Coffee_before_tea

Chase gets smacked down by CFPB - Potentially very important info going forward

Recommended Posts

@bassplayr

 

Thank you.  First, I'll address post #51.
 

    BV, do you think that this will deter any JDBs, since they are not bound by this order, from filing those lawsuits, when they know that more than 90% of them will never be challenged?

 

No, and I never indicated otherwise.

 

Chase did not cease litigating and selling accounts, they only stopped litigation.

 

Page 3 of the Consent Order:

7.  Respondents suspended Collections Litigation in 2011 and suspended all Debt sales in December 2013.  Respondents state that they are not currently engaged in Collections Litigation or sales of Debt with respect to their consumer credit card business, which is the subject of this Order.
 

    You need to have admissible evidence, BV.  I even showed you a federal law that states that.

 

 

It is not the case that all state laws mirror federal laws.

 

    In other words, like I've been trying to tell you, it is not enough to assert that there is still a dispute of material fact.  You must support your claim with evidence.

 

 

This was my main bone of contention and is addressed in the next response.

 

 

The "form" that the evidence would take is obviously going to be different in each case.  But you need to do more than simply say something to the effect of "I do not owe this debt".  The "evidence" could be pointing out flaws in the plaintiff's submissions.  It could be asserting lack of standing, etc etc.  It could be procedural issues, such as if the plaintiff in a certain state is required to provide specific documents with the complaint and has failed to do so.  Or, it could be your own documents as evidence.  Like I said, each case is different.

 

 

I think that when most people see the word "evidence", they think of documentation  When they read they read that they must support a "claim with evidence", they believe that they must submit their own documentation.  That's where we need to be more specific.  As you have shown, documentation from the opposing party is not needed to support an opposition to an MSJ.  

 

You cited the Fed. Rules of Evidence.

 

(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or

(
B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.

 

The OP and others (including myself) have merely claimed that the Order can possibly help show that a JDB's evidence does not establish the absence of a genuine dispute.   That's all.  Nothing more. 

 

According to well-established North Carolina law, in the event that a party with the burden of proof seeking the entry of summary judgment in its favor "properly supports all the essentials of that claim with evidence, it falls to the opposing party to present contradictory evidence or to show by facts that the movant's evidence is insufficient or unreliable." Blackwell v. Massey, 69 N.C.App. 240, 243, 316 S.E.2d 350, 352 (1984).

 

 

It is a fact that Chase ceased litigating its own accounts in 2011.  It is a fact that Chase ceased selling its accounts to Debt Buyers in December, 2013.

 

A motion for summary judgment shall be granted when the mover establishes that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The decision is made on the basis of the pleadings, affidavits and discovery documents in the record. La. C.C.P. art. 966 B. See McGill v. Cochran Sysco Foods, Div. of Sysco Corp., 690 So.2d 952, 953 (La.App. 2 Cir.1997).  In light of the fact that the record contains neither an affidavit nor deposition of the engineer, and the two reports are not certified, the evidence is insufficient to support summary judgment on the issue of Sysco's alleged independent negligence which Sysco's pleadings deny. Id at 956.

And I must include this ruling on a lawsuit brought by Chase:

But here, Alcaraz did not aver that he had personal knowledge of the creation of these records or of Chase's record-keeping system, and that knowledge cannot be inferred from the affidavit. Thus, Alcaraz's affidavit did not authenticate the attached documents under Evid.R. 803(6). Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion when it considered the affidavit and account statements to decide the summary-judgment motion. Chase Bank, USA v. Curren, 191 Ohio App.3d 507, 2010-Ohio-6596 (4th Dist.).

 

I don't know how many times that I have to say that I don't consider the Order to be a slam dunk defense, sure thing, panacea, etc.  I don't think anyone has made such a claim.  All we have said is that it's something for defendants to offer to cast doubt on the admissibility of a plaintiff's evidence.  If that doubt is established, MSJ is avoided.

 

Why can we not expound upon that potential?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@bassplayr

 

Thank you.  First, I'll address post #51.

 

 

No, and I never indicated otherwise.

 

Page 3 of the Consent Order:

7.  Respondents suspended Collections Litigation in 2011 and suspended all Debt sales in December 2013.  Respondents state that they are not currently engaged in Collections Litigation or sales of Debt with respect to their consumer credit card business, which is the subject of this Order.

 

 

It is not the case that all state laws mirror federal laws.

 

 

This was my main bone of contention and is addressed in the next response.

 

 

 

I think that when most people see the word "evidence", they think of documentation  When they read they read that they must support a "claim with evidence", they believe that they must submit their own documentation.  That's where we need to be more specific.  As you have shown, documentation from the opposing party is not needed to support an opposition to an MSJ.  

 

You cited the Fed. Rules of Evidence.

 

(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or

(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.

 

The OP and others (including myself) have merely claimed that the Order can possibly help show that a JDB's evidence does not establish the absence of a genuine dispute.   That's all.  Nothing more. 

