Jump to content

PLEASE HELP: Being sued by Dickinson Financial, LLC. +USBank+ I got a Summons Tucson, Arizona


CrashX
 Share

Recommended Posts

Im being sue by Dickinson Financial, LLC. For a Debt that was from USBank

 

After reading afew post from others users, I believed SOL applies. I stop paying the credit card Mid. 2008 and got charge off on Sep. 2008. IF THIS IS A CARD THAT I HAD The balance was around 3-6K I don't recall correctly. Even thought here in Arizona Credit Card is 6 years Now, after a new law got pass on Late 2011.

 

I need help, so what ever you could help me with I will be very grateful. 

 

Down Below I pasted the Lawsuit, I got till 29-30th to Response, Im not sure how to reply to this.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ARIZONAIN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIMADICKINSON FINANCIAL LLC,CaseNo.:Plaintiff,vs. COMPLAINTCRASH X,AND JANE DOEDefendant(s),____________________________________ __________________________Plaintiff, DICKINSON FINANCIAL LLC,for its complaint against Defendant(s), allege as follows:1.	Plaintiff is informed and thereon believes, at all times material hereto,Defendant(s) is/are residents of PIMA County. The amount in question exceeds$10,000. This honorable court has jurisdiction over the matters contained herein and thevenue is proper.2.	Defendant(s) CRASH X, AND JANE DOE, upon information and belief,are or were husband and wife at all times during the events giving rise to this action.Defendant(s), upon information and belief, at all times acted for the benefit of themarital community.3.	Prior to filing this action, Defendant(s) opened an account withUS BANK, agreeing to make payments forpurchases charged to the account, as required by the card agreement.4.	Plaintiff is the successor in interest of said account fromUS BANK, having purchased said account in theregular course of business in good faith and for value.5.	Defendant(s) did make purchases and charged the same to the account, butfailed to make the required payments necessary to the account.6.	The balance remaining due and unpaid at the time of filing this Complaint is$12137.65.7.	Plaintiff declared Defendant(s) to be in default and demands payment of thebalance due.WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, DICKINSON FINANCIAL LLC,respectfully requests this Court enter judgment against Defendants in the amount of$12137.65, plus court costs, plus interest to bear at the legal rate from the date ofjudgment. Plaintiff requests this court enter any and all further relief it deemsappropriate under the circumstances.DATED DEC8 2013Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ARIZONA.docx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're going to have a hard time with the 3-year vs. 6-year AZ SOL. There's no case law and if and when there ever is caselaw, it will probably find that the 2011 'amendment' was actually a clarification.

Make the argument anyway - you have nothing to lose.

Do you have the agreement from US Bank? If so, look fora choice of law provision and find out what that state's SOL laws are. If they are 4 years or less, argue that the SOL is expired under the laws binding on the contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, you said the balance in 2008 was ~$3000 and they are claiming it's $12,000 now. Notice they don't claim principal and interest separately. This is a case of unjust enrichment if there ever was one. Be sure to claim that as an affirmative defense when you draft your answer.

Did you ever dispute this debt before you were sued?

When were you served?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have the agreement from US Bank? If so, look fora choice of law provision and find out what that state's SOL laws are. If they are 4 years or less, argue that the SOL is expired under the laws binding on the contract.

 

I don't have it, as it most likely I apply for the Credit Card online, probably through their site. Don't recall.

 

 

 

 

Also, you said the balance in 2008 was ~$3000 and they are claiming it's $12,000 now. Notice they don't claim principal and interest separately. This is a case of unjust enrichment if there ever was one. Be sure to claim that as an affirmative defense when you draft your answer.

Did you ever dispute this debt before you were sued?

When were you served?

 

I never received a notice of the debt after it got charge off, maybe a few calls months afterword, but that was about it.

 

I got served on 01-10-2014 .

 

Thanks for you replies... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to file an answer. I would deny everything but your name and, if you're not married, deny that to. If you are married, did you open this account after you were married? If so, did your wife use it or did you purchase anything the two of you used together (food, furniture, etc)? If so, she has to sign the answer as a co-defendant.

For affirmative defenses, I would use statue of limitation, lack of standing, unjust enrichment and failure to state a claim. There is some debate over filling a motion to dismiss instead of an answer. The problem you have to disprove their claims with evidence and doing this without admitting the debt is yours gets tricky when they don't attach any evidence to the complaint. I think in your case I'd just file an answer and move forward from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to file an answer. I would deny everything but your name and, if you're not married, deny that to. If you are married, did you open this account after you were married? If so, did your wife use it or did you purchase anything the two of you used together (food, furniture, etc)? If so, she has to sign the answer as a co-defendant.

