Jump to content

Utah: Jurisdiction = Assignment of "Credit Card Agreement"


Recommended Posts

All "credit agreements" in Utah are statutorily "void"...which means all courts in Utah lack jurisdiction to hear debt collecton claims, no matter what you refer the "cause of action" to be based on: Account, Stated Account, Account Stated,Breach of Credit Account, Breach of Account, Breach of Contract, Breach of Account Stated, et cetera. It does not matter what the JDB insists on calling their cause of action. Maintaing an action on a "void" credit agreement creates "void judgments", which is exactly what JDB's do here in Utah. At least until they tortured the wrong "least sophisticated" credit agreement consumer here in Tooele County with enforcement of a prima facie "void" credit card agreement. The purpose of the Statute of Frauds, as I have come to discover, is to absolutely prevent JDB's from filing and maintaining debt collection actions on heretofore "void" credit card agreements. The only legal event that gives "birth" to a court with jurisdiction to hear their debt obligation claims is a law suit, the basis of which is a valid credit card agreement, filed "within" Utah's Statute of Frauds. Period. The only thing JDB's here are known for is claiming a birth right "outside" the SOF. That is prima facie lunacy. 

 

What matters, though, is the fact that all alleged credit card agreements with their associated debt obligations remain "void" unless and until the Original Creditor with ownership of the alleged credit card agreement can, (1) aver when you received the valid, written "credit card agreement" and, (2) aver that you used the credit card "after" you received the "credit card agreement", and (3) provide a valid, true and correct copy of the credit card agreement to the JDB. 

 

That's a tall order for a JDB who is clueless to all the preliminary negotiations that the parties to the alleged "credit card agreement" engaged in. I know that when I first heard of Capitol One's offer was when an actual credit card, with my name on it, showed up in my mailbox! The disclosure note said that I was but a phone call away from "activating" the card, which is what I did. There was no valid credit card agreement associated with the gift credit card, nor did I ever get one even after I used the credit (about $120). Any credible attempt to "enforce" the debt obligaton was a legal impossibility.

 

I fought the JDB "Complaint" tooth and nail. Over came their MSJ and wound up in trial only to hear, and I will never forget, the dirt-bag Johnson Mark attorney say to the judge, "The defendant applied for a credit card...." I was stunned. I kept thinking: this can't be happening to me...he's not stating the facts, and he's clueless to how I came in possession of the card. I had no clue of the statutory teeth "within" the SOF. It would have been an affirmative defense that would have carried the water and launched me into the victory circle!

 

A few moments later, a judgment was entered against me for $1,500 plus. I was absolutely devastated and demoralized. But I made a vow to myself to figure out how to legally crush Johnson Mark. The affirmative defense of the SOF and how to present/argue it is key. I've also managed to stop Johnson Mark from using their "brain child" employment gathering Frankenstein SB 281. That feat and victory has cost them heretofore multi-thousands of dollars and in the end, millions of dollars! I hope their action on a "void" credit agreement debt obligation ($120) was worth it. 

 

So, Utah, think and absord the fact that only valid SOF-compliant "credit card agreements" can create the jurisdiction necessary for JDB to have a judgment entered in against you. Focus on this fact: the legal action against you must be a valid credit card agreement, one which discloses all the essential terms and conditions of the proposed credit agreement, the basis and foundation of the legal action being maintained against you. The legal authority for the OC shoes the JDB must step into before suing you is found in MBNA AMERICA BANK v. Goodman. Make the JDB measure up to the legal standard set therein in order to bring a fully SOF-compliant credit card debt obligation suit against you. That case gave rise to a court with proper jurisdiction. Realize, too, that North Star Capital Acquisitions v. Haring is key to seeing just how "outside" the SOF the JDB is when it comes to over coming your primary affirmative defense.

 

Know these two case to near memory. JDB must come at you Goodman-style...the open SOF gate and door to the court room. Then there's Haring: JDB have to side-step and avoid the front gate SOF and try to sneak around it by having you enamored and mesmerized with their bull horn "the Account". No. It's the valid credit card agreement that unlocks the court room. Just keep'em locked out of it where they belong...desperately flailing away while drowning in the deep, dark, still "void" waters they swim in.