 

According to well-established North Carolina law, in the event that a party with the burden of proof seeking the entry of summary judgment in its favor "properly supports all the essentials of that claim with evidence, it falls to the opposing party to present contradictory evidence or to show by facts that the movant's evidence is insufficient or unreliable." Blackwell v. Massey, 69 N.C.App. 240, 243, 316 S.E.2d 350, 352 (1984).

 

 

It is a fact that Chase ceased litigating its own accounts in 2011.  It is a fact that Chase ceased selling its accounts to Debt Buyers in December, 2013.

 

A motion for summary judgment shall be granted when the mover establishes that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The decision is made on the basis of the pleadings, affidavits and discovery documents in the record. La. C.C.P. art. 966 B. See McGill v. Cochran Sysco Foods, Div. of Sysco Corp., 690 So.2d 952, 953 (La.App. 2 Cir.1997).  In light of the fact that the record contains neither an affidavit nor deposition of the engineer, and the two reports are not certified, the evidence is insufficient to support summary judgment on the issue of Sysco's alleged independent negligence which Sysco's pleadings deny. Id at 956.

And I must include this ruling on a lawsuit brought by Chase:

But here, Alcaraz did not aver that he had personal knowledge of the creation of these records or of Chase's record-keeping system, and that knowledge cannot be inferred from the affidavit. Thus, Alcaraz's affidavit did not authenticate the attached documents under Evid.R. 803(6). Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion when it considered the affidavit and account statements to decide the summary-judgment motion. Chase Bank, USA v. Curren, 191 Ohio App.3d 507, 2010-Ohio-6596 (4th Dist.).

 

I don't know how many times that I have to say that I don't consider the Order to be a slam dunk defense, sure thing, panacea, etc.  I don't think anyone has made such a claim.  All we have said is that it's something for defendants to offer to cast doubt on the admissibility of a plaintiff's evidence.  If that doubt is established, MSJ is avoided.

 

Why can we not expound upon that potential?

 

"Why can we not expound upon that potential?"

 

I think that's exactly where all efforts should be focused on.  A debate on just  how far the Chase consent order has opened the window for defendants is interesting, if somewhat academic,  but it would be more productive to see how we can leverage that opening to help defendants.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Smith Moore and Leatherwood  defend financial services companies.  They seem to take seriously the CFPB and what it can do to their clients.

 

http://www.smithmoorelaw.com/what-commercial-litigators-need-to-know-about-the-cfpb

 

 

 

It appears that many financial services entities have chosen to settle consumer complaints or enforcement actions even when the terms were onerous. Indeed, almost all the largest enforcement cases filed to date were filed as "settled" actions. The CFPB enforcement actions have been widely publicized, and the big-dollar cases have received national attention. This has arguably created a perception that the CFPB is an aggressive enforcer and seeks hefty monetary relief. This perception may be causing financial services entities to resolve consumer complaints expeditiously in hopes of avoiding attention from the CFPB, specifically the purview of the CFPB enforcement division. And rightly so because the CFPB acknowledges that these complaints provide the pipeline for enforcement actions. Indeed, the CFPB "prioritizes" complaints for further investigation, and in at least "some cases" it will refer the complaint to the Division of Supervision, Enforcement, and Fair Lending & Equal Opportunity. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Consumer Response Annual Report, supra, at 38

 

 

 

The Future of the CFPB and What Litigators Need to Know
CFPB and state attorney general enforcement actions are expected to increase in the coming years. The CFPB is well funded, staffed, and poised to ramp up its enforcement activities. Its budget has increased significantly over time, to $570 million in 2014 compared to $541 million in 2013 and $300 million in 2012. The budget estimate for 2015 is an even higher $583 million. The largest line item in the CFPB budget is the enforcement division line item, which predicts future trends. The number of fulltime employees in the enforcement division has increased 72 percent in just two years.

 

Commercial litigators serving clients in the consumer financial services industry need to take notice of the CFPB watchdog perched on their clients' doorsteps. Litigators must understand that CFPB related complaints, investigations, and enforcement actions will rise and that the consequences of failing to respond to CFPB-related inquiries could be severe, perhaps business ending. In short, considering the breadth of the CFPB investigative and enforcement powers, litigators serving clients in the consumer financial services industry ignore this watchdog at their own peril.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a case, McMahon v. LVNV Funding, (7th Cir. 2014) where the US Court of Appeals cites and gives deference to the FTC and the CFPB in ruling against LVNV.   As the CFPB makes more enforcement actions, there will be more court decisions favorable for defendants.  It is a process, albeit a slow one, but it is underway.

 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3996169709329647326&q=consent+decree+consumer+financial+protection+bureau&hl=en&as_sdt=206&as_ylo=2011

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.buckleysandler.com/news-detail/special-alert-class-action-suit-filed-based-on-cfpb-consent-order

 

"Cabrales v. Castle Cook Mortgage"

 

 

October 17, 2014

In what may be the first action of its kind, a consumer who received restitution under the CFPB consent order has filed a class action lawsuit based on the same alleged violations.  While this litigation is still in its early stages, it serves as an important reminder that an institution’s exposure does not end when it reaches a public settlement with a regulator and may, in fact, increase

 

As the CFPB continues its enforcement actions, more private lawsuits will be filed based on consent orders.   It will be a slow process, but consumer lawyers will use the CFPB as a tool to force open the window.

