oregondebtsucks

Cach LLC by Mandarich Lawgroup

Recommended Posts

Well,  here we go again.  This is my third lawsuit in the last few years.  I settled the other two and honestly I rather settle again.  But this one seems different than the other two.  I think I have a better chance of winning.  

 

1) Amount owed xxxx

2) Original CC by MBNA America, Then they got bought out by Bank Of America.  Now Cache owns it.

3) Card open in 200x.  Last payment, alleged 2010.

 

I am using "Defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth or accuracy of Plaintiff's claim, and based on that denies generally and specifically Plaintiff's claim."

 

I am Denyings a few of their claims, like for example when they say they are the rightful assignee of the debt.  I just write something like "Plaintiff has not shwon they are the assignees of the original creditor."  I am using these exact text when I come across a damning claim on parapgraph 19.  They write

 

"Wihtin the past 6 years, an account was stated in writing whereby Plaintiff's assignor sent a final billing statement to the defendant indication xxxx was due and owning and the defendant failed to dispute the amount."

 

 

I am thinking right now, to myself, the Oregon SOL is 6 years.  They just admitted that in the past 6 years the assignor sent a final billing to statement.  Am I reading this too much or is this something I can use?  But they do allege in another paragraph that I made a payment in January 2010, so not quite 6 years.  I am checking creditkarma and it doesn't tell me anything.  Doesn't even show the debt.  However went to transunion,  and it does say I made it in 2010, except it doesn't tell me the account number.  Also debt amount is higher.  So I really don't know if this is the same debt.  

 

In my affirmative action part of the answer, I want to argue SOL and Lack of standing.  What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.debtorboards.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10980.0;attach=2036

This is a 2008 update BOA agreement. If she used the card, she can use this agreement. It has arbitration. It states it is with NAF, they don't do consumer arb anymore, so you could use JAMS. Your chances are better than trying to fight it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is, unless you manage to get straight to private arb, you must here in Oregon go through state mandated arb which sucks because you normally lose there and have to appeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But what do you guys think about the paragraph about in the last 6 years, they been contacting me.  Isn't that admitting that the debt is 6 years old? Wouldn't that be over the SOL in oregon of 6 years?  Doesn't make any sense.  But that other paragraph says, it was last paid in Jan 2010, so not quite 6 years.

 

Quote

 

 

"Wihtin the past 6 years, an account was stated in writing whereby Plaintiff's assignor sent a final billing statement to the defendant indication xxxx was due and owning and the defendant failed to dispute the amount."

 

 

I feel like I can use it against them.  

 

Also what's a good way to answer this paragraph while keeping my options open to use it in an argument? 

 

Quote
Did she ever use the card after Bank of America bought out MBNA? 

 

 

Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOTE: They are using the word WITHIN, which could still mean not over the SOL> Know your facts before you proceed. Are you past the SOL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to them in the complaint, the SOL has not past yet.  

 

The statement still confuses me.  It opens a lot of things, like why would they collect on a debt they don't own?  Like if BOA still had the account 5 years ago of whatever.  Why would they use such a broad number like 6 years, when they should have the exact dates in which they bought the account, or sent me letters etc.   I feel like I can use it as an argument.  I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not to late for private arb.  Use it as your number 1 affirmative defense in your answer.  Then file a motion to compel private contractual arb with the arb agreement at the same time.  The court will have to rule on it before you would even go to state court arbitration.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contractual Arb is a jurisdictional issue that *should* preempt any "mandated state arbitration".

 

@shellieh98 is spot on.  Your best odds of making this go away is using private contractual arbitration.  If you choose to go that route, file your MTC Arb ASAP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you have an even bigger weapon against them, and that is that neither Cach LLC nor Mandarich are licensed with the state as a collection agency. I would love to hear if they sent you any dunning letters prior to the lawsuit, and even including whether or not a dunning letter was attached to your summons. They are not allowed to attempt to collect on debts without licensing, and this presents a strong counter claim that will get them to back down. I won my case on that basis. And, helped another Oregon homie do the same on the same legal theory.

 

If you are going to proceed with mandated ADR (Alternate Dispute Resolution), then timing is everything in the game. You have to proceed like you mean business, and then once they have to plunk down $500 for the ADR deposit, they will emphatically try to either settle, or just plain drop the case -especially if you present a counterclaim in your Answer on the licensing issue.

 

The account stated theory is lame. Make sure you look at the last monthly invoice that you ever received, and odds are it does not say "final bill" or anything such. Likely it looks like just any other monthly statement...and they cannot prove whether or not you responded or that particular invoice. Independently, that statement means nothing, in other words.  You didn't state what the rest of the summons said, but I am guessing that Account Stated was just one of their legal theories, that they throw that in there along with anything else they can think of to intimidate you into paying, or obviously assuming this one will be like their other 99.9% of lawsuits -end up in default.