 

Good luck...truth will set us free. Truth of the credit card agreement...it's the A-to-Z...it's the alpha and omega...it's the beginning and the end...it's the one and only...when it's all said and done, it's the only piece of evidence standing in the eyes of the SOF/law or it's deemed "void" and fraudulent to prosecute other wise. The formula that governs the laws of the debt collection court room universe is: J = CCAa (Jurisdiction equals credit card agreement assignment). There's not a JDB in Utah who can prove otherwise. This legal formula destroys their darkness faster than the speed of light. Their dark proposition is a kin to the "singularity" of Black Holes...not even light can emerge from its gravitatioal force...not even valid judgments can emerge from "void" credit card agreements they fraudulently maintain an actin on.

 

Fear not, my friends and fellow citizens...even my fellow credit agreement friends. My attorney general complaint is near completion. I called the State's Debt Collection Division where JDB attorney from Johnson Mark now works, Jacob Franklin, to file a formal complaint against him. I was advised who in that department to send it to...and I was given an insiders name within the AG to personally send my compalint to. I hope this advantage gives me the traction necessary to start down that long and winding road to shut down all JDB activity in this state. It's the least I can do to make it worth the $120 credit obligation I racked up. I think I will get my money's worth. Least I hope so. I will not rest until I defeat them all. Utah, I promise!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@InProSe

 

All "credit agreements" in Utah are statutorily "void"

 

 

That is a misleading statement.

 

 

There was no valid credit card agreement associated with the gift credit card, nor did I ever get one even after I used the credit (about $120). Any credible attempt to "enforce" the debt obligaton was a legal impossibility.

 

 

 

No, it was not a legal impossibility.  They could have provided a credit agreement after you began using the card.  If you continued to use the card after receiving the agreement, you would have been bound by the terms in that agreement.

 

Read Haring again.  She received a card the same way you did.  However, she stopped using it in Dec. 2001.  The agreement offered to the court was dated 2002.  The court specifically noted that there was no evidence that she received an agreement prior to 2002.   The court did not rule that she had to have received an agreement before ever using the card.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, but the SOF specifically states with plain language that receipt must be before or at the time of use. No need in Haring to hit each element "within" the SOF. It's misleading to suggest that because Haring did not completely exhaust the elements of SOF juxtaposed to the material facts of the case at hand.the case could have easily gone in any other credible way. JDB used fraud to aver that a years old CCA that came from God only knows where, certainly not the OC as required, was "within" the SOF and therefore binding on Haring. JDB's basis of the cause of action against Haring was an legal impossibility for them...the OC did not own and then assign the valid CCA to JDB. That's why they lost and always will lose. That's why they never, and I mean never, file a cause of action the basis of which is the mandated SOF-compliant CCA. Who are you trying to protect?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@InProSe

 

True, but the SOF specifically states with plain language that receipt must be before or at the time of use

 

 

No, it does not.  It says that you use the credit after receiving the agreement.

 

(iii) after the debtor receives the agreement, the debtor, or a person authorized by the debtor, requests funds pursuant to the credit agreement or otherwise uses the credit offered.

 

 

It's misleading to suggest that because Haring did not completely exhaust the elements of SOF juxtaposed to the material facts of the case at hand.the case could have easily gone in any other credible way.

 

 

 

I made no such suggestion.  I wrote what the court said.

 

 

JDB used fraud to aver that a years old CCA that came from God only knows where, certainly not the OC as required, was "within" the SOF and therefore binding on Haring.

 

 

Where did the court say that the JDB committed fraud?

 

 

JDB's basis of the cause of action against Haring was an legal impossibility for them...the OC did not own and then assign the valid CCA to JDB.

 

 

 

The OC did not own?

 

That's why they never, and I mean never, file a cause of action the basis of which is the mandated SOF-compliant CCA.

 

 

 

If a JDB provides a copy of a credit card agreement that's dated before the consumer stopped using the card, and if the court rules that it's admissible, then they've filed a SOF-complaint CCA.

 

 

Who are you trying to protect?