 

 

 

On June 15, 2015,   Castle's Motion to Dismiss was denied  by the US District court.

 

https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/caedce/1:2014cv01138/270397/26/0.pdf?ts=1434178494

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is a fact that Chase ceased selling its accounts to Debt Buyers in December, 2013.

I find this incredibly hard to believe.  (I know the order says it - just saying I think Chase is lying.)  Just in AZ Midland sued on three Chase debts in the last month.  I find it very unlikely Midland would sit on all of these for 2 1/2 years.  I think one made a stop at Encore before ending up at Midland so I can see how that one may have been sold by Chase before Dec 2013.

 

@b7a4 @craneguy @WhoopsNotMyName

Can any of you confirm when Chase sold your account?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Mahon v LVNV,  I said the court  gave deference to the FTC and the CFPB, and indeed it did, in reference to the Delgado case, which presented similar issues, as the court said:

 

The underlying question presented by these two appeals, which we have consolidated for purposes of an opinion, relates to the circumstances under which a dunning letter for a time-barred debt could mislead an unsophisticated consumer 

 

The 7th Cir noted that the district court in Delgado had given deference to the views of the CFPB

 

 In considering that motion, the district court decided that it was appropriate to giveSkidmore deference to the views of the Federal Trade Commission, the ConsumerFinancial Protection Bureau, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve Board, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

 

Commenting again on the district court's deference to the govt agencies, the 7th cir says

 

Given this standard and the well-reasoned position put forth by the FTC and CFPB, we find that the district court in Delgado was correct in denying defendants' motion to dismiss. 

 

 

The 7th cir concludes :

 

In summary, we conclude that an unsophisticated consumer could be misled by a dunning letter for a time-barred debt, especially a letter that uses the term "settle" or "settlement." We thus AFFIRM the district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss in Delgado. In McMahon, we REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

 

 

There will be more court cases giving more deference to the CFPB as it moves forward. I

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a corporate defense law firm  like Smith Moore knows the legal terrain quite well.  Again, this is what they say about the CFPB

 

 
Commercial litigators serving clients in the consumer financial services industry need to take notice of the CFPB watchdog perched on their clients' doorsteps. Litigators must understand that CFPB related complaints, investigations, and enforcement actions will rise and that the consequences of failing to respond to CFPB-related inquiries could be severe, perhaps business ending. 
 
Yes, JP Morgan is big and powerful and rich.  And no single action by the CFPB will bring it to its knees.  But the battle is underway
Link to post
Share on other sites

This entire country's debt is at astronomical levels right now and climbing higher each passing minute. (Check out the National Debt Clock) A debt based grow system (Ponzi Scheme) requires more and more debt be taken on in order to sustain it. At some point the demographics (aging population, low birth levels, more hands in the benefits cookie box,,,,,massive "undocumented" ...for now immigrants) that are kicking in as we speak with fewer people in the maximum age group (24-56) to be buying homes, appliances, cars, etc. Without larger number's the current Too Big to Jail Banks will soon be imploding. Watch Puerto Rico and Greece for a microcosm of what will happen in this country not far in the future.

 

I personally think that many of the arguments being made will as a point, not far in the future be moot...................Many that are "riding high" on credit right now will soon feel the sting that those in the middle class have been receiving in the keester for the past several years. Soon the "chorus" will get deafing as the whole system implodes like black hole. These consent orders are only highlighting the very factors that are pushing the implosion point. At this point a "critical mass" will be reached and the enitre system will change...........and the change may very well be worse than now with debts just being sucked out of ANY account your tied to.......something that TPTB will insure somehow is "legal". .....OR.....these banks will go bust and the ensuing chaos will resemble the 80's mortgage collapse......some of that disaster is still floating in the system.....and take years to sort out. The landscape will change beyond anything we are familiar with here.

 

That being said, we continue pressing the JDB in ANY manner that we are capable of in our states, take any small "gems" from any consent order or law suit against the bottom feeders and use them to press harder and harder. As this economy continues to collapse there will be many more voices added to ours...at some point a critical mass cannot be held off. Personally I'll take any sustainable argument I can get......the whole court system in this country is a crap shoot anyway.......the more crap I can throw at them, the better chance so me might stick on them and the judge.

Can't remember who said this but.................".It is better to have tried and failed, than to have never tried at all....." An argument about how to more effectively use these gems in whatever manner is more productive.

