Sammyvill

Motion to compel the purchase agreement

Recommended Posts

This seems relevant to this discussion:

http://dalie.org/contracts/

I couldn't believe my eyes when I stumbled onto this gold mine....

 

She's even gone to the work to compile all 44 agreements into a single .zip file:

http://dalie.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/contracts.zip

I downloaded and read the Dirty Debts Sold Dirt Cheap paper on the page in that first link.  It is the most comprehensive analysis of the JDB industry that I have ever seen.  I am going to post it in the Resources section.  I would recommend it to be placed as a "sticky" and anyone who comes here for the first time should read it in its entirety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I downloaded and read the Dirty Debts Sold Dirt Cheap paper on the page in that first link.  It is the most comprehensive analysis of the JDB industry that I have ever seen.  I am going to post it in the Resources section.  I would recommend it to be placed as a "sticky" and anyone who comes here for the first time should read it in its entirety.

No question.

I think someone else posted the link around here for the paper, but I was dying to get my hands on the agreements after I read the paper.  Lo and behold, right in the footnotes of the paper she gave the link to download the agreements!

 

She's a hero!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems relevant to this discussion:

http://dalie.org/contracts/

I couldn't believe my eyes when I stumbled onto this gold mine....

 

She's even gone to the work to compile all 44 agreements into a single .zip file:

http://dalie.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/contracts.zip

 

What an angel.

 

Of course these specific agreements will not be admissible because it did not come directly from discovery in your case, but if you can find an agreement that names your OC, it will gives you a preview to know how badly you should push your JDB to hand over the agreement controlling the transaction involving your account.

This is awesome- I found one for the two banks and JBD that I am dealing with and the dates of these files correspond to around the times the debts were purchased.I am sure these are standard and I have no problem mentioning the yellow highlights in my case at trial to help prove my case.

But what concerns me is that when they have copies of your statements does that prove that they did buy your actual debt? How else can they get those copies of statements? While we the defendants have to prove accuracy, but I am just thinking how a judge  may look at it. I know we address validity of the date and attack documents they have not produced mentioned in their discovery- It would be interesting to get the inside views some more cases here on why judges have ruled against cases.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is awesome- I found one for the two banks and JBD that I am dealing with and the dates of these files correspond to around the times the debts were purchased.I am sure these are standard and I have no problem mentioning the yellow highlights in my case at trial to help prove my case.

But what concerns me is that when they have copies of your statements does that prove that they did buy your actual debt? How else can they get those copies of statements? While we the defendants have to prove accuracy, but I am just thinking how a judge  may look at it. I know we address validity of the date and attack documents they have not produced mentioned in their discovery- It would be interesting to get the inside views some more cases here on why judges have ruled against cases.

 

I always say that they could have found them in a dumpster behind a bank.  Almost all statements I have ever seen that a JDB has entered into evidence are microfiche records of statements sent after the account was charged off by the OC.   It is not like they were scanned from the hard copy and sent to you in discovery because the hard copies do not exist as they were mailed to the account holder.   They almost always show just an amount due with no evidence of purchases being made by the defendant or payments having been made. 

 

As I mentioned earlier you should fashion your discovery in the proper wording and proper steps for the sole purpose of leading up to the request for the bulk sale purchase/forward flow agreement.   At that time the statements (along with anything else they always come up with) are null and void because they have already been trapped into stating that they failed to take any measures to determine that any of the information was reliable and/or accurate.  If your Motion to Compel is granted and they are ordered by the court to produce the sale agreement they know it states in no uncertain terms that nothing in the account information is guaranteed to be accurate so they are dead in the water- their choices are either produce it knowing they will lose or drop the suit at that time without spending anymore time and resources.

 

What ultimately killed them in my case, along with their failure to provide a card member agreement after admitting that the terms of the account were governed by one, was one sentence in bold print and capital letters in the Asset Purchase Agreement, "THE EXISTENCE OF EVIDENCE OF INDEBTEDNESS SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO IMPLY THAT THE DEBT EVIDENCED IS ENFORCEABLE."  The term, "evidence of indebtedness" was included in the definitions at the beginning of the document ironically as "up to six monthly statements most recent to the charge-off of the asset."  So in layman's terms they are basically saying, "The person named on these statements was once indebted to us but we are not able to verify that anything on the statements is correct" which would include how the amount due was arrived at.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have conducted discovery and asked them for the documents, and they refused to provide them. Your best chance would be to file a motion for summary judgment on the Plaintiff's claims and attack the lack of evidence. If they then provide the purchase agreement, that would defeat or motion. On the other end, if they dont provide it you would win judgment on their claim(s)

 

 

 

Going the MTC makes them WANT to provide the document. If it is on record that a party is ignoring a MTC, sanctions are usually in order, and in some cases those sanctions are monetary.Essentially, filling a MTC will make them do their best to obtain that document. Whereas right now, they are just not taking the case serious.

