Jump to content

Bad News


Recommended Posts

Well, it's obvious based on my personal experience that some JDBers are getting better when it comes to legally tightening up their act. I made some comments about a current case against me from a JDB where the only thing  included in the complaint was an untimely affidavit from their own employee. Confident things would go well I was (silently in my mind) bowled over last week at  pre-trial. The attorney for the JDB not only had 30 pages of statements from the OC filled with accurate transactions, but more important had a specific bill of sale for my account from the OC and a separate affidavit of this transaction referencing normal business records. There is no way in a debt collection case a pro-se defendant is going to successfully nitpick tiny, insignificant details in the face of this overwhelming evidence and win. Simply put, my goose is cooked and I'm working out a settlement arrangement as we speak as the discovery process proceeds and the threat of higher legal cost buys me some leverage. Fortunately in this situation, the dollar amount is manageable.

The bottom line is some JDBers (this one is huge and starts with an M)  have plugged many of the holes in their ship and sometimes can deliver the legal goods. Thank God back in 2010 when I was sued for over 18 grand two days before trial I discovered a material flaw that rendered their affidavit false and could prove it. Ten minutes before trial when their attorney was convinced in the hallway they immediately filed for voluntary dismissal and that debt is now safely beyond SOL. These days it's getting tougher because this latest last case against me was air tight. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it sucks for consumers that actually owe the debt, but if a JDB is suing the wrong person, and if they are forced to get their ducks in a row before filing suit, they will realize the "mistake" before they even file.  The problem for the JDBs is they can't afford to get quality evidence on even 25% of their cases.  If even 1/2 of the people that get sued fight back, the JDB industry will go away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These defenses have been great but in reading about them I figured it was only a matter of time before they caught on and adjusted their tactics.  

 

The best analogy is back in the 70s and 80s if you got a speeding ticket you could go and have your speedometer checked and if it was not calibrated correctly it provided a defense that you reasonably believed you were not speeding and that re-calibrating the speedometer solved the problem.  Once the courts caught on to that defense they nullified it by stating it is the driver's responsibility to ensure their car is in working order at all times.  No longer works.

 

It was only a matter of time before the same thing happened in debt suits.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16879067784099115184&q=business+records+credit+card&hl=en&as_sdt=4,23

 

Although not raised in the statement of questions presented, plaintiff acknowledges that his affidavit contains hearsay statements by Sabo, but asserts that the statements are admissible under MRE 803(3) or MRE 613 to create material factual issues. We disagree.

"Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at trial, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." Tobin v Providence Hosp, 244 Mich App 626, 640; 624 NW2d 548 (2001). "MRE 803(3) excepts from the rule against hearsay `[a] statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed . . . .'" UAW v Dorsey, 273 Mich App 26, 36; 730 NW2d 17 (2006). "[A] statement explaining a past sequence of events (from the standpoint of the declarant at the time of the statement) is not a then existing . . . condition within the meaning of the rule but, rather, a `statement of memory or belief' that is explicitly excluded from the exception." People v Hackney, 183 Mich App 516, 527 n 2; 455 NW2d 358 (1990).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did they have an actual of bill of sale for your individual account?  The only ones I have seen just have a generic bill of sale from X OC to Y JDB stating they bought/sold some accounts.

 

Yes, on OC letterhead including a saparate closing statement and affidavit of this specific transaction from the OC. There is simply no way to get around this overwhelming evidence. I've been offered 75% and am currently negotiating for 50% which is looking probable because it costs a lot of money to proceed though discovery, answer interoggatories, write a Motion for Summary Disposition and pay an attorney to show up (even if it's a slam dunk). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't mind scan and post the bill of sale. Just black out your personal information. This seems odd especially if its one of the major JDBs. Most of them would not waste the money getting an individual bill of sale unless its for a huge amount of money. 

 

Hang on, interesting development, i might have been bluffed.....My name an account number is missing from all these records and there is reference to a pool. Just examining them closely now.  Some dates are also suspect. There might be hope yet except for the fact that I'm dealing with a very creditor friendly court.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the Chase OC suit. Do you know that Chase has suspended any collection activity and selling of charged off debts right now?

 

You can Challenge the legitimacy and accuracy of Chase's records

 

No, it's MF and there do seem to be some problems with these records, my name and account number isn't on them! I didn't realize it at the time, but this might be a gigantic bluff.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hang on, interesting development, i might have been bluffed.....My name an account number is missing from all these records and there is reference to a pool. Just examining them closely now.  Some dates are also suspect. There might be hope yet except for the fact that I'm dealing with a very creditor friendly court.

 

This is what I expected. Just a generic bill of sale with thousands of accounts and almost zero details.

 

If this is your case dealing with Chase/Midland the odds of them having everything in order is extremely remote. You should check to see if the Chase account falls into the time frame where they had major accounting issues. Not to mention Midland's sister company ,Asset Acceptance, currently has a case in Michigan involving post charge off interest issues. The combination of Midland and Chase is an absolute disaster.

 

If you haven't already you might want to speak with an attorney that specializes in FDCPA lawsuits. Take them all of your paperwork/communications and they will tell you real fast if you have a case. If they find violations an FDCPA case can work as leverage against your local case. Even if you don't qualify the attorney might give you a helpful tip or two. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I expected. Just a generic bill of sale with thousands of accounts and almost zero details.

 

If this is your case dealing with Chase/Midland the odds of them having everything in order is extremely remote. You should check to see if the Chase account falls into the time frame where they had major accounting issues. Not to mention Midland's sister company ,Asset Acceptance, currently has a case in Michigan involving post charge off interest issues. The combination of Midland and Chase is an absolute disaster.