 

I have had copies of F/F agreements for couple of years now....that's why I try and get them to produce them (found that website couple years ago, thought everybody would)......If they don't provide or refuse to provide then I try and use that "refusal" against them........should they provide them (which none have ever done, claiming privilege) then I will tailor my arguments around each and EVERY paragraph in the ENTIRE agreement and "Spin them" in my favor (i.e. use a legal foundation or case law and create a new argument based loosely around it ).....the opposition is free to try and reverse the spin ( which is how about ANY legal brief or argument is formulated..duh).....IF they can. The more I can make a legal argument against an item the better my chance at convincing a judge that "I might just be right".  The less they argue a point or if they argue weakly is in my favor....................These are things you can really never know till you try them. At some point the plaintiff's attorney may just get tired of arguing over and over on a piddly bill, especially when there are many more easy pickin's to be had. For Every legal point of case law there is usually at least ONE other case law that argues the opposite opinion.......on the same general subject !

 

I may OR may not win my appeal, time will tell, but I could tell from the response from plaintiff's to the Appeal Court that they were getting very tired of fighting this.......Their response was really quite pitiful and really kinda of a whiney response......we just don't understand..whine...whine, we produced the same old tired BS evidence we always do...etc. Maybe they did..................but obviously nobody had challenged them with an appeal.....their feelings were hurt. I looked at one case in an adjoining country where the defendant executed a sworn affidavit that the amount of debt was incorrect and demanded proof and validation.............they dismissed with prejudice a month later, and the amount of her debt was 4 times mine. Point is..................you never really know what defense will trigger them to dismiss and walk off.....or what a particular set of judges or judge will  do under different circumstances. Best just to argue as much and as on point as possible, preserving objections for any appeal.................and carry the case as far as possible or practical in your situation. If like in AZ (I'm pretty sure that MOST of these losses are in the larger courts, which are full of more arse kisser's) use whatever method works....start with arbitration, if necessary move on to a full court press, preserve objections, appeal if necessary. More and more case's in the appeals court's will eventually get some legislator's attention the more the judges complain of backlogs due to appeal's of BS case's. AT the moment seems arbitration is the best approach at least off the bat. Other states mileage may vary. Learn YOUR area court's, figure out what works and how to present it.................AND take any little nuggets of law or just plain information gleaned from decisions and consent orders and USE them when appropriate.......

 

Ok off soap box.........slinking back to my corner to observe.........and duck the incoming....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Debtorboard.com

Just a suggestion. You don't seem satisfied with what's being offered.

No one said to abandon all traditional methods of litigation and to use this as a hail Marry.

It was just something to add with it. Icing for the cake.

Most people just took comfort in the fact that they got fined and they can't pursue over 500,000 cases. It's already helped a lot of people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Saytar, I will as well.  But this is not a sustainable argument.  Thats the whole problem.  The consent order finds that Chase committed errors in some accounts.....knowingly in some cases, by negligence without proper oversight to catch the errors in others.  But without being able to positively identify or even make a solid argument that any specific debt is included in the erroneous ones, this is not a sustainable argument.  Look at the reverse side.  If John Smith is sued by a JDB, and the only thing that the JDB produces is an affidavit that says that "John Smith" took out a credit card and then did not pay, how does that prove that this specific John Smith is the proper party?  It does not, and the court is not supposed to assume otherwise.  Thats the same thing I am saying here.  An unsupported argument is not sustainable.  And until someone can post up a response in here as to exactly how one would use this consent order that makes sense, it will remain unsustainable.

 

By all means, I never said no one should look into it.  I never said we should not bother because it's not a slam dunk.  But man, I've asked multiple times how this could be legitimately used.  No one seems to have any answer there.  If they cannot provide me with an answer here on this forum where nothing is at stake but perhaps some pride, how can they argue it in front of a judge???

The argument is sustainable. If the case is based on Chase account then it's definitely an argument...make them prove that the account as sold by Chase is correct and fully accurate......Guess what they can't, now what any one particular judge does with that information is beyond ANY scope of ANY argument..forget the legality or not of it, doesn't matter to the Robe. But it might to the 3 or "Robes" on an Appeal Court.

Even if the account is not on a Chase account, then any defendant should have some argument that such an QUOTE:" that since this is a Debt Market accepted practice" , that it is proper to question and require additional and/or more definitive documentation to insure that "Due Process" is not violated as violation of due process is grounds to overturn the Trial Courts decision. Now admitted some Robes won't care or think their too protected, maybe.....maybe not. Even thief's have falling outs all the time. Any  systemic accepted practice that is found "deficient" should at a very least be questioned in a case.....................I think you may be thinking that no one can show you a "Magic Bullet"...........no one can.......they do not exist. But, usually if enough legal bullets are shot into a case, at some point it is possible that enough legal fluid will leak out to sink the JDB boat...........This decision is just another round that might be shot..............but no shot is "Magic". Just another tool in the tool box. NO legal case can be:: Do this,! Then do that and Violia! you win. Fighting the corruption, prejudice, and old boy network is not a walk in the park and there is no Manual.....we most always start from way behind.

I'd rather have a Hellfire missile to take out the opposition ( I like large fireworks displays tool ), but barring that I'll take a really big club if that's all I have..............better than bare hands or nothing.