 

If a Plaintiff is refusing to provide a document essential to their claims, let them dig their own grave with that refusal.Documents not provided during discovery cant be used at trial. If they are refusing to provide the documents, file a motion in limine  to make sure they cannot introduce it at trial. After that what do they have left as admissible evidence? A Hearsay Affidavit and (in some cases), unauthenticated account statments.

I respectfully disagree with the summary judgment filing, to many courts abuse the procedure, plaintiffs will surely file a a cross summary judgment, and it nullifies the protections a trial has. Plaintiffs would love nothing more than to have a paper trial.

Pushing for the document and then using it's non production to exclude it and attached bills of sale is a far better course in my opinion. However, if your court is defendant leaning, AND you have ALL your ducks in a row you may just be able to pull it off.

For the record when you are defending a suit, it is best to push for trial. Resolve your fears and know that irregardless of what you do to make it go away sooner, the court is gonna try to block it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is awesome- I found one for the two banks and JBD that I am dealing with and the dates of these files correspond to around the times the debts were purchased.I am sure these are standard and I have no problem mentioning the yellow highlights in my case at trial to help prove my case.

But what concerns me is that when they have copies of your statements does that prove that they did buy your actual debt? How else can they get those copies of statements? While we the defendants have to prove accuracy, but I am just thinking how a judge  may look at it. I know we address validity of the date and attack documents they have not produced mentioned in their discovery- It would be interesting to get the inside views some more cases here on why judges have ruled against cases.

if the ones are court documents from a case just call the clerk of that county and pay to get a stamped copy from the clerk. government documents are self authenticating, especially from the courts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the ones are court documents from a case just call the clerk of that county and pay to get a stamped copy from the clerk. government documents are self authenticating, especially from the courts

The select agreements I looked at don't seem to indicate they are part of any particular case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is more complicated than that.  JDBs purchase "pools" of accounts.  They may purchase different pools several times a year from the same Original creditor.  You really need to request the operative agreement from your plaintiff and move to compel if they won't give it to  you. 

 

Printing it from the internet and claiming it is accurate in Court?  Sound familiar?  Don't think you want to go there.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have conducted discovery and asked them for the documents, and they refused to provide them. Your best chance would be to file a motion for summary judgment on the Plaintiff's claims and attack the lack of evidence. If they then provide the purchase agreement, that would defeat or motion. On the other end, if they dont provide it you would win judgment on their claim(s)

 

 

 

Going the MTC makes them WANT to provide the document. If it is on record that a party is ignoring a MTC, sanctions are usually in order, and in some cases those sanctions are monetary.Essentially, filling a MTC will make them do their best to obtain that document. Whereas right now, they are just not taking the case serious.

 

If a Plaintiff is refusing to provide a document essential to their claims, let them dig their own grave with that refusal.Documents not provided during discovery cant be used at trial. If they are refusing to provide the documents, file a motion in limine  to make sure they cannot introduce it at trial. After that what do they have left as admissible evidence? A Hearsay Affidavit and (in some cases), unauthenticated account statments.

I disagree also. A MSJ could get you into trouble if you don't know what your doing, and it is for when there is no material facts in the case to present. Even without the purchase agreement you have material facts.

The purchase agreement just shows there is no warranties the accounts are correct or even collect able. That is why we ask for it. Some courts will compel, some judges think it is in material. The one thing most of the purchase agreements do say is it is a confidential agreement between the JDB and the OC. They could lose their right to purchase future accounts if they disclose it without being compelled to do so. Many would dismiss rather than give that up. I have read where one or two has complied with a compel motion, I don't recall the amounts they were suing for but I bet they were a larger amount.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both. GCFS, as the alleged current owner/assignee, is responsible for both purchase agreements. They need to be able to show the entire chain of ownership.

 

Will GCFS even have a purchase agreement from the OC to the the first set JDB? Would the court order them to give it up if i asked?

 

If i'm not mistaken, only one of the two bills of sale that you posted references a purchase agreement; I would request that one.

Your are correct I had 2 affidavits of sales but only the second sent has reference to a purchase agreement.

 

I disagree also. A MSJ could get you into trouble if you don't know what your doing, and it is for when there is no material facts in the case to present. Even without the purchase agreement you have material facts.