 

Wow, I'm starting to get encouraged now. No relation to Asset Acceptance, but there do seem to be some glaring holes in what they are presenting as evidence in terms of bill of sale. The bil of sale and affidavit might not mean anything. They do have account statments in hand, but their bill of sale and supporting documentaiton does not include my name or account number and the dates are different than what is on my credit report I can email this to you directly if you want to look at it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These defenses have been great but in reading about them I figured it was only a matter of time before they caught on and adjusted their tactics.  

 

The best analogy is back in the 70s and 80s if you got a speeding ticket you could go and have your speedometer checked and if it was not calibrated correctly it provided a defense that you reasonably believed you were not speeding and that re-calibrating the speedometer solved the problem.  Once the courts caught on to that defense they nullified it by stating it is the driver's responsibility to ensure their car is in working order at all times.  No longer works.

 

It was only a matter of time before the same thing happened in debt suits.  

It is reminiscent of the bumpage that was going on when people were doing daily pulls from TrueCredit a few years back.  They caught on to the scam and knocked off the daily pulls.

 

I still think the JDB industry cannot continue to do business if 1/2 (probably more like 1/4) of the people they sue challenge the suit.  They rely on a 90+% default rate to make up for the rare instance someone responds and the even rarer instance they lose/dismiss a case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, I'm starting to get encouraged now. No relation to Asset Acceptance, but there do seem to be some glaring holes in what they are presenting as evidence in terms of bill of sale. The bil of sale and affidavit might not mean anything. They do have account statments in hand, but their bill of sale and supporting documentaiton does not include my name or account number and the dates are different than what is on my credit report I can email this to you directly if you want to look at it.

 

No need to post or email it. I was only interested to see it if it were an actual personalized bill of sale. Since you are dealing with Chase and Midland I already know what it looks like. 

 

I only mentioned AA because they are owned by Midland's parent company Encore. This is a current case from Michigan. I haven't followed it lately, but more than likely anything that AA is doing Midland is also doing.  http://www.leagle.com/decision?q=In%20FDCO%2020130808863.xml/McDONALD%20v.%20ASSET%20ACCEPTANCE%20LLC

 

And please don't let me get you off track from fighting your lawsuit. I just thought it might be a good idea to at least speak with an FDCPA attorney to see if they can find any FDCPA issues. This is something I always do when sued. At least in the past Midland has been very sloppy with their paperwork and phone messages. Most of these attorneys offer a free consultation so all it will cost you is a little time. If you go just make sure to take very single letter, court document and any recorded answering machine messages with you. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is reminiscent of the bumpage that was going on when people were doing daily pulls from TrueCredit a few years back.  They caught on to the scam and knocked off the daily pulls.

 

I still think the JDB industry cannot continue to do business if 1/2 (probably more like 1/4) of the people they sue challenge the suit.  They rely on a 90+% default rate to make up for the rare instance someone responds and the even rarer instance they lose/dismiss a case.

 

The JDB industry will continue as long as people default on accounts.  When there is a zero default rate on credit then there will be no need for the industry.  

 

Some creditors do not sell their defaulted accounts and they sue themselves and have the same default judgment rate as JDBs simply because many consumers know they owe the debt and are so overwhelmed with it or scared of court they just don't go. 

 

The creditors that DO sell off their bad debts will continue to do so because they have neither the time nor the interest in pursuing it and pennies on the dollar is better than zero.  Over time JDBs will simply get better at their evidence.  How quickly is anyone's guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These defenses have been great but in reading about them I figured it was only a matter of time before they caught on and adjusted their tactics.  

 

It was only a matter of time before the same thing happened in debt suits.  

 

I don't see companies like Midland changing very much. Why would they change tactics when they make billions doing it the same way? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact is, there will be a day when these defenses will not work anymore. I think what will occur when about 20% - 25% of those sued file answers that show facts that require a trial. At that point, the current model will not work for JDBs and they will demand the records. This also could occur if the CFPB gets involved and makes rules that require records before a suit can commence. Either way, it will be harder for those who owe the debt to be able to avoid a judgement.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is reminiscent of the bumpage that was going on when people were doing daily pulls from TrueCredit a few years back.  They caught on to the scam and knocked off the daily pulls.

 

I still think the JDB industry cannot continue to do business if 1/2 (probably more like 1/4) of the people they sue challenge the suit.  They rely on a 90+% default rate to make up for the rare instance someone responds and the even rarer instance they lose/dismiss a case.

 

Having considerable personal experience in this arena having won a large and protracted credit card lawsuit, yet still a lowly pro-se, I might have jumped the gun on this one based on intimidation. Not expecting a bill of sale and supporting documents at the pre-trial, in a creditor friendly court I might have jumped the gun on panic. The documentation is clearly generic and there might be some hope yet. Looks like they don't have the goods, but I don't know where to go from here...... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having considerable personal experience in this arena having won a large and protracted credit card lawsuit, yet still a lowly pro-se, I might have jumped the gun on this one based on intimidation. Not expecting a bill of sale and supporting documents at the pre-trial, in a creditor friendly court I might have jumped the gun on panic. The documentation is clearly genaric and there might be some hope yet. Looks like they don't have the goods, but I don't know where to go from here...... 

Continue the negotiations. If you get a deal that is acceptable, consider taking it. Otherwise, simply tell the attorney that you cannot accept the deal and will have to go to court and see what they do.

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.