Sign in to follow this  
WhoopsNotMyName

Preparing for Mediation & Trial - Midland Funding - Arizona

Recommended Posts

I re-read the affidavit and looked up the perjury statue they list. Involving law enforcement and the FTC opens one up to criminal liability, while simply signing with no supporting evidence may allow the plaintiff to argue that the affidavit is frivolous.

 

Frankly, I suspect Bursey will take the above positions and use scare tactics regarding exposure to Federal prosecution. If the OP doesn't flinch and requests those threats be put in writing they may just go away. Worst case is that they don't accept the affidavit without supporting evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A simple cure for that would be to merely attach a copy of the police report to the affidavit as an exhibit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Anon Amos

 

I believe the police report was based upon the theft of the OP's wallet in 2014.  That would have no bearing on a default that occurred in 2010.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a furniture credit card through HSBC, paid in full on time, etc. So no, wouldn't have been a store-branded card. Also, I didn't even know about the credit cards until I pulled my credit report in 2013 so I wouldn't have had a chance to file an ID theft issue in 2010.

 

@BV80 There's an alleged default that occurred in 2010, from a bottom feeder.

 

I was going off this statement (above) from OP, and the fact that he said if bank records were to be subpoenaed they won't show payments to this alleged account.  I was thinking the wallet was stolen sooner than it was reported (but I see where he said it was 2014), even still, there was an ID theft and there is a dispute to any payment allegations. The police report is already  filed, I think I would use it anyway.

 

If it is impossible to win in justice court it won't matter anyway, and if it goes to arbitration it won't hurt anything either.

 

I personally don't believe a payment has been made simply because a bottom feeder provides a paper saying so, or that a case can't be beat even when they do produce it, However the AZ justice court will, and for that reason I suggested the arbitration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Anon Amos

 

I understand that the default is alleged.  However, that 2014 police report filed for a theft that occurred in 2014 has no bearing on this case because the timeline is not going to work.   

 

He claims he made no payments toward the account.  If his 2010 bank records show no payment, the JDB would not be able to prove a 2010 payment. 

 

Even IF the 2010 payment was reflected in his bank statements and no more payments were made after that, how would a wallet theft in 2014 have any bearing on an account that went into default 4 years earlier?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate everyone's input, advice and opinions. Just so everyone understands, I am in the stage of waiting to see what the response to the theft affidavit results in. By Monday/Tuesday, I should know whether they are going to drop the case or pursue it. Since I am still in the mediation stage for both cases, I will demand arbitration if Midland decides to continue to pursue the case.

 

Yes -- the police report is irrelevant regarding the cases, I know that so everyone can   :chillpill: ...

 

Thanks everyone!

 

P.S. I am a "she" not a "he"   :jessica:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Anon Amos

 

It would also have to be taken into consideration that any fraudulent accounts opened due to the information in the stolen wallet would have been opened AFTER the theft, not before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Anon Amos

 

I understand that the default is alleged.  However, that 2014 police report filed for a theft that occurred in 2014 has no bearing on this case because the timeline is not going to work.   

 

He claims he made no payments toward the account.  If his 2010 bank records show no payment, the JDB would not be able to prove a 2010 payment. 

 

Even IF the 2010 payment was reflected in his bank statements and no more payments were made after that, how would a wallet theft in 2014 have any bearing on an account that went into default 4 years earlier?

 

Yes I suppose it would have no bearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck - if the affidavit makes them skate then we have a great new strategy in AZ.

 

Since they can't lose in court, maybe this, like arbitration, is simply too much work for them to bother with. Also Midland may be very wary of pursuing anything that remotely resembles ID Theft, as that's the kind of thing draws attention in the form of "human interest" stories. They may say "we don't believe your claims, but will no longer pursue the matter."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well... I hope they don't read these forums lol.

There's no strategy being floated in any of these topics that debt buyers don't already know about.

 

Sorry about calling you a "he". I was playing the odds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure I suggested arbitration and to try to stay out of the AZ justice court if possible

You did but then somehow kept arguing for trying to discredit their evidence and witness testimony. Why not see what happens with the attempts to keep it out of court before trying argue their evidence isn't any good?  This sounds like an either/or approach at this stage and if OP wants to not have a judgment, it's anything but. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You did but then somehow kept arguing for trying to discredit their evidence and witness testimony. Why not see what happens with the attempts to keep it out of court before trying argue their evidence isn't any good?  This sounds like an either/or approach at this stage and if OP wants to not have a judgment, it's anything but.

 

Yes, just in case they do follow it into arbitration (because it doesn't cost them 20k like people claim), she would discredit them and the evidence at the arbitration hearing rather; than just showing up or agreeing with it. I wasn't trying to argue anything or suggest not waiting or fighting it in court. I was agreeing with much of what you were saying (other than the bagging on Shellieh).