For affirmative defenses, I would use statue of limitation, lack of standing, unjust enrichment and failure to state a claim. There is some debate over filling a motion to dismiss instead of an answer. The problem you have to disprove their claims with evidence and doing this without admitting the debt is yours gets tricky when they don't attach any evidence to the complaint. I think in your case I'd just file an answer and move forward from there.

 

 

I have never been married, so that its a complete Deny

 

I the summon, I did received an Affidavit, pretty much stating that they saw my name in a computer and that I owed that debt.

 

I'm writing my response, once i get done, ill posted here,

 

once again thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Post their affidavit, if you can (remove personal info). They are usually full of holes.

 

 

Here it is, Nothing got change beside my personal name. Everything else is the same.

 

 

 

 

AFFIDAVIT

STATE OF ILLINOIS )

SS:

COUNTY OF DUPAGE )

After first being sworn, upon oath, Neal Quiriconi deposes and states as follows:

1. That I am an agent and duly authorized representative of Dickinson Financial, LLC as the legal

outsourcing clerk and, as such, I am the document custodian within Dickinson Financial, LLC operations.

2. That the statements made in this affidavit are based on my personal knowledge of the computerized and hard copy records of Dickinson Financial, LLC and which at all times relevant hereto are maintained in the ordinary course of business, with the entries being made at or near the time the transactions were made.

3. That Samuel Bachu opened account number XXXXXXXXXXXXI5I6 with US Bank on 08/01/2006. The account became delinquent and was charged off on 11/19/2008. The date of the last payment was 11/28/2008.

4. Defendant owes to Dickinson Financial, LLC, the assignee of US Bank, the amount of$ 12,137.65.

5. The Defendant has received from the Plaintiff all offsets and credits to which it was justly due and entitled.

6. To the best of my knowledge, the Defendant, is neither incompetent nor currently serving in the military service of the United States.

7. Demand has been made upon Defendant, but payment has not been received.

The undersigned affirms that this affidavit does not contain personal identifying information.

AFFL4NT FURTHER SAITH NAUGHT.

Dated: November 20, 2013

Affiant /

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

SWORN AND SUBSCRIBED to before me on the 20th day of November, 2013.

GEORGIA ANN LYCOU

OFFICIAL SEAL

Nctwy Public - State of lit mole -

MY Ces a Public

 

 

Thanks...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last payment was more than than 3 years before the new law took place, so I would definately use SOL. I thing despite what Harry says , I would first file a motion to dismiss. That gives you anothe 20 days to get in your answer.  Christine won on SOL by being her last pmt being more than 3 years before the new law. Go to members and put in her name and you can read her thread.

 

Also , it gives the plaintiff a thought that you are going to fight this. nder 10,000 i in justicecourt. Over in Superior court.  Where are you being  sued from???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last payment was more than than 3 years before the new law took place, so I would definately use SOL. I thing despite what Harry says , I would first file a motion to dismiss. That gives you anothe 20 days to get in your answer.  Christine won on SOL by being her last pmt being more than 3 years before the new law. Go to members and put in her name and you can read her thread.

 

Also , it gives the plaintiff a thought that you are going to fight this. nder 10,000 i in justicecourt. Over in Superior court.  Where are you being  sued from???

 

 

This the law firm, Im being sue by on behalf of Dickinson Financials, LLC.

 

 

Stanley A Buzzelle II SBN 028134

Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC
2702 N. 3rd Street, Suite 2010
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Telephone: (480) 968-6088
Fax: (602) 277-5377
DLArizonaAttorneys@bhlmlaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiff

 

Im located in Tucson Arizona, how should I go by filling a motion to dismiss?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last payment was more than than 3 years before the new law took place, so I would definately use SOL. I thing despite what Harry says , I would first file a motion to dismiss. That gives you anothe 20 days to get in your answer.  Christine won on SOL by being her last pmt being more than 3 years before the new law. Go to members and put in her name and you can read her thread.

 

Also , it gives the plaintiff a thought that you are going to fight this. nder 10,000 i in justicecourt. Over in Superior court.  Where are you being  sued from???

Here is some of the background discussion on the AZ SOL http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/307298-az-sol-for-cr-cards-will-be-six-years-governor-signed-the-bill-hb-2412/

 

I did not recall that Christine had won on SOL. Which does not mean that she did not. I don't believe it would have been case law from the CoA. Perhaps she won on 3 year SOL in Superior Court IDK.

