Jump to content

card number on the summons does not match the card number in question


Bond007
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi I am In Kansas. I have been sued by Portfolio Recovery a$$. I am on Disability. I own my home. Her name is not on the summons.

 

I have denied all the allegations in my answer and have not yet sent it off. I still have a few days. The reason for Denying every paragraph is because the Citi Bank credit card number listed on the summons is not the same as the card number on my card. I found an old card and a few receipts from late 2012. They both have the same number but are different from the number on the summons.

 

The first thing I did was to file a Motion to Strike Affidavit. The Affidavit is from Portfolios CoR. I hope I filed it correctly and not too soon.

 

 

I wish I had found this site months ago but I guess now is better than never. Any help will be greatfully appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi I am In Kansas. I have been sued by Portfolio Recovery a$$. I am on Disability. I own my home which I transferred the title over into my wife's name hoping it will be safe from these bottom feeders. Her name is not on the summons.

SSDI? They can't touch it. They can't take it from your bank account either.  They CAN get a levy and take pretty much any money of YOURS that isn't from your SSDI, but if you have your SSDI direct deposited into your bank account, then it's better.  It can be tricky though because if there are any other amounts deposited (check, direct deposit, etc, it doesn't matter) that are NOT your SSDI, those are potentially not safe from them.   I'm not sure about your spouse. It may be that if you can prove that any other deposits made into your account ae hers, they may be safe.  I would consult legal if I were you on that.

 

As for your home being transferred to your wife's name, how long ago did you do that?  You want to be very careful because doing that right before a lawsuit or bankruptcy and you will have to explain why you  did it.  I believe there are laws against doing it if they can prove your reason was to protect it from creditors.

 

I have denied all the allegations in my answer and have not yet sent it off. I still have a few days to do so. The reason for Denying every paragraph is because the Citi Bank credit card number listed on the summons is not the same as the card number on my card. I found an old card and a few receipts from late 2012. They both have the same number but are different from the number on the summons.

 

The first thing I did was to file a Motion to Strike Affidavit. The Affidavit is from Portfolios CoR. I hope I filed it correctly and not too soon.

 

They took the time to sue me so I am not going down without a fight, even if that means that I mess it up. I believe I am pretty much judgment proof except for maybe my 2008 Toyota pickup. But im not sure about that either.

 

I wish I had found this site months ago but I guess now is better than never. Any help will be greatfully appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how that would go over in court if it is a matter of the wrong card number being on the summons.  It may be that the contract you originally signed will be what binds you to this debt.  I don't have enough experience with debt lawsuits to know if a error like that (assuming all other things are accurate) if it would be enough to get the case tossed.  Hopefully someone else will come along who does.  Good luck and keep us updated!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm hoping that the differences in the card numbers will get the suit thrown out of court. But I doubt it is going to be that easy.  I just don't know how to go about showing that to the court.

 

Unfortunately, tissue paper flimsy.  Some creditors will change the account number once it charges off, goes into collections or is sold.

 

 

Are you being sued by Citi or by a JDB?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Precisely, hence the OC vs JDB question

 

If you're being sued by the OC Citi, then all they'll need is documentation showing Bond007 openned account #123456798 which upon charge off was converted to account #987654321.

 

If it's a JDB suing you, then they'll not only have to establish standing/chain of possesion but that account #987654321 was originally #123456789.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the answers. I guess that's my defense then.
Since im being sued by PRA and they are the second JDB that the debt has been sold to, I doubt that they have the documents to support. I guess I object to any and all questions or allegations that point to the wrong account number, and make them prove that I opened an account with that number. Which I honestly did not. I cut up the card I was using a long while ago. But while digging through some boxes and my safe I found the original card with the original card number. It is not the number on the summons.

 

Do you think I should file the card and statements I have with the right number on them as evidence or just make them prove that the number on the summons is correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the answers. I guess that's my defense then.

Since im being sued by PRA and they are the second JDB that the debt has been sold to, I doubt that they have the documents to support they own the account.

You won't know what they have until disclosure/discovery.  You're correct in that the more hands that the debt has passed through reduces the chances of all the required elements being present, but there is also such a thing as "adoptive business records" which means that PRA's employee can possibly be allowed to introduce the OC's records if the records were incorporated into PRA's records and relied on in regular business activities.

 

Below are examples of cases where records were allowed to be admitted under the adoptive business records doctrine.  These cases are not binding on Kansas state courts, but may be persuasive in the absence of binding case law specifically addressing the admission of such records.  (I did a quick search on Kansas case law and didn't find anything either way, but I'm lazy so you might find something if you spend more than 30 seconds on it.  :-))

 

Thus, a company in possession of documents prepared by another company may introduce the documents as its own business records, even if the sponsoring witness from the custodian company cannot vouch for the circumstances under which the documents were prepared, provided that the custodian company "has made an independent check of the records, or can establish accuracy by other means."

 

Air Land Forwarders, Inc. v. U.S., 172 F.3d 1338, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1999)

 

 

Documents may properly be admitted under this Rule as business records even though they are the records of a business entity other than one of the parties, and even though the foundation for their receipt is laid by a witness who is not an employee of the entity that owns and prepared them.  Further, there is no requirement that the person whose first-hand knowledge was the basis of the entry be identified, so long as it was the business entity's regular practice to get information from such a person.

Saks Intern, Inc. v. M/V Export Champion, 817 F.2d 1011, 1013 (2d Cir. 1987)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But don't they still have to prove a chain of assignment and that they own the debt in question with evidence of assignment? That seems like it may be hard to do if the debt has been assigned multiple times. They should have to prove that the record keepers of multiple assignments, had knowledge of the business practices of the original creditor at the time that the records were transferred. Sounds like to me at least, the testimony of The CoR is hearsay if she cannot prove that she had knowledge of the OC business practices. She would have to have worked for or at least been trained in the business practices of the OC. It probably depends on how loosely the courts define the Hearsay rule.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if there are some specific requirements for "incorporation". Otherwise, I can grab a bunch of your billing statements and pronounce them "incorporated" and sue you. Are there any criteria? I would say the full history of account should be one of them

It's not just incorporating them. They must also be relied on in the ordinary course of business. I would say to be able to claim to rely on business records, the records at issue should be of the same type as the business incorporating them.

In other words, I don't see how an automotive repair business could truthfully claim to rely on business records from a company that builds kitchen cabinets.

If I'm not in the business of buying debts, that's what keeps me from claiming to incorporate and rely on your credit card statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But don't they still have to prove a chain of assignment and that they own the debt in question with evidence of assignment? That seems like it may be hard to do if the debt has been assigned multiple times. They should have to prove that the record keepers of multiple assignments, had knowledge of the business practices of the original creditor at the time that the records were transferred. Sounds like to me at least, the testimony of The CoR is hearsay if she cannot prove that she had knowledge of the OC business practices. She would have to have worked for or at least been trained in the business practices of the OC. It probably depends on how loosely the courts define the Hearsay rule.

If you read the rulings, they clearly say knowledge of the method of creation is not a requirement.

However, you are correct in that in order to show that Company C rightfully owns the debt, they have to show that Company A sold the debt to Company B who in turn sold it to Company C. This can easily be achieved via affidavits, depending on if your court is permitted to allow such affidavits and how much weight your court is allowed give them.

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.