 

I'll go ahead and let you handle it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was agreeing with much of what you were saying (other than the bagging on Shellieh).

Let's not lose sight of the fact that my comments to Shellieh were in response to her comments to me.  And let's also be clear that she has on a half a dozen occasions "bagged" on me as a "glass is half empty kind of person" and proclaimed to all of the good people of CIC that I have some sort of vendetta or grudge against successful people.  I'm not sure which people she thinks this is happening with because there are virtually no successful people here in AZ.  But whatever... I held my tongue every other time because I'm a nice guy.  What do you suppose is a fair number of times for me to ignore a person's comments about me before I set them straight? Half a dozen is right around my personal comfort level in this case.

 

That and she admittedly argued against hard factual data because the truth doesn't feel good. 

 

Sorry, everyone, but the denial has got to stop.  People are potentially being blindly steered right into lion's dens with the "you can do it!" type of encouragement.

 

I'll go ahead and let you handle it

Except you'll still be sending PMs so you don't have to publicly answer for your nonsense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never said you have some sort of grudge against successful people....please. Point that out. I have nothing against you personally either Harry. As far as the glass half empty. It's true, sorry, but you come off as a very negative person. You think your shooting straight from the hip telling AZ. Defendants don't bother in so many words. I just don't feel the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many people have beaten AZ., just because YOU DIDNT, doesn't mean they are all doomed.

Taking your use of capital letters into account, are you saying you didn't mean to imply that my "negativity" is exaggerated because I resent people that win?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way.   You can feel how ever you want. If the only data available contradicts those feelings, it's foolish to continue clinging to them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it means just because you didn't win despite all your efforts does not mean everyone else will have the same out come. Different judges, different rulings.....no matter what state your in. What I am saying is don't assume all is lost if you live in AZ. Ya it sucks to be in JC, but instead of saying your going to lose, why not talk about ways to win in az. Positive stuff. . Oh and Howell (cited by BV80 I think) is not cite able. Tear apart the details. If you are in JC and can raise 1 disputable fact....they have to fly that witness in. Let's investigate disputable facts! Like I said, nothing to lose if your going to lose anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did talk about ways to win!!!  Two of them. One way to lose is stay in court. 

 

They don't have to fly a witness in.  Cost of transportation has been found in Arizona to be "good cause" for telephonic testimony. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but many have been able to oppose that telephonic testimony. They do that here too. Look, I'm not saying everything is rainbows and butterfly's, just focus on the positive. If the posters find themselves with no way out of JC, help them engage so the settlement amount would be much lower, not the roll over and take it kind of thing. That's all.

Some say the more you engage, the higher lawyer fees you have to pay. But isn't it in AZ where the lawyer gets a flat fee to fight? So that wouldn't be a concern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless it's a state law, I don't know that a flat fee arrangement is limited to AZ.   Anyway, a flat fee simply means that an attorney's client pays only a certain amount for his services.  It does not mean that the attorney cannot recoup any amount above that flat fee.  It could depend upon the language in the contract between the JDB and attorney.

 

For instance, an attorney who takes a case on contingency will recoup his fees from the other party if his client wins.  The contract between the attorney and his client will stipulate that his client pays nothing and that his fees will be reimbursed by the other party in the event of a favorable outcome for his client.

 

We don't know what's in a JDB/attorney contract.  It could stipulate a flat fee for the JDB but allow for the attorney to recoup any amount above that fee from a losing defendant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some say the more you engage, the higher lawyer fees you have to pay. But isn't it in AZ where the lawyer gets a flat fee to fight? So that wouldn't be a concern.

It also means that fighting back does nothing to motivate them to settle for a lesser amount.  Midland pays Bursey the same $750 whether you settle right after filing an answer or take it all the way to trial.

 

 

 

Unless it's a state law, I don't know that a flat fee arrangement is limited to AZ.   Anyway, a flat fee simply means that an attorney's client pays only a certain amount for his services.  It does not mean that the attorney cannot recoup any amount above that flat fee.  It could depend upon the language in the contract between the JDB and attorney.

 

For instance, an attorney who takes a case on contingency will recoup his fees from the other party if his client wins.  The contract between the attorney and his client will stipulate that his client pays nothing and that his fees will be reimbursed by the other party in the event of a favorable outcome for his client.

 

We don't know what's in a JDB/attorney contract.  It could stipulate a flat fee for the JDB but allow for the attorney to recoup any amount above that fee from a losing defendant.

No matter what the specifics of the agreement are, the function of the agreement is to minimize the debt buyer's  costs of collecting in a contested debt collection lawsuit.  The days are over of running up the plaintiff's legal costs to leverage them into dismissing their case or getting a 'good deal' settlement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this