 

 

I'm trying to protect UT members from invalid claims such as "all 'credit agreements' in Utah are statutorily 'void'" and "any credible attempt to 'enforce' the debt obligaton was a legal impossibility".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the SOF plainly states that all credit agreement in Utah are "void". It then goes on to establish all the express, mandated elements that have to present before a court will vest with jusrisdiction to hear the matter. All packaged seeds in Utah are not "germinated". True. But if x,y, and z are present, then the seed will grow. All matter on the moon is "non-organic". True. But if we discover the elements of X, y, and z, then there's life on it.

What you are attempting to convey then, when discussing say a 4-yr statute of limitations issue, is that it's misleading to say four years means four years; that a 5-yr. old claim merits discussion. All time-barred claims are prima facie barred from being enforced. How is this breath-holding alrming? CIC is always pushing that issue with gusto as an affrimative defense to defeat the JDB. Are we misleading the poor JDB then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't buy into the "protecting" Utah angle. If you were, you would have had done so. The court is not going to prosecute all legal issues raised independent of the action itself. Was fraud an issue before the court? I will soon be before the Attorney General to "protect" Utah. Where will you be BV80? If you feel that I am the bad guy here to protect Utah from then you are prima facie in bed with the JDB and you, my friend, have just been outed. Admit who you really are and how you are protecting the JDB. Do it. I've helped Utah big time despite OZ curtain you and others hide behind here. You could care less about Utah. You are fearful we are about to crush JDB's and that worries you. Admit it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, BV80, tell all the JDB you represent and are protecting this: 25-5-4(f); 25-5-4: "Every credit agreement"...in Utah..."void"..."

 

You conveniently left out "unless written and signed".   If they're written and signed, they're not void.  That destroys your claim that all credit agreements are void. 

 

And, of course, there's that little detail about credit agreements that are not required to have a signature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BV80. I'm calling you out. Dispute the formual. I figured it out. It was not easy. You are going to have to disprove it. This formula will crush Johnson Mark. Why are they no longer using SB 281 in Tooele County? Is it because of some truth here you revealed that scared them off? They are a madly, huge successful law firm here in Utah. Why have they not crushed me? They wrote and passed the legislation and got hundreds and hundreds of rubber-stamped Motions for Employment Records. Why the withdral of their motion. Why are the attorneys there leaving? It's not because of you, that's for sure. It's because I've been able to legally man handle them with truth and law. NOw...dispute the formula.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@InProSe

 

There's no "formula" to dispute.  I've already agreed with you that an OC or JDB must provide a credit agreement that's dated before a consumer stopped using the card.  In fact, I'd make the argument that it must be dated before or the year the consumer started using the card.  If no such agreement is provided, the plaintiff has no case.

 

If one is provided, then the defendant argues against the admissibility of the document.  If the court rules it's not admissible, it's tossed.  No agreement, no case.

 

You've made claims that you've yet to support with law or court precedent.   That includes your ludicrous claim that every agreement is void in UT.   That is not what is stated in the SOF.  The words "every credit agreement" is included under (1) which states that "The following agreements are void unless the agreement, or some note or memorandum of the agreement, is in writing, signed by the party to be charged with the agreement:"

 

Like I said, that means if the agreement is written and signed, it's not void.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rest easy, BV80, it's gonna take much more than you and your JDB associates to mock the SOF. It prima facie crushes the JDB here and that threatens you...why? Are you too used to teaching others to swim out in the deep "void" waters in which to drown? Why didn't you know about and teach the SOF...an easy hit as we are the only state to have one controlling when all credit agreements are not "void". It's pure fraud for you  to say that the JDB can find a credit card agreement that is "within" the SOF and just throw it in the action at any time. You completely miss the whole point of the SOF: it addresses "oral" agreement issues one can raise, as well as parole evidence to muddy the waters...which is what you are suggesting a JDB can do to comply with SOF. Nice try. But you failed. To be "within" the SOF, only the OC can own and then assign the valid CCA to the JDB. To do otherwise, as you suggest, is prima facie fraud...and you know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@InProSe

 

@InProSe

 

Oh, I'm resting just fine. 

 

Why didn't you know about and teach the SOF...an easy hit as we are the only state to have one controlling when all credit agreements are not "void".

