fight2win

Won before, but here we go again....

Recommended Posts

Please post their responses.  Just because they object doesn't mean they are in the right.  If what you ask for is relevant, you can motion the court to compel them to respond.

 

They still have time to MSJ, and they may not have before now because they felt they should respond your discovery requests before MSJ.  The deadline for MSJ is 90 days before trial and now that they have responded to your discovery requests, I would anticipate an MSJ any time between now and 90 days before trial.

 

I don't know if we covered this in your thread, but in the last few weeks I have found that a sworn denial of the underlying debt (affidavit - "I never had an account with OC") seems to be the surest way to defeat an MSJ and winning on appeal.  I'm not advocating committing perjury and you can do with that information as you see fit.  Just making sure you have all of the information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Harry Seaward

 

Hi Harry,

 

I posted below the Plaintiff's response to my RFAs.  I will work on the Roggs later and post that up as well.  

 

In regard to the Sworn Denial as a response to the MSJ - I will read about that one the boards - thanks!

 

RFA No. 1:

 

Plaintiff has no personal knowledge as to the mailing by the Issuer to Defendant of any written agreement governing the alleged Account.

 

___ADMIT ___DENY

 

RESPONSE:  Plaintiff objects to this request as being overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, unclear, not limited in time or scope and ill-defined in its use of the terms “personal knowledge” and “any written agreement”.  Plaintiff further objects as the request seeks to discover information that is or should be within the knowledge of the Defendant.  Plaintiffs further objects that this request is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it relates to the Defendant’s liability for the debt that forms the basis of this action as Defendant’s use of the credit card constitutes the Defendant’s acceptance of the terms and conditions of the card.  See A.R.S. §44-7802.  Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff states:  deny.  Plaintiff denies based upon information and belief obtained from the original creditor.

 

RFA No. 2:

 

Plaintiff has no personal knowledge as to the mailing by the Issuer to Defendant of any billing statement for the alleged Account.

 

___ADMIT ___DENY

 

RESPONSE NO. 2:  Plaintiff objects to this request as being overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, unclear, not limited in time or scope and ill-defined in its use of the terms “personal knowledge” and “any billing statement”.  Plaintiff further objects as the request seeks to discover information that is or should be within the knowledge of the Defendant.  Plaintiff further objects that this request is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it relates to the Defendant’s liability for the debt that forms the basis of this action.  Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff states: Deny. Plaintiff denies based upon information and belief obtained from the original creditor.

 

 

RFA No. 3:

 

Plaintiff has no personal knowledge as to why the Issuer entered any transaction, debit, credit or charge on any billing statement for the alleged Account. 

 

___ADMIT ___DENY

 

RESPONSE NO. 3:  Plaintiff objects to this request as being overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, unclear, not limited in time or scope and ill-defined in its use of the terms “personal knowledge” and “any transaction, debit, credit or charge on any billing statement”.  Plaintiff further objects as the request seeks to discover information that is or should be within the knowledge of the Defendant.  Plaintiffs further objects that this request is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it relates to the Defendant’s liability for the debt that forms the basis of this action.  Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff states:  Deny.  Plaintiff denies based upon information and belief obtained from the original creditor.

 

RFA No. 4:

 

Plaintiff’s right to acquire documents from the Issuer for the alleged Account is governed by the written agreement under which Plaintiff acquired the alleged Account.

 

___ADMIT ___DENY

 

RESPONSE NO. 4:  Plaintiff objects to this request as seeks a legal interpretation and conclusion.  Plaintiff further objects to this request as being overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, unclear, not limited in time or scope and ill-defined in its use of the term “right to acquire”.  Plaintiffs further objects that this request is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it relates to the Defendant’s liability for the debt that forms the basis of this action.

 

RFA No. 5:

 

Admit that the Bill of Sale and Assignment of Loans “Exhibit C” specifies that debts are sold to you without recourse and without representation or warranty of any type, kind, character or nature, express or implied.   

 

___ADMIT ___DENY

 

RESPONSE NO. 5:  Plaintiff objects to this request as seeks a legal interpretation and conclusion.

 

RFA No. 6:

 

Plaintiff cannot state which date the alleged contract sued upon was entered into.

 

___ADMIT ___DENY

 

RESPONSE NO. 6:  Plaintiffs objects that this request is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it relates to the Defendant’s liability for the debt that forms the basis of this action.  Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff states: Deny.  Plaintiff denies bases upon information and belief obtained from the original creditor. 

 

RFA No. 7:

 

Plaintiff has never exchanged goods, services, and/or money with the Defendant.

 

___ADMIT ___DENY

 

RESPONSE NO. 7:  Admit in part and deny in part.  Plaintiff admits that it never exchanged goods, services, and/or money with the Defendant.  However, Plaintiff is unable to admit or deny whether the original creditor exchanged goods, services, and/or money to the Defendant and therefore states:  deny.  Further, Plaintiff denies the original creditor did not exchanged goods, services, and/or money to the Defendant resulting in the debt that forms the basis of this action.

 

RFA No. 8:

 

Plaintiff has never directly entered into a contractual relationship with the Defendant.

 

___ADMIT ___DENY

 

RESPONSE NO. 8:  Admit in part and deny in part.  Plaintiff admits that it never directly entered into a contractual relationship with the Defendant that resulted in the debt.  However, Plaintiff denies that the original creditor did not have dealings with the Defendant that resulted in the Debt by which Plaintiff was assigned all interest, right and title.

 

 

RFA No. 9

 

Plaintiff has no personal knowledge whether all or any part of the alleged debt was ever disputed.

___ADMIT ___DENY

 

RESPONSE NO. 9:  Plaintiff objects to this request as being overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, unclear, not limited in time or scope and ill-defined in its use of the term “personal knowledge”.  Plaintiff further objects that this request is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it relates to the Defendant’s liability for the debt that forms the basis of this action.  Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff states:  Deny.

 

RFA No. 10:

 

Admit that the Bill of Sale, Cardholder Agreement and Credit Card Statements were not brought into existence by Plaintiff.