The purchase agreement just shows there is no warranties the accounts are correct or even collect able. That is why we ask for it. Some courts will compel, some judges think it is in material. The one thing most of the purchase agreements do say is it is a confidential agreement between the JDB and the OC. They could lose their right to purchase future accounts if they disclose it without being compelled to do so. Many would dismiss rather than give that up. I have read where one or two has complied with a compel motion, I don't recall the amounts they were suing for but I bet they were a larger amount.

Thanks for getting back to me,  my question still stands, if the debt was being sold from Wells Fargo to Absolute Credit and them from Absolute Credit to GCFS does that mean that i should be asking for both Purchase agreements? Or do I just ask them for the more recent, the one from Absolute to GCFS?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want Both. Actually "any and all purchase agreements", as you do not know what exist or has happened with the alleged debt, only what they say, which is untrustworthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will GCFS even have a purchase agreement from the OC to the the first set JDB? Would the court order them to give it up if i asked?

 

They may or may not have it. If they don't have it, then that would be a problem for them - how can they have standing to collect on anything if they can't show/prove the there was a legitimate sale from the OC to first JDB to begin with? I'd want to flush this out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sammy,

Your current Request for Production of docuuments is fine as worded. It makes absolute reference to a document that they have already shown exisits. If you change the current request to "ANY and ALL", you give them an easy out in answering overaly broad and burdensome, with no further answer needed.

Generally, speaking any decent lawyer will tell you "Never ask a question you don't already know the answer to". Point is as I have mentioned before less could be more for your case, based on the information they have already provided.

The tranfer from Wells to Absolute is already an issue for the otherside based on the affidavit not being in compliance with CCP. Getting the document from Wells to Absolute will not change the fact that the affidavit is not in compliance with California statute.

My recomendation is to send what you already created and move forward....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sammy,

Your current Request for Production of docuuments is fine as worded. It makes absolute reference to a document that they have already shown exisits. If you change the current request to "ANY and ALL", you give them an easy out in answering overaly broad and burdensome, with no further answer needed.

Generally, speaking any decent lawyer will tell you "Never ask a question you don't already know the answer to". Point is as I have mentioned before less could be more for your case, based on the information they have already provided.

The tranfer from Wells to Absolute is already an issue for the otherside based on the affidavit not being in compliance with CCP. Getting the document from Wells to Absolute will not change the fact that the affidavit is not in compliance with California statute.

My recomendation is to send what you already created and move forward....

Thanks buddy will do! I just noticed how everyone was making a reference to an agreement that came from OC and was thinking that maybe that what I need to go after. In any case I can always send a request for the original purchase agreement as well.    

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks buddy will do! I just noticed how everyone was making a reference to an agreement that came from OC and was thinking that maybe that what I need to go after. In any case I can always send a request for the original purchase agreement as well.    

 

The agreement from the OC would be nice but you don't know how to ask for it.  Any general description would be met by an objection.

 

But the agreement you DO know about may mention the OC agreement by name.  If it gets that far, you can always ask for it later.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone else mentioned about the agreements having non-disclosure clauses in them.  This means they will not be made available to successors that are not a party to that agreement.  In all likelihood, GCFS won't have the original Wells agreement, and if they do, it means either Wells or Absolute violated the non-disclosure (assuming that agreement had a non-disclosure).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone else mentioned about the agreements having non-disclosure clauses in them.  This means they will not be made available to successors that are not a party to that agreement.  In all likelihood, GCFS won't have the original Wells agreement, and if they do, it means either Wells or Absolute violated the non-disclosure (assuming that agreement had a non-disclosure).

 

 

That is one reason the JDBs don't want t give you the agreement.  But it is not a legally-sufficient ground to refuse to produce.  If it were, everyone would just put such a provision in their contracts and they would not have to participate in discovery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW.....did anyone read through any of these?  Talk about a gold mine!

 

Here's a quote from one of the contracts, titled "2008.02.15-Forward Flow.Chase to Palisades".....very interesting:

 

Purchaser represents and warrants to Seller that Purchaser's primary purpose

in purchasing Charged-off Accounts is to attempt legal collection of the Unpaid Balances

owed on such Charged-off Accounts and is not to commence an action or proceeding

against Cardholders obligated under such Charged-off Accounts.

 

If I'm not messing that up, it means that Palisades bought those accounts under the agreement that they were not going to take civil action in court against the cardholders.  wow, this is good stuff!

 

It says their PRIMARY purpose is not to commence an action etc,. not that they can't or won't. If they actually wanted to honor anything they said for a change; all they would have to do is attempt to collect first, then sue.

There are stronger things you can use against them in the forward flow agreements, however.

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.