 

Her appeal memorandum decision is here:ACARTA, LLC v. Baker, No. 1 CA-CV 12-0344 (Ariz. Ct. App. May 2, 2013).

 

As for the court the OP is in: post #1

"IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIMA"

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok so plaintiff has put on the record when the last payment was. That's a good thing for you because it definitively establishes their cause of action as that date. You need to find out what state US Bank uses on their choice of law. If it's under 4 years, hit them with a motion to dismiss based in that states SOL and, in the alternate, argue that a 3-year AZ SOL was in effect at the time their cause of action arose. If the other state's SOL is the same or longer than AZ, I wouldn't bother with a motion to dismiss. Just file an answer now and bring up the AZ SOL in a motion for summary judgment or response to their MSJ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok so plaintiff has put on the record when the last payment was. That's a good thing for you because it definitively establishes their cause of action as that date. You need to find out what state US Bank uses on their choice of law. If it's under 4 years, hit them with a motion to dismiss based in that states SOL and, in the alternate, argue that a 3-year AZ SOL was in effect at the time their cause of action arose. If the other state's SOL is the same or longer than AZ, I wouldn't bother with a motion to dismiss. Just file an answer now and bring up the AZ SOL in a motion for summary judgment or response to their MSJ.

I like affirmative defenses/ADs and would want to put them in with any answer I would typically file.

 

Statute of Limitations would be one that seems to be obvious in this case. I would like to have a handful of ADs in my pleading that I believed might apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is some of the background discussion on the AZ SOL http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/307298-az-sol-for-cr-cards-will-be-six-years-governor-signed-the-bill-hb-2412/

I did not recall that Christine had won on SOL. Which does not mean that she did not. I don't believe it would have been case law from the CoA. Perhaps she won on 3 year SOL in Superior Court IDK.

Her appeal memorandum decision is here:ACARTA, LLC v. Baker, No. 1 CA-CV 12-0344 (Ariz. Ct. App. May 2, 2013).

As for the court the OP is in: post #1

"IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIMA"

Here is how I remember Christene's case.

She lost in trial court (MSJ or trial) and appealed. In her appeal, she included AMONG OTHER THINGS, the 3-year AZ SOL. The judge reversed the lower courts ruling on only one of her other points and therefore never ruled on the 3-year AZ SOL issue. The whole "3 years before the change in law" is a myth, and I and everyone else I've seen try to use it here has lost. It's still not been appealed yet so there is NO DEFINITIVE RULING on the matter.

Now, I'm going to reread her case again and see if I missed anything. I'll post back if I did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok so plaintiff has put on the record when the last payment was. That's a good thing for you because it definitively establishes their cause of action as that date. You need to find out what state US Bank uses on their choice of law. If it's under 4 years, hit them with a motion to dismiss based in that states SOL and, in the alternate, argue that a 3-year AZ SOL was in effect at the time their cause of action arose. If the other state's SOL is the same or longer than AZ, I wouldn't bother with a motion to dismiss. Just file an answer now and bring up the AZ SOL in a motion for summary judgment or response to their MSJ.

 

Will look it up which State they use.

 

This is my replied so far, let me know how im doing.

 

Thanks for you replies.

 

 

 

I am the defendant NAME CHANGE and I hereby answer plaintiff Dickinson Financial LLC, complaint:

            1.         ADMIT in part, that defendant is currently a resident of PIMA County.  DENIES in part, that defendant has been presented with ZERO evidence regarding the debt alleged in this complaint; therefore this request calls for admission of matter defendant has denied and thus it is improper.

            2.         DENIES. Defendant is NOT currently or has ever been married.

            3.         ADMIT in part, that defendant was a “member” and/or “client” of US Bank.  DENIES in part, that defendant objects to this request on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible in that defendant have to speculate as to the meaning of “… an account …" and “… the card agreement …”, therefore this request calls for admission of matter defendant has denied and thus it is improper.

            4.         DENIES. Defendant has insufficient knowledge or information to know the truth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 4 and therefore deny them(s). However, US Bank generally does NOT charge any interest or any other fee after an account has been charged off, closed, or gone into default.

 

            5.         DENIES. This request calls for admission of matter defendant has denied and thus it is improper.

            6.         DENIES. Defendant has been presented with ZERO evidence regarding the debt alleged in this complaint; therefore this request calls for admission of matter defendant has denied and thus it is improper.