 

___ADMIT ___DENY

 

RESPONSE NO. 10:  Objection.  This request is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it relates to the Defendant’s liability for the debt that forms the basis of this action.  Moreover, the request is ill-defined in its use of the term “brought into existence”.  Plaintiff was assigned the account with all its right, title and interest.  Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff states:  Admit.

 

RFA No. 11:

 

Plaintiff has no personal knowledge as to how the Cardholder Agreement and Credit Card Agreement came into existence.

 

___ADMIT ___DENY

 

RESPONSE NO. 11:  Plaintiff objects to this request as being overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, unclear, not limited in time or scope and ill-defined in its use of the terms “personal knowledge” and “came into existence”.  Plaintiffs further objects that this request is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it relates to the Defendant’s liability for the debt that forms the basis of this action as Defendant’s use of the credit card constitutes the Defendant’s acceptance of the terms and conditions of the card.  See A.R.S. §44-7802.  Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff states:  deny.  Plaintiff denies based upon information and belief obtained from the original creditor.

 

RFA No. 12:

 

Plaintiff has no personal knowledge of the creation of the alleged debt.

 

___ADMIT ___DENY

 

RESPONSE NO. 12:  Plaintiff objects to this request as being overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, unclear, not limited in time or scope and ill-defined in its use of the term “personal knowledge”.  Plaintiffs further objects that this request is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it relates to the Defendant’s liability for the debt that forms the basis of this action.  Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff states:  Deny.  Plaintiff denies based upon information and belief obtained from the original creditor. 

 

RFA No. 13:

 

Plaintiff does not have access to all of the records created and maintained by F.I.A. Card Services, N.A. that pertain to the alleged Account that is the subject of this lawsuit.

 

___ADMIT ___DENY

 

 

RESPONSE NO. 13:  Plaintiff objects to this request as being overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, unclear, not limited in time or scope and ill-defined in its use of the term “access to all of the records”.  Plaintiffs further objects that this request is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it relates to the Defendant’s liability for the debt that forms the basis of this action.

 

RFA No. 14:

 

When it acquired the alleged debt of Defendant, all Plaintiff obtained was a computer printout of alleged debtors, addresses and identifying information, and the supposed balances owed.

 

___ADMIT ___DENY

 

RESPONSE NO. 14:  Plaintiff objects to this request as being overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague ambiguous, unclear, not limited in time or scope and ill-defined in it is request.  Plaintiffs further objects that this request is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it relates to the Defendant’s liability for the debt that forms the basis of this action.  Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff states:  Deny.  Plaintiff denies based upon information and belief obtained from the original creditor.

 

RFA No. 15:

 

Admit that the Bill of Sale from the Issuer to the Plaintiff does not explicitly reference the name(s) of the Defendant.

 

___ADMIT ___DENY

 

RESPONSE NO. 15:  Plaintiff objects to this request as being overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, unclear, not limited in time or scope and ill-defined in its request.  Plaintiffs further objects that this request is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it relates to the Defendant’s liability for the debt that forms the basis of this action.  Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff states:  Admit in part and deny in part.  Plaintiff admits that the Bill of Sale from the Issuer to the Plaintiff does not explicity reference the name of the Defendant.  However, Plaintiff denies that the Schedule 1 referenced in the Bill of Sale from the Issuer to the Plaintiff does not explicitly reference the name of the Defendant.

 

RFA No. 16:

 

Admit that the Bill of Sale from the Issuer to the Plaintiff does not explicitly reference the account number of the alleged debt that is the subject of this lawsuit.

 

___ADMIT ___DENY

 

Plaintiff objects to this request as being overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, unclear, not limited in time or scope and ill-defined in its request.  Plaintiffs further objects that this request is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it relates to the Defendant’s liability for the debt that forms the basis of this action.  Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff states:  Admit in part and deny in part.  Plaintiff admits that the Bill of Sale from the Issuer to the Plaintiff does not explicitly reference the account number subject to his lawsuit. 

 

RFA No. 17:

 

Admit that the date the Bill of Sale was signed is the transaction date that included the alleged sale of the underlying debt.

 

___ADMIT ___DENY

 

RESPONSE NO. 17:  Plaintiff objects to this request as being overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, unclear, not limited in time or scope and ill-defined in its use of the term “transaction date”.  Plaintiffs further objects that this request is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it relates to the Defendant’s liability for the debt that forms the basis of this action.  Plaintiff further objects to the extent the request seeks where the request for Admission seeks to discover information regarding the actions and practices of a third party.  As stated, Plaintiff is unable to admit or deny and therefore must state:  deny. 

 

RFA No. 18:

 

Admit that you are unable to provide a complete accounting for the amount you are claiming from a zero balance to the alleged amount charged-off.

 

___ADMIT ___DENY

 

RESPONSE NO 18:  Plaintiff objects to this request as being overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, unclear, not limited in time or scope and ill-defined in its use of the term “complete accounting”.  Plaintiffs further objects that this request is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it relates to the Defendant’s liability for the debt that forms the basis of this action.  Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff states:  Admit in part and Deny in part.  Plaintiff admits that it is unable to provide a complete accounting for the account but denies that it cannot provide the amount due and owing at the time of placement of the account with Plaintiff.

 

RFA No. 19:

 

Plaintiff’s Affiant is only advised of the alleged balance allegedly owed to the Plaintiff by the Defendant, and has no direct, personal, firsthand knowledge of the alleged account and alleged debt as it was incurred.

 

___ADMIT ___DENY

 

RESPONSE NO. 19:  Plaintiff objects to this request as being overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, unclear, not limited in time or scope and ill-defined in its use of the terms “only advised” and “direct, personal, firsthand knowledge”.  Plaintiffs further objects that this request is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it relates to the Defendant’s liability for the debt that forms the basis of this action.  Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff states:  Deny.  Plaintiff denies based upon information and belief obtained from the original creditor.

 

 

RFA No. 20:

 

Plaintiff’s Affiant does not have in his/her immediate possession, or custody and control, all records pertaining to the alleged account and alleged debt of the Defendant, which is the subject matter of this lawsuit.

