Jump to content

I didn't ask for assignment of the debt in discovery


Recommended Posts

hey guys, I'm being sued for a credit card debt by a jdb... my major defense is that they lack standing.... in my discovery, I didn't ask for assignment of the debt... Is this detrimental? Will I still be able to argue that the jdb"s Bill of sale doesn't specify that my account was one of the pool of charged of documents they purchased? thanks guys

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the discovery period over? If not, make another request for it. It's not necessarily detrimental, but if they have more evidence that you didn't ask for, then you're going to be at a disadvantage come trial.

 

I would suggest trying to keep your information in a single thread rather than a new thread for every question. It makes it a lot easier to follow your case and where you stand.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@determined2fight

 

If they had not provided it, and you wanted it, yes. 

 

If they had not provided it, and you didn't ask for it, you could bring up the fact that they hadn't proven ownership of the account, but I'm not sure how much you could have dwelt on that fact.  A judge might be on your side and agree with you that their failure to present that doc on their own is fatal to their claim.  But, on the other hand, he could tell you that you should have requested it, so you have no right to complain about it.

 

But they did provide it, so there was no reason for you to ask for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At trial, raise the argument that they have not proved that they are the rightful owner of the alleged account(lack of standing).  it would help to cite a case.

 

When the JDB tries to introduce a bill of sale - object on the grounds that is is unauthenticated hearsay. RULE 901, i believe, you will want to double check that

When the JDB tries to introduce assignment documents  - object on the grounds that is is  [again] unauthenticated hearsay.

When the JDB tries to introduce affadvit - object on the grounds that the affiant is not present, and the affadivt itself is not based upon personal knowledge.

 

Documents must pass both the authentication rule, AND the hearsay rule in order to be admissible.

 

Most likely, the JDB lawyer will try to argue that the records are subject to the business records exemption. At that point you would argue that the records are not the JDBs, but records of other companies, and they MUST be authenticated by those other companies.

 

 

You will want to make your objections loud and clear, in case of appeal. If the judge does not specifically rule on the object, push the issue, and ask for a specific ruling on the objection.

 

The main problem with 99% of JDB cases, is that if the judge follows the rules of evidence -- the JDB has zero admissible evidence. Familiarize yourself with the rules of evidence, and read over a few cases regarding those specific rules of evidence in your state.

  • Like 1
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.