 

 

I'm not from UT.  You are, and yet you didn't know about it when you were sued, did you? 

 

It's pure fraud for you  to say that the JDB can find a credit card agreement that is "within" the SOF and just throw it in the action at any time.

 

 

Exactly when did I make such a claim?

 

 

To be "within" the SOF, only the OC can own and then assign the valid CCA to the JDB. To do otherwise, as you suggest, is prima facie fraud...and you know it.

 

 

When did I suggest otherwise?   I believe I said that the agreement has to be dated at a certain time AND has to be admissible.   BTW, please show me where a UT court ruled on "prima facie fraud" and that not providing a valid CCA would be such.

 

Another BTW, I've put up with your insults, but this is a warning that they are a violation of the TOS.   That's one agreement that does not have to be signed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@InProSe I find it very insulting the things you are posting to BV80. She has been one of the back bones to this site helping thousands of people. To suggest she is in bed with the JDB is insulting just because she does not agree with your interpretation if the law. Your argument would be more compelling if you included some case law to support it. If "all" agreements were void," I would think that some lawyer somewhere in Utah would have won a few cases using the information as you suggest.

BV80 is protecting the citizens of Utah, because if they read your posts and think "great, I should have an easy win" they would find the path to easy judgement relying on that defense, and missing any others that may be out there.

Back up your position using some case precedence, and be respectful of others views, we are all here for the same reason.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The SOF is a good topic for discussion in UT.  It shouldn't be contentious among the members of CIC.  I'm using the SOF in my defense, and I hope it is fruitful.  However, to really change the collection industry, we must follow up with FDCPA suits against the JDB and their attorney.  If JDB doesn't have a prima facie case against per the statute of frauds ----> case dismissed ----> FDCPA lawsuit filed.  Wash/rinse/repeat.

 

Thank you @shellieh98 @BV80 @InProSe  you've all been helpful.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Coffee_before_tea

 

  If JDB doesn't have a prima facie case against per the statute of frauds ----> case dismissed ----> FDCPA lawsuit filed.

 

 

I'd speak to an attorney before doing that.  The SOF is an affirmative defense which, of course, means that you have a defense if there is no valid contract.  The fact that it's a defense shows that a plaintiff does not absolutely have to have that contract in order to file suit because it's up to the defendant to raise the defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Coffee_before_tea

 

 

I'd speak to an attorney before doing that.  The SOF is an affirmative defense which, of course, means that you have a defense if there is no valid contract.  The fact that it's a defense shows that a plaintiff does not absolutely have to have that contract in order to file suit because it's up to the defendant to raise the defense.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a collector sues on a debt they have no legal standing to, isn't that a violation of the FDCPA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Coffee_before_tea

 

So far, I haven't found any precedent linking the SOF to standing to sue.  A JDB might be able to convince the court that they own the account but could lose because they don't have a valid credit card agreement.   In other words, they have standing, but the SOF defeats them.

 

A few courts have ruled that a debt collector who files suit knowing that there's no means to prove ownership may have violated the FDCPA.   But the average JDB usually has at least a bill of sale.  While it may not be enough to convince a court that the JDB has standing, I haven't found a court that has ruled that failure to adequately prove standing to the satisfaction of a court is a violation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BV80

 

If they fail to provide a valid credit agreement, then the contract is void (per the UT SOF), thus not having standing.  My line of thinking is beyond the SOF.  Any aspect of the JDB's inability to prove standing (i.e. the legal basis to bring suit/prima facie), whether it be account agreements, failed to prove privity, etc.... would technically be a violation of the FDCPA.  

 

My guess is the reason we don't have court rulings on this, is because it has yet to be challenged. Anyway, food for thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Coffee_before_tea I think your getting standing confused with contract law. The same SOF staute applies to the original creditor. If the oc can't produce the agreement, or if they tried to introduce one dated later than your last payment showed, sof applies. It doesn't matter if it is a JDB or not, it has nothing to do with standing. The difference is the oc should have records and that usually wouldn't be an issue whereas the JDB doesn't usually get the agreement in with their purchased accounts, they would need to order and probably pay for it per their purchase agreement with the original creditor.

  • 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.