 

___ADMIT ___DENY

 

RESPONSE NO. 20:  Plaintiff objects to this request as being overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, unclear, not limited in time or scope and ill-defined in its use of the terms “all records”.  Plaintiffs further objects that this request is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it relates to the Defendant’s liability for the debt that forms the basis of this action.  Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff is unable to admit or deny and therefore must state:  Deny.

 

RFA No. 21:

 

All records allegedly held by Plaintiff, which allegedly prove Defendant is indebted to the Plaintiff, are not Plaintiff’s own business records which were originated by and kept in the regular course of business by Plaintiff.

 

___ADMIT ___DENY

 

RESPONSE NO. 20:  Plaintiff objects to this request as being overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, unclear, not limited in time or scope and ill-defined in its use of the terms “all records”.  Plaintiffs further objects that this request is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it relates to the Defendant’s liability for the debt that forms the basis of this action.  Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff is unable to admit or deny and therefore must state:  Deny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Harry Seaward

 

Ok, here are the Roggs responses from JDBA.  If the JDB does not submit an MSJ, what might be my next step here?  I never asked for them to produce any documents - should I ask for the Forward Flow Agreement?  If you are able to look these responses over, I appreciate it.    

 

Interrogatory No. 1:

 

Identify all persons involved in the preparation of the answers to the interrogatories.  For each such person, provide their address and telephone number.  For each such person, also identify which interrogatory that person responded to.  Please also include their title with the Plaintiff and length of time of employment, if applicable to that person.

 

RESPONSE NO. 1: Anna Banana, authorized representative of SCUMBAG, LLC; c/o Law Office Of _______, street address, suite, city, state, zip, phone

 

Interrogatory No. 2:

 

Identify each person who has knowledge or claims to have knowledge of information or events related to this lawsuit.  For each such person, give their name, address, telephone number, and a summary of that person’s knowledge or involvement in this matter.

 

RESPONSE NO. 2: Objection, Plaintiff objects as this request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, not limited in time or scope and ill-defined in its request for the identification of “all persons.”  Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff states:  the Defendant; any of Plaintiff’s authorized agents, including but not limited to the following:  Martie Wise, Vicky Icky, Chris Costly, Angel Miller, Anna Banana, and other authorized representative of SCUMBAG, LLC.  The above listed can be contacted c/o Law Office Of Joe Blow, address…..The above are expected to testify about the business procedures and about the business documents and records as held in the ordinary course of business concerning the account in question.

 

Interrogatory No. 3:

 

Identify all documents or other tangible evidence that support your contention that the Defendant, for valuable consideration received, entered into a contract promising to pay the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s assignor.

 

RESPONSE NO. 3:  Plaintiff objects to this request as being overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, unclear, not limited in time or scope and ill-defined in its use of the term “all documents or other tangible evidence”.  Plaintiff further objects as the request seeks to discover information that is or should be within the knowledge of the Defendant.  Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff states:  Cardholder Agreement, Affidavit of Sale and Certification of Debt, Statements, Account Information Report, Bill of Sale and Assignment of Loans and Redacted Schedule 1.  Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response if and upon discovering additional documentation responsive to this request.

 

 

Interrogatory No. 4:

 

Identify all documents showing the calculation or assessment of interest, finance charges, fees and charges on the alleged debt sued upon in this action, and all documents relating to the payment history of the alleged account that contribute to the balance.

 

 

RESPONSE NO. 4:  Plaintiff objects to this request as being overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, unclear, not limited in time or scope and ill-defined in its request to identify “all documents…”.  Plaintiff further objects to the extent the request seeks to go on a fishing expedition to discover documentation and information that is subject to the attorney-client privilege; the work-product doctrine; that is of a confidential and proprietary nature to the Plaintiff, thereby subject to the trade-secret privilege; and, that is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it relates the Defendant’s liability for the debt that forms the basis of this action.  Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff states: Cardmember Agreement, Affidavit of Sale and Certification of Debt, Statements, Account Information Report, Bill of Sale and Assignment of Loans and Redacted Schedule 1.  Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response if and upon discovering additional documentation responsive to this request.

 

Interrogatory No. 5:

 

Identify any document demonstrating that Plaintiff has the authority and standing, and is legally entitled to collect on the alleged debt from Defendant.

 

RESPONSE NO. 5:  Objection.  The request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, not limited in time of scope and ill-defined in its request for “any document.”  Plaintiff further objects to the extent the request seeks to discover documentation that is subject to attorney-client privilege; the work-product doctrine; that is of a confidential and proprietary nature to the Plaintiff; and, that is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections please see the attached Affidavit of Sale and redacted Bill of Sale with redacted Exhibit.

 

Interrogatory No. 6:

 

Identify all documents and tangible things Plaintiff received from Issuer in connection with the alleged Account that is the subject of this lawsuit.

 

RESPONSE NO. 6:  Plaintiff objects to this request as being overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, not limited in time or scope and ill-defined in its request to identify “all documents…”.  Plaintiff further objects to the extent the request seeks to go on a fishing expedition to discover documentation and information that is subject to the attorney-client privilege; the work-product doctrine; that is of a confidential and proprietary nature to the Plaintiff, thereby subject to the trade-secret privilege; and, that is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it relates the Defendant’s liability for the debt that forms the basis of this action.  Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff states:  Cardmember Agreement, Affidavit of Sale and Certification of Debt, Statements, Bill of Sale and Assignment of Loans and Redacted Schedule 1.  Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response if an upon discovering additional documentation responsive to this request. 

 

 

Interrogatory No. 7:

 

Please identify at which address the alleged Card for the alleged Account was mailed to.

 

RESPONSE NO. 7:  Plaintiff objects to this request as the request is made with the intent to harass the Plaintiff where the request seeks to discover information that is or should be within the knowledge of the Defendant, or a third-party, not a party to this action.  Plaintiff further objects that this request is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it relates to the Defendant’s liability for the debt that forms the basis of this action.