 

How to use it..............simple. Use it as another attack or tool to try and Impeach the opposition's evidence. No exotic legal theory..................no guarantees.

 

Anon Amos is saying the other Debtor related Board.........the name that dare not be spoken....LOL. The folks over there sometimes have some "creative" methods. This board try's to be a bit more pragmatic and logical.......................which is usually better in MOST case's. if your wanting to go "outside the box" might check with a few over there.....but don't let your feelings get hurt real easy. Most are quite blunt with their answer's. This board is more........Diplomatic so to say.

 

Agree, it is usually easier to keep thoughts together in one place.............that's why I only go check that board out once in awhile......Most there are good folks, but they WILL go outside the box, but outside the box requires a "Large Pair" at times. If not so equipped.................uh oh well.

 

Don't worry just do your case's as you want, take what you want from any information posted and ignore the rest.....we can only make suggestions and brain storm here, as none of us are, cough, cough, cough, cough....."Real Lawyers" (something most would detest being). My lips don't pucker that well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reality is that what role this consent order plays in debt buyer lawsuits in general, and even Chase debts in particular, remains to be seen. We can all sit here and speculate 50 possible scenarios but ultimately is going to be like every other trial of first impression - we have to wait until it goes to an apellate court for any sort of official ruling. Then each jurisdiction has to decide if it will follow that ruling or come up with its own.

 

My personal thought is that there aren't any arrows or icing on any cakes here.   For all of the reasons discussed I can certainly see the potential for this order to have some effect on debt buyer lawsuits.  I just don't think any individuals should start planning their celebration party until there is some higher court ruling on a real world debt buyer case. Until then it's going to be each man for himself in his hometown courthouse. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggested calling your state's attorney general's office--if it is a signatory to this order--to inquire what impact this may have if you have a Chase account active during these years purchased by a debt buyer. I would also suggest calling several area consumer attorneys to ask the same.

 

I also suggested drafting some very pointed interrogatories and admissions regarding plaintiff's verification of accuracy and reliability of the Chase account information, in light of these consent orders. I invited forum members for ideas.  Under Michigan court rules, you'd have to attach the relevant portion of the consent order to your requests.

 

Michigan's attorney general did a press release stating how many Michigan residents were affected thus far. I might suggest a defendant research rules of evidence to properly request judicial notice so this information gets before the judge. YMMV.

 

Mississippi and California attorneys general have brought their own suits against Chase. IIRC both cases survived motions to dismiss and are winding through the process.

 

Two close family members of mine benefited from the timing of these actions against Chase. I am so grateful to Chase whistleblower Linda Almonte for her courage and dogged determination. We used information she provided and the forward flow agreement in an American Banker article about her to help win our first case at CIC. Thank you!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I find this incredibly hard to believe.  (I know the order says it - just saying I think Chase is lying.)  Just in AZ Midland sued on three Chase debts in the last month.  I find it very unlikely Midland would sit on all of these for 2 1/2 years.  I think one made a stop at Encore before ending up at Midland so I can see how that one may have been sold by Chase before Dec 2013.

 

@b7a4 @craneguy @WhoopsNotMyName

Can any of you confirm when Chase sold your account?

 

@Harry Seaward September 2011

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anon, what has been offered?  Nothing....

 

People's time, research, patience and opinions. Post # 84 also has a list of suggestions from just one member alone.

It would be one thing if someone replied with the explanation of what they are trying to say is a new arrow, but when I ask how this would be used and not one person has any response at all, then nothing is being offered. 

At that point most people would let it rest then. Are these people supposed to speak for everyone and tell you how it will be used? Maybe they don't know how it will be used yet. You may have to wait and see.

 

I'm asking a simple question.  If there really is something to use there, why can no one provide an answer?

Maybe they don't have an answer then, or one that you will accept.

 

Again, what?  What would you add?  What is the icing on this cake?  Not like I havent been asking, anon....and while you and others seem to enjoy giving me hassle for posting honest questions and truths, there still is nothing in the way of a real answer that shows us what exactly this "icing on the cake" is supposed to look like. 

I would just fight the case as I normally would, but possibly in a trial brief, or footer somewhere in a memorandum, I might add highlights of the consent ruling. When objecting to evidence under CA Evidence Code 1271 it's possible mention of it may be ADDED to what would already be going in the areas for showing untrustworthiness and highlight of the consent might be added to the tail end of the authentication areas.

 

I've been on this forum long enough to see people helping others prepare motions, even going as far as to write specific defenses or critique motions for others.  I find it very hard to believe that, in light of all the detailed help I've seen on this forum, that no one can come up with what exactly this new addition should look like.  And yet, here we are....

I think you are too hung up on my "icing" statement, and I may have thrown a few of you off by using that word. My apologies. It's not supposed to "look"  like anything. There's not just a canned answer or form you can now apply because of this. It's not going to look like a bare cake that you can now frost because I said icing and icing equals some kind of form or motion that you can "see".  

