CrazyDaisy

Lost Motion for Summary Judgement Midland Funding WA State

Recommended Posts

By the way, I have been reviewing Washington State Court Handbook for Pro Se: corporations, such as Midland, are required to be represented by lawyers in WA courts. They may be represented by non-lawyer, if so they choose, in Small Claim or District courts only.

 

While researching appeal court cases, I came across of something extraordinary today:

 

A lady was sued in 2013 by Unifund, represented by Suttell & Hammer, for a debt of around $2,000 (two thousand). Got a usual default judgment against her and got her bank accounts garnished. Here is where it becomes interesting. She hired an attorney (I remind you that it is a Small Claim court) to have the default judgment successfully set aside. Got the attorney fees. After some back-n-forth on RFP, the case went into MSJ. Her attorney countered with her own MSJ. Then went the usual exchange with motions and oppositions. She prevailed on MSJ! Moreover, she, wow, got awarded over $30,000 in attorney's fees for the 2,000 debt! Unifund is appealing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is not public. It does contain FDCPA-counterclaims and was handled in the district court, despite being a small claim case at the beginning.

 

Having a lawyer changes everything  :ROFLMAO2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found out that doing all the work myself and having a consumer lawyer represent me at court would have cost 650.00.

 

Representing myself and losing and having to hire him for my appeal cost me 750.00   You are right having a lawyer I would not have had to appeal at all!!!!!!!!!11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While researching appeal court cases, I came across of something extraordinary today:

 

A lady was sued in 2013 by Unifund, represented by Suttell & Hammer, for a debt of around $2,000 (two thousand). Got a usual default judgment against her and got her bank accounts garnished. Here is where it becomes interesting. She hired an attorney (I remind you that it is a Small Claim court) to have the default judgment successfully set aside. Got the attorney fees. After some back-n-forth on RFP, the case went into MSJ. Her attorney countered with her own MSJ. Then went the usual exchange with motions and oppositions. She prevailed on MSJ! Moreover, she, wow, got awarded over $30,000 in attorney's fees for the 2,000 debt! Unifund is appealing.

another interesting thing about the case is that, despite WA's SOL for credit card debt being 6 years, her lawyer was able to raise an argument that the SOL is only 3 year, as "partially oral contract", since plaintiff allegedly failed to prove all elements of a written contract. Something to think about. Appeal hearing will be held in the end of April.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kings County WA is in WA Crt of Appeal Division I.  This Division follows the case law in Discover Bank v. Bridges, which held that in addition to the credit card agreement and statements of account, cancelled checks showing payments on the account are also required.

 

Division III of the WA Crt of Appeals follows the case law in Discover Bank v Ray, which held that the credit card agreement plus credit card statements were sufficient to establish the debt to be owing.

 

The above info was from my link 50 "State Debt Collection Laws" under case law.

The Bridges case was in Court of Appeal Division II, not I....the Bridges are from Cowlitz County, which resides in Division II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@189uniongal  In my post I did not say that "Bridges" was in Division l.  I said Division l follows the case law of Bridges, which is in Division ll.  

 

 

Cut and pasted from the link prepared by the law firm of Scanlon and Roberts in WA

 

There is a dispute between the various divisions of the Washington Court of Appeals regarding the “proof” required to obtain summary judgment upon a debt arising from the use of a credit card. In Discover Bank v. Ray, 139 Wn.App. 723, 162 P.3d 1131 (2007), Division III of the Court of Appeals held that the cardholder agreement plus credit card statements were sufficient to establish the debt to be owing. However, in Discover Bank v. Bridges, 154 Wn.App. 722, 226 P.3d 191 (2010), Division III of the Court of Appeals held that, in addition to the credit card agreement and statements of account, cancelled checks showing payments upon the account were required. In City Bank South Dakota, NA v. Ryan, 160 Wn.App. 286, 247 P.3d 778 (2011), Division I of the Court of Appeals agreed with the analysis of Division II outlined in Bridges.

 

 

226 P.3d 191 (2010) DISCOVER BANK, Issuer of the Discover Card, Respondent,
v.
John S. BRIDGES and Julie A. Bridges, husband and wife, and their marital community thereof, Appellant. No. 39209-7-II.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2.

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.