 

Interrogatory No. 8

 

Please identify the date on which the alleged Account became active.

 

 

RESPONSE NO. 8:  Plaintiff objects to this request as being overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, not limited in time or scope and ill-defined in its request to identify “active”.  Plaintiff further objects to the extent the request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it relates the Defendant’s liability for the debt that forms the basis of this action.  Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff states the Original Creditor issued an account to the Defendant under its account number 1234567891011 also known as 12345987654321 on our about June 88, 8888.

 

Interrogatory No. 9

 

Identify each address Defendant received statements on the alleged Account. 

 

RESPONSE NO. 9:  Plaintiff objects to this request as being overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, unclear, not limited in time or scope and ill-defined in its use of the term “each address Defendant received statements”.  Plaintiff further objects to this request as the request is made with the intent to harass the Plaintiff where the request seeks to discover information that is or should be within the knowledge of the Defendant.  Plaintiff further objects that this request is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it relates to the Defendant’s liability for the debt that forms the basis of this action.

 

 

Interrogatory No. 10:

 

Identify all documents Plaintiff is in possession of bearing Defendant's signature.

 

RESPONSE NO. 10:  Plaintiff objects to this request as being overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, unclear, not limited in time or scope and ill-defined in its use of the terms “all documents”.  Plaintiffs further objects that this request is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it relates to the Defendant’s liability for the debt that forms the basis of this action as Defendant’s use of the credit constitutes the Defendant’s acceptance of the terms and conditions of the card.  See A.R.S. §44-7802.  Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff states:  none at this time.  Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response if and upon discovering additional documentation to this request.

 

Interrogatory No. 11:

 

Identify any cancelled checks or copies of cancelled checks, or other verified payments on the alleged Account Plaintiff intends to introduce as evidence at trial.

 

 

RESPONSE NO. 11:  Plaintiff objects to this request as being overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, unclear, not limited in time or scope and ill-defined in its use of the terms “any cancelled checks or copies of cancelled checks, or other verified payments”.  Plaintiff further objects as the request seeks to go on a fishing expedition to discover documentation that is our should be within the possession of the Defendant.  In addition, Plaintiff is without sufficient knowledge, information, or belief as to those documents sent to the Defendant by the original creditor, including but not limited to any statements, prior to purchase of the account. Subject to the foregoing objections and without waiving same, Plaintiff states:  none at this time.  Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response if an upon discovering additional documentation responsive to this request.

 

Interrogatory No. 12:

 

Who signed the Affidavit of Debt? What is the Affiant’s name, job title, and work experience history?

 

RESPONSE NO. 12:  Plaintiff objects to this request as being overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, unclear, not limited in time or scope and ill-defined in its use of the term “Affidavit of Debt”.  Plaintiff further objects to this request as the request is made with the intent to harass the Plaintiff where the request seeks to discover information that is or should be within the knowledge of the Defendant.  Plaintiffs further objects that this request is not relevant and not relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it relates to the Defendant’s liability for the debt that forms the basis for this action.  Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff states:  the Affidavit of Sale and Certificate of Debt provided by Issuer to Plaintiff was signed by Mindy J. Stempson, and employee of FIA Card Services, N.A., in the position of Bank Officer.

 

Interrogatory No. 13:

 

State the number (or, if unknown, a reasonable estimate of the number) of affidavits, declarations and certifications made by the Affiant on the same date as the Affiant’s Sworn Statement.

 

 

RESPONSE NO. 13:  Plaintiff objects to this request as being overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, unclear, not limited in time or scope and ill-defined in its use of the term “affidavits, declarations and certifications.”  Plaintiff further objects as the request seeks to discover information about actions of a third party not a party to this action.  Further, Plaintiff objects to this request as the request is made with the intent to harass the Plaintiff as the request is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it relates to the Defendant’s liability for the debt that forms the basis of this action. 

 

Interrogatory No. 14:

 

Please describe the Affiant’s process or correction of errors while reviewing documents related to consumer debt.

 

RESPONSE NO. 14:  Plaintiff objects to this request as being overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, unclear, not limited in time or scope and ill-defined in its request.  Plaintiff further objects as the request seeks to discover information about actions of a third party not a party to this action.  Further, Plaintiff objects to this request as the request is made with the intent to harass the Plaintiff as the request is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it relates to the Defendant’s liability for the debt that forms the basis of this action.

 

Interrogatory No. 15:

 

How does the Affiant know that the documents provided to him/her for verification of a debt are accurate and authentic? How much time did the Affiant spend verifying the alleged debt before signing an Affidavit of Debt?

 

RESPONSE NO. 15:  Plaintiff objects to this request as being overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, unclear, not limited in time or scope and ill-defined in its request.  Plaintiff further objects as the request seeks to discover information about actions of a third party not a party to this action.  Further, Plaintiff objects to this request as the request is made with the intent to harass the Plaintiff as the request is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it relates to the Defendant’s liability for the debt that forms the basis of this action.

 

 

Interrogatory No. 16:

 

List all procedures that the Affiant used to verify the accuracy of the alleged debt owed to Issuer.  What documents were given to the Affiant for verification of this alleged debt? Were these same documents sent to the Defendant with the Complaint?

 

RESPONSE NO. 16:  Plaintiff objects to this request as being overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, unclear, not limited in time or scope and ill-defined in its request.  Plaintiff further objects as the request seeks to discover information about actions of a third party not a party to this action.  Further, Plaintiff objects to this request as the request is made with the intent to harass the Plaintiff as the request is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it relates to the Defendant’s liability for the debt that forms the basis of this action.

 

Interrogatory No. 17:

 

Does the Affiant have authorized access to original signed documents from the Issuer?  If so, list the individuals who gave the Affiant such authorization.

 

RESPONSE NO. 17:  Plaintiff objects to this request as being overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, unclear, not limited in time or scope and ill-defined in its request.  Plaintiff further objects as the request seeks to discover information about actions of a third party not a party to this action.  Further, Plaintiff objects to this request as the request is made with the intent to harass the Plaintiff as the request is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it relates to the Defendant’s liability for the debt that forms the basis of this action.