            7.         DENIES. This request calls for admission of matter defendant has denied and thus it is improper.

FUTHERMORE, Defendant DENIES every other allegation not previously admitted, denied or controverted.s

 

The scratch section, something that Im thinking i could through in their.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok so I was a little off. First she said this (which is exactly what I said):

The real issue is whether a credit card is an "open" account with the 3 year SOL or 6 years for "written agreement." Unfortunately, the appeals court IGNORED this entire issue when it ruled on my Acarta appeal and remanded for other reasons. In the Midland case, the attorneys didn't respond to my cross motion for summary judgment and the judge HAD to rule in my favor as I had attached 2 superior court rulings (appeals from justice court) that were in my favor.

And then a couple posts later said this:

I forgot to mention that the new legislation with the 6 year SOL became effective on 7/20/11, so that's when the SOL had to be expired.

There is no explanation for why she believed "that's when the SOL had to be expired". She doesn't say the judge said that or that she introduced any caselaw to this effect. I think she interpreted it this way based on a series of events. It makes sense, but there is NOTHING anywhere official establishing this is fact.

So to @hot in az I apologize for saying you misunderstood what she said. I still believe the '3-years before SOL' thing is a myth and I believe, mostly based on what she said about the appeals court "ignoring" the SOL issue, Christine misunderstood the events that transpired in a completely separate case to mean the SOL had to have been expired when the law changed.

Edit: here is the thread where this discussion took place:

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/320695-suing-bursey-associates-for-filing-suit-on-midland-account-with-expired-sol/#entry1249824

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have finished my answer, will really appreciated it so you could let me know how it looks.

 

Thanks, for the replies.

 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIMA

 

 

DICKINSON FINANCIAL LLC,

Plaintiff, and Counter Claim Defendant                      Case No. C2013xxxx

vs.                                                                        ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES,

CRASH X                                                                    AND COUNTERCLAIMS

Defendant,                                                       JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

 

 

I. ANSWER

 

I am the defendant CRASH X and I hereby answer plaintiff Dickinson Financial LLC, complaint:

            1.         ADMIT in part, that defendant is currently a resident of PIMA County.  DENIES in part,

that defendant has been presented with ZERO evidence regarding the debt alleged in this complaint;

therefore this request calls for admission of matter defendant has denied and thus it is improper.

            2.         DENIES. Defendant is NOT currently or has ever been married.

            3.         ADMIT in part, that defendant was a “member” and/or “client” of US Bank.  DENIES in

part, that defendant objects to this request on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible in

that defendant have to speculate as to the meaning of “… an account …" and “… the card agreement …”,

therefore this request calls for admission of matter defendant has denied and thus it is improper.

            4.         DENIES. Defendant has insufficient knowledge or information to know the truth or falsi-

ty of the allegations in Paragraph 4 and therefore deny them(s).

            5.         DENIES. This request calls for admission of matter defendant has denied and thus it is

improper.

            6.         DENIES. Defendant has been presented with ZERO evidence regarding the debt alleged

in this complaint; therefore this request calls for admission of matter defendant has denied and thus it is

improper.

            7.         DENIES. This request calls for admission of matter defendant has denied and thus it is

improper.

 

FUTHERMORE, Defendant DENIES every other allegation not previously admitted, denied or

controverted.

 

II. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

 

1.         Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action against the defendant.

2.         Plaintiff, as the defendant is informed and believes, lacks the legal standing to bring and

maintain this action.

3.         The action is barred by the Statute of Frauds.

4.         The action is barred by the Statute of Limitations.

5.         The court would unjustly enrich the plaintiff by granting the relief sought herein.

6.         The action is barred in whole or in part by the Unclean Hands doctrine.

7.         The plaintiff action is barred in whole by A.R.S. §§32-1001 et seq, A.R.S. §§32-1022,

A.R.S. §§32-1024, and A.R.S. §§32-1055.

            8.         The action is barred by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 15 U.S.C. §§1692 et seq.

9.         The plaintiff action is barred by A.R.S. §§32-1056 et seq, in which its collection activities

are deem illegal, furthermore the plaintiff actions are consider a “class 1 misdemeanor” by A.R.S. §§32-

1056.

10.       Defendant specifically reserve and reassert the right to plead other defenses as discovery

proceeds.