.

 

"Most people" have done no such thing in this thread--in fact, several people are talking as though this is a new weapon that can be used, but no one seems either willing or able to actually provide for us a look at what this would even look like. 

"This" may not "look" like anything. Some people may use it like I said, some may do with it as mentioned in post #84, some people may not use it at all, some people will use it in their case if it fits the timeline to get it try and get it dismissed. .  Maybe they will file a MSJ /  or motion to dismiss if their case is one Chase is supposed to stop collecting on and attach the consent order a long with whatever else they had (discovery etc), It's possible it might be used in a judicial notice along with litigation if someone's case is one CHASE isn't supposed to do anything with.

 

Also, note this, going back to my first post on this thread, I NEVER denied that this consent order provided some help to some people.  I mentioned the big picture, which you wasted no time in hassling me about out of context.

Yes you mentioned this several times now. I commented on one sentence (which actually got "liked" by a moderator (not to drag her into this) and as I said before "so what?".  Get over it. You have covered this ground already, that was 5 pages ago. Although now you have upgraded it to hassling you out of context.  

  Sometimes, truth is not the most popular response, but that doesnt change the fact that it is truth.

Wow, that's deep. Not exactly sure what the "truth" is you are speaking of here however. But I think people have been responsive to you here but you just won't accept what people say.

 

You may have seen them help others with motions, arguments. proof reads, etc. but that is a little more cut and dry and has specific rules or something you can see and critique, and people can respond to it in a way that you can "see" it and know what it will look like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reality is that what role this consent order plays in debt buyer lawsuits in general, and even Chase debts in particular, remains to be seen.

 

Amen

 

We can all sit here and speculate 50 possible scenarios but ultimately is going to be like every other trial of first impression - we have to wait until it goes to an appellate court for any sort of official ruling. Then each jurisdiction has to decide if it will follow that ruling or come up with its own.

 

Very true.....like Harry's area, the JP's are sadly ignorant on any real law ( and don't even need to be college graduates, little lone lawyers ) and seem to go with the plaintiff's arguments, probably because they don't know better and not inclined to learn.....In my particular state their is a very palatable dislike of pro se defendant's in  general.....we're stealing income from the "Good Ole Boys Club" and they hate the "competition" that's stealing their next mortgage payment. Each state and various courts in those states may approach the exact same type case in very different manners AND apply the law in a different manner, not right but that's life.

 

My personal thought is that there aren't any arrows or icing on any cakes here.   For all of the reasons discussed I can certainly see the potential for this order to have some effect on debt buyer lawsuits.  I just don't think any individuals should start planning their celebration party until there is some higher court ruling on a real world debt buyer case. Until then it's going to be each man for himself in his hometown courthouse. 

 

Agreed, the bottom feeder's will have to adjust their documentation method's......hopefully that might open up some additional paths for exposing their general fraud and real lack of adequate documentation, only time will tell. That's why I stress trying to do each suit with a possible appeal in mind as a potential end result. Unless we can manage to start getting favorable appeals ( and some unfavorable that show us where and how we need to improve, i.e. Learn from our collective missteps ) then we are doing the best we can and hoping for pot luck....some precision and predictability in the law is only obtained by "case law" as developed by appeals and published decisions. Until then statute's are open to wide interpretation by individual judges & Courts ( the Wild, Wild, West )...it takes case law to mold them into certain somewhat predictable paths.

 

For years very few have attempted to defend themselves ( and very few still do ) in any manner, preferring to just roll over and take it in the pocket book. If 50% of cases were even moderately defended ( instead of maybe 5%) and even if Badly defended the ensuing backup's in the Civil Courts would bring the collection's industry to absolute turmoil. It can only operate profitably if 90% never take any action and default...take the quick easy profit out of it and it would tend to implode on itself.

 

Just a note and link to CFPB summary.....seems like 47 states are in on the consent order. Pretty comprehensive and sure to make the others sit up and pay attention at the very least. Now I'm waiting for the another shoe (another bank or two) to drop...............this can't be the  ONLY one their investigating. Definitely worth a call or two to the State's attorney office to see how your state is going to "Make those directly and indirectly involved "Whole again" and what THEIR going to do to insure all the other's aren't doing the same . Maybe a large FYI fax sending findings and consent order to various court's and State Legal Associations.A grass roots Education Campaign?????

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok ladies and gentlemen I am using this ruling in my motion for a continuance and requested for discovery.  I invite all to take a look on my thread and provide constructive input.   "Sued by Midland in Texas - have to respond by 4/21!! Help Please".   This hole issue is very interesting to me.  Bottom line as I see it Chase has to prove that the records were accurate as provided to the JDB and a simple Assignment with everything blacked out is insufficient to prove this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@bassplayr I think it is just one more thing to add that shows chases records are not trust worthy. I was sued for a chase account that I had settled with Chase, then they sold the whole thing. I was naive and didn't realize I should have kept the stipulation document.