 

Interrogatory No. 18:

 

Does the Affiant use a computer to fill out Affidavits of Debt? How did the Affiant obtain the name and amount of debt allegedly owed by the Defendant?  Describe this process in detail.

 

RESPONSE NO. 18:  Plaintiff objects to this request as being overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, unclear, not limited in time or scope and ill-defined in its request.  Plaintiff further objects as the request seeks to discover information about actions of a third party not a party to this action.  Further, Plaintiff objects to this request as the request is made with the intent to harass the Plaintiff as the request is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it relates to the Defendant’s liability for the debt that forms the basis of this action.

 

Interrogatory No. 19:

 

Does the Affiant have personal knowledge of the alleged debt, as it was constituted?

 

 

RESPONSE NO. 19:  Plaintiff objects to this request as being overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, unclear, not limited in time or scope and ill-defined in its request.  Plaintiff further objects as the request seeks to discover information about actions of a third party not a party to this action.  Further, Plaintiff objects to this request as the request is made with the intent to harass the Plaintiff as the request is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it relates to the Defendant’s liability for the debt that forms the basis of this action.

 

Interrogatory No. 20:

 

How do Affidavits of Debt get notarized by the Affiant?  Does the Affiant personally take the Affidavits of Debt to the Notary to be notarized?  Does the Affiant watch the Notary authenticate each affidavit?

 

RESPONSE NO. 20:  Plaintiff objects to this request as being overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, unclear, not limited in time or scope and ill-defined in its request.  Plaintiff further objects as the request seeks to discover information about actions of a third party not a party to this action.  Further, Plaintiff objects to this request as the request is made with the intent to harass the Plaintiff as the request is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it relates to the Defendant’s liability for the debt that forms the basis of this action.

 

Interrogatory No. 21:

 

Identify each individual you expect to call at trial as an expert witness and include the subject matter on which each person is expected to testify, the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion.

 

RESPONSE NO. 21:  Objection, Plaintiff objects as this request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, not limited in time or scope and ill-defined in its request for the identification of “all persons”.  Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff states:  the Defendant; any of Plaintiff’s authorized agents, including, but not limited to the following:  Mary Poppins, Cinderella, Minnie Mouse, Daisy Duck, Goofy, other authorized representative of SCUMBAG, LLC.  The above are expected to testify about the business procedures and about the business documents and records as held in the ordinary course of business concerning the account in question.

 

Interrogatory No. 22:

Identify with specificity each piece of admissible evidence Plaintiff intends to introduce at trial.

 

RESPONSE NO. 22:  Plaintiff objects to this request as being overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, unclear, not limited in time or scoop and ill-defined in its use of the term “each piece of admissible evidence”.  Plaintiff further objects as the request seeks to discover information that is or should be within the knowledge of the Defendant.  Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff states:  Cardmember Agreement, Affidavit of Sale and Certification of Debt, Statements, Account Information Report, Bill of Sale and Assignment of Loans and Redacted Schedule 1.  Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this response if and upon discovering additional documentation responsive to this request.

 

Interrogatory No. 23:

 

Identify all records Plaintiff originated regarding the creation of the alleged debt.

 

RESPONSE NO. 23:  Plaintiff objects to this request as being overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, unclear, not limited in time or scope and ill-defined in its use of the term “all records”.  Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff is without sufficient knowledge to provide a response and reserves the right to supplement this response upon clarification of the term “all records.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A motion to compel is the way to get them to answer the roggs they have objections to.

Since you are the one making the request, it falls on you to show the request is discoverable (i.e., why you need this info to properly defend your case).

 

They actually admitted to quite a bit here.  They start each response by whining about unduly burdensome requests, etc, but if you read on, they answered many of them fairly substantially.

 

RFA #7 is interesting.  You might explore this at trial and then ask for sanctions (dismissal w/prejudice for making false statements under oath) when they finally admit they never exchanged goods, services or money with you.

RFA #9 is also interesting.  They seem to be saying they have information regarding the dispute status of the debt.  You might explore this at trial also.

RFA #11 According to the recent Justice Court appeal rulings, they are supposed to be able to show how the records came into existence.  Depending on how this goes down, your entire case could hinge on this one RFA.  I'd probably grill them pretty hard about this one issue.

RFA #18 can be helpful

RFA #21 is a flat out lie.  As with RFA #7, you might also dig into this at trial and then ask for sanctions (dismissal w/prejudice for making false statements under oath) when they finally admit they didn't create the original records.  Their objection to "all records" in the context you used it is asinine.

 

I think I would take what I could from this and move ahead in preparation for their MSJ.  I think it's significant they admitted they cannot show how the records came into existence and cannot provide an accounting from a $0 balance forward.

 

If you were to motion to compel,  I think these are the important ones to go after:

 

Rogg #7

Rogg #9 (only if the address on their statements don't match an address you lived at)

 

RFA #5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RFA #7 is interesting.  You might explore this at trial and then ask for sanctions (dismissal w/prejudice for making false statements under oath) when they finally admit they never exchanged goods, services or money with you.

 

 

#7 isn't a reason for sanctions or a dismissal.  JDBs don't exchange goods and services with consumers.  Also, the JDB didn't allege in the complaint that it did so.

 

 

RFA #9 is also interesting.  They seem to be saying they have information regarding the dispute status of the debt.  You might explore this at trial also.

 

 

Their response merely indicates that they claim to have knowledge of WHETHER the disputed or not.  If pressed, they're response would be that they have knowledge that the debt was not disputed.

 

 

 

RFA #21 is a flat out lie.  As with RFA #7, you might also dig into this at trial and then ask for sanctions (dismissal w/prejudice for making false statements under oath) when they finally admit they didn't create the original records.  Their objection to "all records" in the context you used it is asinine.

 

 

It's true that they did not originate the OC's records. 