11.       The plaintiff has not proven the debt is valid or the amount of the debt is accurate. The

plaintiff must prove that the principal, interest, collection costs, and attorney’s fees are all correct, agreed

to in your contract, ownership of any related debt, and lawfully charged. Defendant also insists that the

plaintiff come up with the contract, account statements, account balance before account closure, purchase

receipts to prove the amount of the debt, provide plaintiff Registration in the state of Arizona, provide

plaintiff License(s) in the state of Arizona, and provide plaintiff Bond as required by Arizona Law.

 

WHEREFORE, Defendant CRASH X respectfully request this Court enter a judgment:

a. dismissing the complaint herein with prejudice.

 

III. COUNTERCLAIMS

 

Jury Trial Demanded

1.         Plaintiff and counterclaim defendant DICKINSON FINANCIAL LLC is a debt buyer

subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 15 U.S.C. §§1692 et seq. (hereafter “FDCPA”).

2.         Dickinson Financial LLC, is not Registered with the Arizona Department of Financial In-

stitutions as required by A.R.S. §§32-1001 et seq. and its Arizona collection activities therefore violate

FDCPA § 1692e(1).

            3.         Dickinson Financial LLC, is not License with the Arizona Department of Financial Insti-

tutions as required by A.R.S. §§32-1024. and its Arizona collection activities therefore violate

FDCPA § 1692e(1).

            4.         Dickinson Financial LLC, is not Bonded as required by A.R.S. §§32-1022. and its

Arizona collection activities therefore violate FDCPA § 1692e(1).

            5.         Dickinson Financial LLC, is in violation of A.R.S. §§32-1055 et seq. in which and its

Arizona collection activities therefore violate FDCPA § 1692e(1).

6.         Dickinson Financial LLC, by its actions is conducting “Illicit Activities” in which its Ari-

zona collection activities violate A.R.S. §§32-1056 and are classified as a “…class 1 misdemeanor…”

7.         Dickinson Financial LLC, has stated in its complaint the following; “… The amount in

question exceeds $10,000. …”, which is false and misleading statements therefore violate FDCPA §

1692e(2) and § 1692e(10).

8.         Dickinson Financial LLC, has stated in its complaint the following; “…in the amount of

$12137.65…”, which is false and misleading statements therefore violate FDCPA § 1692e(2)

and § 1692e(10).

9.         Dickinson Financial LLC, willfully violated the Arizona State law and Arizona Revised

Statutes on numerous occasions and defendant and counterclaim Plaintiff CRASH X is entitled to

recover actual and statutory damages.

10.       Dickinson Financial LLC, engaged in unfair practices therefore violates FDCPA §

1692f(1).

11.       Dickinson Financial LLC, willfully violated the FDCPA on numerous occasions and de-

fendant and counterclaim Plaintiff CRASH X is entitled to recover actual and statutory dam-

agees, costs, attorney, and court’s fees pursuant to FDCPA § 1692k.

12.       Defendant and counterclaim Plaintiff CRASH X request a Jury Trial on all is-

sues so triable.

           

WHEREFORE, Defendant and counterclaim Plaintiff CRASH X,

respectfully request this Court enter a judgment against plaintiff and counterclaim defendant DICKIN-

SON FINANCIAL LLC, in the amount of $9000.00, plus court costs. Defendant and counterclaim Plain-

tiff CRASH X request this court to enter any and all further relief it deems appropriate under

the circumstances.

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted on:  January 29, 2014.

CRASH X

____________________________________

Defendant Pro Se

Counterclaim Plantiff Pro Se

 

Copy mailed on January 29, 2014 to:

 

Stanley A Buzzelle II SBN 028134

Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC

2702 N. 3rd Street, Suite 2010

Phoenix, AZ 85004

 

____________________________________

CRASH X

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quick scan of the defendant's response brings a few thoughts to mind.

Wondering  if a complaint has been filed with the Arizona Department of Financial Institutions.

I recommend CMRRR if doing so since they routinely ignore my non-CMRRR filed complaints.

 

I would search the statute to see if their are any statutory private right of action that can be pursued against the non-licensed CA.

 

I would look for some case law on similar issues with a non-licensed CA.

 

Here is a case that might be worth a read:

The lodged Amended Complaint also includes a claim for a violation of Arizona Collection Agency Statutes. However, while an unlicensed collection agency may be guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor, see A.R.S. § 32-1056, the Sparlins have not pointed to any authority for a private cause of action against an unlicensed collection agency acting in Arizona or for an unlicensed collection agency violating the duty to act fairly and honestly with debtors. See generally, W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 36 at 226 (5th ed. 1984) (licensing statutes create no liability if the actor is competent but unlicensed).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quick scan of the defendant's response brings a few thoughts to mind.