 

PM me if you want or need details about what I am putting down here.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing about the, "within the past 6 years" may mean that they have no documentation about the account. Otherwise, why would they not say, " On January xx, 2010, the creditor sent a final bill..." They don't have anything, and won't get anything until you push forward with ADR, and immediately preempt their game and MO with a speedy and robust RFA and RPD all geared towards making them expose themselves that they are indeed collection agencies who are NOT LICENSED in our fine state. Once they see they have to provide something they don't have, I will bet they will fold sooner than later, within the 30 days they have to respond. Get yours in before they send theirs. Power.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I just looked up Cache and Mandarich here

 

http://www4.cbs.state.or.us/ex/all/mylicsearch/index.cfm?fuseaction=main.show_main&group_id=20&profession_id=22&profession_sub_id=22000

 

And I can not find them as a license debt collector.  What is cache also known as?  Would they screw up so bad as to not even get a license?

 

Edit - I have found them.  They are a subsidiary of Square Two Financial which is license through 2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how that works around here in Oregon.  Gonna try to be ahead of the game this time around.  If they don't respond with anything.  Meet and confer 5 days after the 30 days period.  Then motion to compel discovery.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing about the, "within the past 6 years" may mean that they have no documentation about the account. Otherwise, why would they not say, " On January xx, 2010, the creditor sent a final bill..." They don't have anything, and won't get anything until you push forward with ADR, and immediately preempt their game and MO with a speedy and robust RFA and RPD all geared towards making them expose themselves that they are indeed collection agencies who are NOT LICENSED in our fine state. Once they see they have to provide something they don't have, I will bet they will fold sooner than later, within the 30 days they have to respond. Get yours in before they send theirs. Power.

@WhipItGood

 

I remember our PMs back and forth.  You did win.  Glad you see you help a fellow Oregonian

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Multnomah county.  Yes filed the response and the discovery request same day.  Can you send me information on the discovery that you used to find of if they are licensed or not?  I think i can send up to 5 discovery requests in Oregon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mandarin law group just sent me a debt validation letter.  Not sure if this is the discovery request I wanted though.  I got some great information I think from it though.

 

From what I can tell, this account was originally by a company called Clout Financial Services Inc.   They either went bankrupt and was sold or acquired to MBNA America, N.A who was later then merged with Bank of America.  I tried researching Clout but came up empty handed other than some various forum posts.

 

Would this be tough to prove chain of assignment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the validation letter just say it was clout----->MBNA------->BOA------->CACH?  or did they provide any bill of sales?  Who did you pay your last payment to, and did you use the card with any of the original creditors?, because that is where they will have to prove chain of assignment.  If it was to BOA, then you accepted the terms with the other 2 if you charged anything while BOA owned the account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With that many sales/acquisitions, it will be nearly impossible for them to provide an adequate chain of title-- more good news for you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using a Bing search for "Clout Financial" I found an article on Ripoff Report from 2008 discussing exactly this situation, but I can't find a way to post in the link.  Clout or parts of its portfolio were apparently sold to WebBank then MBNA.  MBNA was acquired by BOA.  A full acquisition such as BOA acquiring MBNA may not require as much to prove chain of title as a sale of a "portfolio" of debts.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RE; Cach llc and Mandarich filing a complaint Breech of contract against me; I was a resident of Washington State during the period the alleged debt occured. 3 years later I changed residence and got a drivers license in Oregon. I was only temporarily in Oregon when I was served and a few dys later moved back to washington. Can I get a change of venue to Washington after I responded or after I go to arbitration? My drivers license is still in Oregon but I have a rental agreements and notarized statements to prove I only resided in Oregon for 3 months

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone Beat CACH LLC and Mandarich in Oregon?! I too have been served by Madarich Law group for CACH LLC. I responded claiming they have no standing and that Mandarich is not licensed as a debt collector in Oregon. I have to go to arbitration tommorrow 9-24-2015. Mandarich claims they do not need to be registered because they are a Law firm. However ORS  ch 697 states exemtion for " An attorney-at-law rendering services in the performance of the duties of an attorney-at-law." The servces of an attorney are any duty one must have passed the state bar to do. Since anyone who is properly registered with the state can be a debt collector and Manadrich acts as a debt collection service they should be registered as such. Has anyone had success with this argument in court and if so what is the case number so I can use it as a precedent in my proceedings.... Or any other good arguments

 

If Attorneys were always meant to be exempt it wouldn't say...rendering the duties of an attorney at law. Right?

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.