 

126(d):

 

d. Penalty for groundless denial. If a party fails to admit the genuineness of a document or the truthfulness of a matter as provided in a request under this rule, and the requesting party thereafter proves at a hearing or at trial that a document is genuine or that a matter is true, the court may consider whether there was any reasonable basis for the denial, and if there is none, the court may impose a penalty under Rule 127(d) against the party who denied the request. [ARCP 37(e)]

 

127(d)

d. Penalties. The penalties that a court may impose include ordering that certain witnesses or exhibits may not be used at trial; that a particular fact is deemed established; that a pleading or a claim or defense in a pleading be stricken; or that the party be assessed the reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses of a party who was harmed by inaccurate, untimely, or lack of disclosure or discovery. The court may also impose any other reasonable civil penalty, including a monetary penalty, which is appropriate under the circumstances. [ARCP 37(a), (B)]

 

Have credit card billing statements been provided yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had never looked at  A.R.S. §44-7802 - Acceptance of Agreement includes:

Any cardholder or authorized user uses the credit card account.

 

It seems that any case with statements that show a changing balance (purchases and payments) equals end-of-story. Taking 44-7802, along with the sections that equate electronic records with written records, seems to say "using a credit card is the same as physically signing an IOU in blood."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Goody_Ouchless

 

That's pretty much accepted everywhere.   Use of the card implies an an agreement between the consumer and cc company and that the consumer accepted the terms of the agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#7 isn't a reason for sanctions or a dismissal.  JDBs don't exchange goods and services with consumers.  Also, the JDB didn't allege in the complaint that it did so.

Yep, I misread their response to the RFA. I thought they were saying they (the JDB themselves) did exchange goods/services/money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#7 isn't a reason for sanctions or a dismissal.  JDBs don't exchange goods and services with consumers.  Also, the JDB didn't allege in the complaint that it did so.

 

 

 

Their response merely indicates that they claim to have knowledge of WHETHER the disputed or not.  If pressed, they're response would be that they have knowledge that the debt was not disputed.

 

 

It's true that they did not originate the OC's records. 

 

126(d):

 

d. Penalty for groundless denial. If a party fails to admit the genuineness of a document or the truthfulness of a matter as provided in a request under this rule, and the requesting party thereafter proves at a hearing or at trial that a document is genuine or that a matter is true, the court may consider whether there was any reasonable basis for the denial, and if there is none, the court may impose a penalty under Rule 127(d) against the party who denied the request. [ARCP 37(e)]

 

127(d)

d. Penalties. The penalties that a court may impose include ordering that certain witnesses or exhibits may not be used at trial; that a particular fact is deemed established; that a pleading or a claim or defense in a pleading be stricken; or that the party be assessed the reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses of a party who was harmed by inaccurate, untimely, or lack of disclosure or discovery. The court may also impose any other reasonable civil penalty, including a monetary penalty, which is appropriate under the circumstances. [ARCP 37(a), (B)]

 

Have credit card billing statements been provided yet?

Yes, there were some credit card billing statements provided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm not mistaken, they never provided a card agreement. Is that correct?

Edit: Scratch that. I just saw they gave you one with the complaint.

So is there any of the documents they have disclosed but have not yet provided to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@fight2win

 

When were they provided and what did they show?

They were provided with the summons.  There are about a years worth of statements with one showing a payment and a purchase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm not mistaken, they never provided a card agreement. Is that correct?

Edit: Scratch that. I just saw they gave you one with the complaint.

So is there any of the documents they have disclosed but have not yet provided to you?

I don't believe so, but I will read through their answers again.  (thank you)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what is my best course of action here?  They basically said they just received a final balance from the OC, but they can't determine how the balance was calculated, and they can't attest as to how a third party ensures that errors are not made, etc.  I also don't know how to respond about the debt when asked about it. The JDBA asked me at pre-trial if I didn't believe it was mine, etc.  I just said I didn't believe I owed any debt to the Plaintiff.  

 

Should I do a Request for Production and ask for the Forward Flow Agreement?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went back and read the first page of this thread and by the end of that page, they had not provided a bill of sale.  In their responses to your roggs #5 & 6 they identify a bill of sale.  Did they actually attach it to their responses?  Did they provide it any time before they responded to your discovery requests?

 

Honestly, unless you can swear under oath that you never had an account with BofA, your options are looking grim at this point.  They seem to have everything they need to win.  If you want to press on to trial, it looks like the only way to win is if they make a mistake.  Which is quite possible, by the way.  Are you willing to gamble on a ~$1,000 debt + attorney's fees of another $1,000 or $1,500?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Harry,

 

They provided:

 

CC Agreement - just a printout from the years for the alleged card

Billing Statements - with at least one purchase and payment

Bill of Sale and Assignment of Loans

Affidavit of Sale and Certification of Debt

 

That is what I received and those are the documents referenced in their answer to my Roggs and RFAs.

 

So every JDB who has the documents referenced above wins?  I have not been reading too much about other people's experiences here, but I thought there were other possible avenues in fighting this.  

 

Can I ask to arbitrate now? :)  

 

What has been all the talk about asking for the Forward Flow Agreement, or entire Bill of Sale?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Harry,

 

They provided:

 

CC Agreement - just a printout from the years for the alleged card

Billing Statements - with at least one purchase and payment

Bill of Sale and Assignment of Loans

Affidavit of Sale and Certification of Debt

 

That is what I received and those are the documents referenced in their answer to my Roggs and RFAs.

 

So every JDB who has the documents referenced above wins?  I have not been reading too much about other people's experiences here, but I thought there were other possible avenues in fighting this.  

 

Can I ask to arbitrate now? :-)

 

What has been all the talk about asking for the Forward Flow Agreement, or entire Bill of Sale?  

Alright, so is that the consensus here?  Should I settle at this point?  We have been working to clean up our credit anyway, so maybe we can negotiate to have this listed as paid as agreed.

 

I definitely don't want to receive a judgement over a $1,000.  I'm still surprised they bother going after people for such small amounts.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely don't want to receive a judgement over a $1,000.  I'm still surprised they bother going after people for such small amounts.  