Wondering  if a complaint has been filed with the Arizona Department of Financial Institutions.

I recommend CMRRR if doing so since they routinely ignore my non-CMRRR filed complaints.

 

I would search the statute to see if their are any statutory private right of action that can be pursued against the non-licensed CA.

 

I would look for some case law on similar issues with a non-licensed CA.

 

Here is a case that might be worth a read:

The lodged Amended Complaint also includes a claim for a violation of Arizona Collection Agency Statutes. However, while an unlicensed collection agency may be guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor, see A.R.S. § 32-1056, the Sparlins have not pointed to any authority for a private cause of action against an unlicensed collection agency acting in Arizona or for an unlicensed collection agency violating the duty to act fairly and honestly with debtors. See generally, W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 36 at 226 (5th ed. 1984) (licensing statutes create no liability if the actor is competent but unlicensed).

 

 

Whats does CMRRR? Please reply, thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last night when i was reading Arizona Revised Statutes, regarding Collections Agency, a person cant receive a profit from it. But I think I could through Federal Law.

 

I cited 9 violation of FDCPA, so I figured I could do 1000x9, as its states I could be no more than 1000.00, but fail to mention if its per violation or per case.

 

please reply

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whats does CMRRR? Please reply, thanks

The United States Postal Service Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested

 

Last night when i was reading Arizona Revised Statutes, regarding Collections Agency, a person cant receive a profit from it. But I think I could through Federal Law.

 

I cited 9 violation of FDCPA, so I figured I could do 1000x9, as its states I could be no more than 1000.00, but fail to mention if its per violation or per case.

 

please reply

I believe the case law indicates it is limited to 1k per action/case.

 

Interesting thread on the issue by a FL attorney here: http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/322276-new-fl-attorney-going-against-asset-acceptance-for-first-time/

Addressing the 1k FDCPA limit on that thread: #39 and #40. And the consumer attorney's result: #45.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The United States Postal Service Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested

 

I believe the case law indicates it is limited to 1k per action/case.

 

Interesting thread on the issue by a FL attorney here: http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/322276-new-fl-attorney-going-against-asset-acceptance-for-first-time/

Addressing the 1k FDCPA limit on that thread: #39 and #40. And the consumer attorney's result: #45.

 

 

Thanks for the reply, I read the FL case, and your right. But he also stated he wanted to keep high to reach a settlement.

 

Do you think that's what I could do?, or should i reduce it to 1k+court cost as the law states?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another case of interest:
 

An Arizona financial institution that collects its own debt is not required to hold a collection agency license. If the purchase of the debt is complete at the time of the purchase transaction, and not made over time or in installments, or based upon a contingency-type transaction, the institution is not required to hold such a license. See A.R.S. § 32-1001(1). RJM's purchase of a portfolio of bank debt was completed at the time of the transfer of the data in December, 2006, and it was not required to possess a license. In any event, there is no private right of action for the failure to acquire such a license. Therefore, RJM is entitled to summary judgment on Grismore's FDCPA claim.

 

...

Plaintiff, DICKINSON FINANCIAL LLC, for its complaint against Defendant(s), allege as follows: ...

4. Plaintiff is the successor in interest of said account from US BANK, having purchased said account in the regular course of business in good faith and for value.

...

If the plaintiff actually paid their typical 5% or ~$600 for the alleged debt they might not fall under the Arizona statutes requiring licensing of a collection agency.

 

I am unclear how they could have "purchased said account in the regular course of business in good faith and for value." an account alleged to be in default. Hopefully some poster can illuminate that better than I can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In your answer, I would deny #3 because it calls for speculation on "member" and "client" as well as the other terms you mentioned.

CMRRR is certified mail, return receipt requested. I never bother with return receipt. You get a signature and a name of the person that signed for it with certified mail which is plenty of evidence when trying to prove someone received something.

I cited 9 violation of FDCPA, so I figured I could do 1000x9, as its states I could be no more than 1000.00, but fail to mention if its per violation or per case.

 

please reply

Considering one of your claims is that they are trying to collect amounts they are not legally entitled to, I think you will lose credibility if you ask for 9× the amount YOU are entitled to. I think $2k would be reasonable considering you had to appear and defend an unjust case against you. Any more than that and I think it looks like you're playing the lottery.

Link to comment
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.

 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.