The moment I filled my MIL going into detail about chases records being un trustworthy, Linda almonte' s case, chases sanctions ( ya the last one lol) they not only dismissed, but put it with prejudice. The JDB knows chase accounts are not worth the paper they bought, but the default judgement ratio is to good to pass up. I personally feel if people include these rulings in their defenses, their case will never make it to court. But of coarse you need a pro se that can put it on paper.....most don't know how to do that.

Edit..BTW, the judge told me he was disappointed that LVNV dismissed. He had read the briefs and was really looking forward to my case. He saved us for last on trial day. Would he have found it to be in my favor? I would like to think so. Remember, I had admitted to the debt with Chase, my entire case rested with weather or not chases records were correct. And I didn't even get the luxury of discovery...rule 26a here says cases under 25,000.00 do disclosure only. Yep, civil court, not small claims. The only thing I had to prove I paid anything was a pay pal record to a collection agency that chase was known to use. 6 payments for 500.00, which settled 3 accounts I had with them. Roughly 40% of the total owed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude, give me a break....seriously....

 

There does not appear to be much in the way of time or research being present.  I was simply told that there is a tangible argument there, but no one can say what that argument is.

 

Post #84 is not what you seem to think it is.  That is his second time posting the suggestions he posted, and he seemed to be hoping the first time that those of you who claim this is a legit "new arrow" would offer some conversation on his post.  Not one of you did so.  Also, of all the people in this thread, only one did actually respond to his suggestions...me, in post #59.  But thanks for letting me know that he posted those.

 

Obviously not, anon, since you seem to miss the point that I have not been posting to myself here for 5 pages.  There have been definitive claims made, not that this "might turn into something useful" but that it is a tangible thing now.  So, I simply asked how.  I am fully entitled to that, and you dont have to like it or agree with it for me to be entitled to ask. 

 

Well, what have those other people said?  How about we start there.  When people post the following comments:

 

If you tell me that there's another tool now, how in the world am I so off-base or out of line by asking what that tool is?  It's not like he described this as something that might materialize....calling it a new tool is a bit more defining than that.

 

Again, if someone tells me that something is tangible, theres nothing wrong or illogical about asking for what is tangible!  You are missing the way that this was presented here, and the fact that presenting it with such defining terms will NOT give readers the impression that "maybe they dont know how it will be used yet".  Truth is, this could end up being nothing at all...or, it could end up being the basis for a lot.  But until we know for certain, it's misleading to call it another tool in anything.

 

Someone even called it a "new arrow in the quiver".  Again, if the tactic is not even defined to such a degree that we dont even know if it's something that could possibly be used or not, it's a little too soon to be describing it with terms like that.  And also, as noted earlier, if you describe something with terms like this, dont expect people to come away thinking that you meant something less than what was said.  That should be simple common sense. 

 

Again, it's been called a new tool in the toolbox, a new arrow, "tangible evidence".....it's not being described as something that cannot be seen as of yet.  That should have been clearly enough expressed by now, but you were probably too busy patting yourself on the back that a moderator(that you dont want to bring her into this) like an arrogant comment from you that had no place here.  No wonder you missed all of those.

 

This is not rocket science....if people intend to call this a potential new avenue, whose shape we have yet to see until things play out in courtrooms, thats great.  Just call it that and thats fine.  It was not until people went out of their way to claim this was something so much more tangible that the problem began.  Either it IS tangible right now or it is not.  Pick one.  It cannot be both at the same time.

 

@bassplayr

 

First of all, you're far from a legal expert in all 50 states, nor do you have a good understanding of what the law is, and the processes therein.  I'm not sure if there is a comprehension issue, or if you're just trolling. Either way, I, and others have offered up potential angles to use the Chase order on.  This isn't reading rainbow, so none of us are going to coax you along, if you can't understand the basic elements of what we're talking about.

 

You seemed hyper focused on the details of a Summary Judgment, yet you fail to recognize the other elements that are necessary to have a Summary judgment granted.  This is where I believe the disconnect lies.  In order for a Summary Judgment to be granted, there must be admissible evidence,  That means if the Court deems affidavits and records as untrustworthy, then they don't get admitted into evidence, and the Summary Judgment fails, understand?

 

Will the court deem the records & affidavits as untrustworthy?  Who knows, but the Consent order outlines, as the CFPB proved in their investigation, that Chase sold bad & uncollectible accounts, and used robo-signed affidavits from persons without knowledge.  Chase doesn't have to "admit" guilt, as the CFPB already discovered this in their investigation.  Chase consented, in order to avoid permanent injunctions, which could impact the future of their debt collection.  Instead, they decided to eat 530,000 Accounts and pay 100M+++.

 

You're making this seem like "we" said that this is a "new" avenue, or icing on cakes, and silver bullets.  None of us said anything of the sort.  In the simplest terms, the "avenue" (as you call it), is simply that the CFPB's investigation showed that Chase from the period of 2009 - 2014, used robo-signed affidavits, and their accounts had bad/missing/ information, and many were uncollectible.  This is all laid out nicely in the Consent Order.  So, let's go back to the Rules of Evidence (803(6)), and find that section that says:  "neither the source of information nor the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness."  