 

Yea, that is part of the new landscape. There are so many out-of-work law school grads, and this work all automated, so the debt buyer is able to make fixed-fee agreements with law firms. It means it doesn't cost them more whether you fight or not.

 

As Harry said, you are risking turning this from $1,000 to $2,500. In Arizona an affidavit and bill of sale essentially make a debt buyer indistinguishable from an original creditor. Add in the CC statements and it's open-and-shut.

 

Of course, others will say to keep fighting - but they tend to crawl back into the woodwork when things don't turn out as they expect...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, that is part of the new landscape. There are so many out-of-work law school grads, and this work all automated, so the debt buyer is able to make fixed-fee agreements with law firms. It means it doesn't cost them more whether you fight or not.

 

As Harry said, you are risking turning this from $1,000 to $2,500. In Arizona an affidavit and bill of sale essentially make a debt buyer indistinguishable from an original creditor. Add in the CC statements and it's open-and-shut.

 

Of course, others will say to keep fighting - but they tend to crawl back into the woodwork when things don't turn out as they expect...

Well, Harry mentioned the JDBA making a mistake, and in my opinion, I believe they already have.

 

I brought up the fact that the Affidavit of Sale and Certification of Debt references the "agreement" - being sold on 2/14/2013.  

 

However, the Bill of Sale and Assignment of Loans specifies the "Agreement" as being dated 5 days earlier.  So which is it?  I feel that I can raise that as an issue.  Why would there be two seperate dates referenced for the "Agreement". 

 

Now, the Bill of Sale was executed ten days after the supposed date of sale (I understand that the date of execution/signing of it can differ, but I'm referring to the affiant suggesting it was sold on an altogether different date), BUT the discrepancy in the dates of the agreement would suggest that there is more than one agreement.  So what day was this account sold - on date A, or date B?  I'd like to see the document that the affiant is referencing!  What exactly was she looking at when she decided it was sold on a different date than what I was given?

 

Their answer to my Roggs and RFAs also referced a different court.  So, how can an attorney make errors such as these, and then I'm supposed to believe the accuracy of the documents that they received from a third party?  They already said in their answer that they can't attest or verify how a third party does things, so which is it?  Yes, they can trust what is given to them from a third party, or no, they can't?  They did not answer how they can absolutey ensure that no errors were made in regard to the balance supposedly due and owing -other than saying that the affiant verified it by looking at her computer screen?  But the same affiant doesn't have the date right for the "agreement".  

 

Lastly, the affiant is only certifying that the amount is correct.  She is not certifying that the Plaintiff has the right to sue/actually owns my supposed debt.  How on earth can they sue based on ONE page of a Bill of Sale with a simple attached printout "Schedule 1" with my name on it?  The Bill of Sale does not have my name or account number on it.  There is nothing that shows me that they own my debt.  

 

Something just doesn't seem right.  Surely they have to offer more than they have, AND there should not be discrepancies of date when the "agreement" is referenced.  

 

Thoughts??  (and I've changed the dates that I'm referring to...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Harry,

 

They provided:

 

CC Agreement - just a printout from the years for the alleged card

Billing Statements - with at least one purchase and payment

Bill of Sale and Assignment of Loans

Affidavit of Sale and Certification of Debt

 

That is what I received and those are the documents referenced in their answer to my Roggs and RFAs.

 

So every JDB who has the documents referenced above wins?  I have not been reading too much about other people's experiences here, but I thought there were other possible avenues in fighting this.

 

No, not every JDB wins just because they have those records, but if they file an MSJ right now, they have provided enough for the judge to rule in their favor.  This depends on the judge.  There are a few judges that prefer to hear the case at trial or hearing, but most want to clear the calendar so they grant the motion.  If the MSJ is not successful for CACH and they go to trial, they need a witness to introduce the records.   They will probably ask to have their witness to appear telephonicly.  You can object and hope the judge denies their request for a telephonic witness which would require them to produce a live witness.  If they don't produce a live witness, they will probably dismiss the day of trial 'without prejudice', meaning they could reopen the case when they have a witness available.  If they do produce a live witness you can try to discredit his/her testimony.  Then if the Justice Court finds the witness credible and rules in CACH's favor at trial, you can appeal and hope the trial court committed some error of law or  discretion.

 

There is no one magical way to win, but if CACH does everything right (and they know how to do this), you'll probably lose.  Again, it all depends on the judge.  Some want to see everything in perfect order.  Some see the evidence and hear the testimony and conclude that it's 'more likely than not' that CACH's version is true.  The only way around this is to present an alternative version that outweighs CACH's version.  Identity theft with a police report is one of these alternatives.  You can also deny opening the account with the original creditor under oath.  Sometimes it works, sometimes not.  If you know that it's not true, though, you'll be committing perjury.

 

Can I ask to arbitrate now? :-)

 

You can ask and the worst that can happen is the judge says no.  CACH will probably object because you're so far into litigation and claim you waived your right.  And by asking to arbitrate you may be conceding that you had a relationship with the OC and that CACH does in fact own the debt.  For such a small debt, this may have been a perfect case for arbitration, but I have a feeling the window of opportunity has closed.

 

 

What has been all the talk about asking for the Forward Flow Agreement, or entire Bill of Sale?

 

It's something that won't hurt your case and could help.  You're going to have to fight to get it and that's going to take time and effort.  I'm not versed in pursuing discovery objections so I probably won't be of much help if things get complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, that is part of the new landscape. There are so many out-of-work law school grads, and this work all automated, so the debt buyer is able to make fixed-fee agreements with law firms. It means it doesn't cost them more whether you fight or not.

 

As Harry said, you are risking turning this from $1,000 to $2,500. In Arizona an affidavit and bill of sale essentially make a debt buyer indistinguishable from an original creditor. Add in the CC statements and it's open-and-shut.

 

Of course, others will say to keep fighting - but they tend to crawl back into the woodwork when things don't turn out as they expect...

