types of questions are allowed, and legimiate. @bmc100 when you used this line of questioning, what were the results for you? Did the JDB in fact say they were trying to "get" the document and then just never provide it? Did they dismiss?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Michigan and in a perfect court room, a JDB would have to produce the purchase agreement in order to prove standing given recent case law. Some judges do not follow the law. 

 

You still want to challenge the JDB attorney and push them into a corner during discovery. Yes, you can use their ROGS and Admissions against them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Debtinate

 

 

So a couple of different approaches here, but it does seem that these types of questions are allowed, and legimiate. @bmc100 when you used this line of questioning, what were the results for you? Did the JDB in fact say they were trying to "get" the document and then just never provide it? Did they dismiss?

 

If you request a document, then they object but state that they're trying to get or have requested it but then never provide it, I would address their objection, then point out that they were allegedly a party to that alleged agreement. 

 

Since they claim to be a party to the agreement, they should have a copy of it in their possession.   They should not have to request, nor should it be difficult to obtain, a copy of a document that should already be in their possession.

  • Like 1
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.