 

Now, I don't know about everybody else, but if the chance arises, I will be using the "Untrustworhty-and-here's-why" arguments (in addition to many others), when I'm moving to strike the Plaintiffs documents.

 

If this doesn't give you some level of understanding of what we are talking about, then please move onto another thread, so that this thread doesn't get locked by the admins.  

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

You're making this seem like "we" said that this is a "new" avenue, or icing on cakes, and silver bullets.  None of us said anything of the sort.

Actually, there was a fair bit of this kind of talk in the beginning.  What I observed is that as people started processing what the order actually said, the excitement started to wain and people started backing off of their initial hype over how important this order is.  I've tried to capture this progression with the following posts.

 

 

First, part of the title of the thread itself:

"Potentially very important info going forward"

Entire post dedicated to the list of things chase was found "guilty" of here:

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/326260-chase-gets-smacked-down-by-cfpb-potentially-very-important-info-going-forward/?p=1325897

Another entire post dedicated to the financial penalties here:

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/326260-chase-gets-smacked-down-by-cfpb-potentially-very-important-info-going-forward/?p=1325900

 

This will affect Chase litigation

...

This should also help those in AZ, where the horrendous justice courts can rubber stamp authentication of 3rd party records via affidavit (ala Parker).

(I don't see how this will change anything about Parker.  I do agree it could cast a doubt as to the trustworthiness of evidence with individual JPs, but our Justice Court appellate system has made it's "hands off" policy pretty clear when reviewing evidence admission by the lower court. I'm definitely interested to see a case anywhere go to SJ or trial using the info in this order, but especially here in AZ.)

 

Without question, a HUGE game-changer!

 

It's a devastating blow

 

 

The answer to your question, is yes, this consent order does affect your litigation. At the very least it gives you a arsenal of doubt that anything Midland provides cannot be deemed "accurate".

 

 

But, the latest Chase order does give debtors another tool in their arsenal. Will it be the end-all-be-all? Certainly not, but it can certain assist in overcoming MSJs & 3rd party affidavits.

...

Nobody is saying this is a silver bullet, but it's a another arrow in your quiver.

 

 

Icing for the cake.

 

 

I think you are too hung up on my "icing" statement, and I may have thrown a few of you off by using that word. My apologies. It's not supposed to "look" like anything. There's not just a canned answer or form you can now apply because of this. It's not going to look like a bare cake that you can now frost because I said icing and icing equals some kind of form or motion that you can "see".

 

 

Will the court deem the records & affidavits as untrustworthy? Who knows

 

 

So after all of the initial hoopla, it now seems this order is nothing more than a glimmer of hope to keep Chase's records from being admitted at summary judgment or trial.

 

Fair enough.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL......nice little synopsis. Guess some folks just don't understand how hard most look for any sliver to fight the creditor weighted system. The 99% need "some leverage" against a grossly one sided collection system.

 

For creditor's little to no proof needed, stroke of a pen or two....

 

For debtor's pay or else we will use government force to bend you to their will.......

 

And since the Big Too Big to Jail Banks own the Government..................................I owe, I owe, so off to work I go....................(Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs)

 

Brings back memories as a kid Listening to Tennessee Ernie Ford singing...."16 Tons"

 

OK, OK...........I know that makes me a month older than dirt................be nice.

 

 

SIXTEEN TONS

Merle Travis

 

Some people say a man is made out of mud

A poor man's made out of muscle and blood

Muscle and blood, skin and bones...

A mind that's weak and a back that's strong

 

Chorus

 

You load sixteen tons, and what do you get?

another day older and deeper in debt

St. Peter, don't you call me, 'cause I can't go

I owe my soul to the company store

 

Verse

 

I was born one mornin' and the sun didn't shine

I picked up my shovel and I walked to the mine

I loaded sixteen tons of number nine coal and

the straw boss said, "well bless my soul!"

 

Chorus

 

You loaded sixteen tons, and what do you get?

another day older and deeper in debt

St. Peter, don't you call me, 'cause I can't go

I owe my soul to the company store

 

Verse

 

I was born one mornin' it was drizzlin' rain

fightin' and trouble are my middle name

I was raised in a cane-brake by an old mama lion

can't no high-toned woman make me walk no line

 

Chorus

 

You load sixteen tons, and what do you get?

another day older and deeper in debt

St. Peter, don't you call me, 'cause I can't go

I owe my soul to the company store

 

Verse

 

If you see me comin', better step aside

A lot of men didn't, a lot of men died

One fist of iron, the other of steel

If the right one don't get you, then the left one will

 

(Chorus)

 

You load sixteen tons, and what do you get?

another day older and deeper in debt

St. Peter, don't you call me, 'cause I can't go

I owe my soul to the company store

 

"Sixteen Tons" � Merle's Girls Music ~ All Rights Reserved

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.