One page of a Bill of Sale?  One page of a document that clearly states that they purchase these debts without recourse or warranty, etc.  Ok, and yes, they might very well own the debt, but how can they determine that the amount is correct?  This is based on the affiants records?  So, if the affiant says, "Yes, this is correct" - then that is that?  Also, if the affiant references a document - such as the "agreement" - am I not entitled to ask for that document??  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The warranty/recourse thing has been addressed by the court - they say that could mean a bunch of things other than that the data is garbage.

 

I'll review they date discrepancy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, not every JDB wins just because they have those records, but if they file an MSJ right now, they have provided enough for the judge to rule in their favor.  This depends on the judge.  There are a few judges that prefer to hear the case at trial or hearing, but most want to clear the calendar so they grant the motion.  If the MSJ is not successful for CACH and they go to trial, they need a witness to introduce the records.   They will probably ask to have their witness to appear telephonicly.  You can object and hope the judge denies their request for a telephonic witness which would require them to produce a live witness.  If they don't produce a live witness, they will probably dismiss the day of trial 'without prejudice', meaning they could reopen the case when they have a witness available.  If they do produce a live witness you can try to discredit his/her testimony.  Then if the Justice Court finds the witness credible and rules in CACH's favor at trial, you can appeal and hope the trial court committed some error of law or  discretion.

 

There is no one magical way to win, but if CACH does everything right (and they know how to do this), you'll probably lose.  Again, it all depends on the judge.  Some want to see everything in perfect order.  Some see the evidence and hear the testimony and conclude that it's 'more likely than not' that CACH's version is true.  The only way around this is to present an alternative version that outweighs CACH's version.  Identity theft with a police report is one of these alternatives.  You can also deny opening the account with the original creditor under oath.  Sometimes it works, sometimes not.  If you know that it's not true, though, you'll be committing perjury.

 

 

You can ask and the worst that can happen is the judge says no.  CACH will probably object because you're so far into litigation and claim you waived your right.  And by asking to arbitrate you may be conceding that you had a relationship with the OC and that CACH does in fact own the debt.  For such a small debt, this may have been a perfect case for arbitration, but I have a feeling the window of opportunity has closed.

 

 

 

It's something that won't hurt your case and could help.  You're going to have to fight to get it and that's going to take time and effort.  I'm not versed in pursuing discovery objections so I probably won't be of much help if things get complicated

The JDBA sent me documents with the wrong court listed - twice - and filled with typos.  I guess I have a hard time accepting that they can actually win this on an MSJ.  I want to take the time to ask for anything that can help me.  The worst case scenario is the judge says no.  I don't know much about this particular judge other than A) he's not even an attorney and B) he's been referred to as a liberal, which would suggest that he wouldn't be on the side of the JDB.  Of course, you don't know what you don't know.

 

In all reality, if I did agree to settle, how do I do so and protect myself?  I've heard some little horror stories of other shenanigans that they try to pull.  Also, is it possible to actually benefit you in some way by having it removed/listed as paid on your credit?  Thanks Harry - I appreciate your input even if I don't like what you're saying.  :)  But if there are any wormholes or if there is anything that they've done that can help me - or anything else I can do to - I am willing to put the time in to do it based on principal alone! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The warranty/recourse thing has been addressed by the court - they say that could mean a bunch of things other than that the data is garbage.

 

I'll review they date discrepancy. 

well, yeah it "could" mean a bunch of other things besides the data is garbage, but it doesn't say that they data isn't garbage.  It doesn't say that the data is 100% error free.  Isn't that the way attorneys spin things on their own behalf?!!??  

 

(and thanks)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Harry mentioned the JDBA making a mistake, and in my opinion, I believe they already have.

 

I brought up the fact that the Affidavit of Sale and Certification of Debt references the "agreement" - being sold on 2/14/2013.  

 

However, the Bill of Sale and Assignment of Loans specifies the "Agreement" as being dated 5 days earlier.  So which is it?  I feel that I can raise that as an issue.  Why would there be two seperate dates referenced for the "Agreement". 

 

Now, the Bill of Sale was executed ten days after the supposed date of sale (I understand that the date of execution/signing of it can differ, but I'm referring to the affiant suggesting it was sold on an altogether different date), BUT the discrepancy in the dates of the agreement would suggest that there is more than one agreement.  So what day was this account sold - on date A, or date B?  I'd like to see the document that the affiant is referencing!  What exactly was she looking at when she decided it was sold on a different date than what I was given?

 

Their answer to my Roggs and RFAs also referced a different court.  So, how can an attorney make errors such as these, and then I'm supposed to believe the accuracy of the documents that they received from a third party?  They already said in their answer that they can't attest or verify how a third party does things, so which is it?  Yes, they can trust what is given to them from a third party, or no, they can't?  They did not answer how they can absolutey ensure that no errors were made in regard to the balance supposedly due and owing -other than saying that the affiant verified it by looking at her computer screen?  But the same affiant doesn't have the date right for the "agreement".  

 

Lastly, the affiant is only certifying that the amount is correct.  She is not certifying that the Plaintiff has the right to sue/actually owns my supposed debt.  How on earth can they sue based on ONE page of a Bill of Sale with a simple attached printout "Schedule 1" with my name on it?  The Bill of Sale does not have my name or account number on it.  There is nothing that shows me that they own my debt.  

 

Something just doesn't seem right.  Surely they have to offer more than they have, AND there should not be discrepancies of date when the "agreement" is referenced.  

 

Thoughts??  (and I've changed the dates that I'm referring to...)

What you're arguing are issues of "trustworthiness".  This could be a problem for them, but if they are able to explain this to the satisfaction of the judge (e.g. there are two agreements executed on two different dates, or these are clerical errors due to the enormous number of lawsuits they file), then what?

 

The forward flow won't identify your account.  It's a master agreement that a series of debts are sold under.  Here is one from BofA/FIA selling to CACH.  This is probably identical to the one used in the sale of your account.  The only damaging part if these agreements are the "disclaimers" where the parties agree the debts are sold without warranty of any kind.  You have to convince the judge this means the parties knew the info about the debts may not be accurate.

 

http://dalie.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/2013.06.19-FIA-Card-Svcs-to-CACH-LLC.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.