Jump to content

Midland Marvin Dang ID Theft Claim vs Debt Denial


Recommended Posts

Hello - many of the posts here got me through the first parts of a Marvin Dang (Honolulu lawyer) on behalf of Midland lawsuit court appearances with a lot more confidence than I could have mustered on my own - thank you!  

Now i'm in a situation where I need some objective input.  At the 2nd court appearance where I was about to deny the debt charges, the lawyer representing Dang asked me to step outside I assumed to present a settlement offer before standing before the judge.  Instead, he said he recognized me through a mutual (good) friend and took a sort of i'm-going-to-help-you-out sort of posture.  I didn't say much as I didn't recognize him.  But am close enough to the mutual friend where I was inclined to be open-minded.  Honestly, it threw me off that this occurred at all.

He pulled out printed statements from the charge account in question, the front page of which reflected charges that had nothing to do with my life.  (I didn't look in-depth beyond that page until later.)  In the moment, with my case almost next on the docket, the lawyer asked me if I felt the reflected charges could be fraudulent, and if it was possible that this could be a case of ID theft.  He then implied that the kind of research he guessed I had done, about continuing to deny the charges and asking for comprehensive verification of proof of debt hand-off, original charge card info and all other strategic steps to pursue the invalidity of the suit, was a waste of time and these kinds of steps never pan out particularly in the Hawaii court system, has been tried and failed many times over.  There was no other offer presented.

It was confusing to say the least, and my confidence was chipped.  I was under the stress of uncertainty, as well as feeling the pressure of being called on by the judge and not being in the courtroom to respond.  The lawyer told me he strongly advised my taking the ID theft approach, that it would absolutely work in my favor.  Perhaps I was a fool to do it, but the situation caused me to agree.  We went into the courtroom, stood before the judge, he asked how I pleaded, the lawyer next to me spoke up and said this appeared to be a case of ID theft, and that he and I would enter the next stages of verifying this, and would present findings at the next appearance.

That was on 3/28/16.  I had not heard from him until today - 6/7/16 - with a number of documents to fill out, notarize, and send back by 6/10/16.  The next court date is 7/18/16.  Amongst these documents are:

1 - "Fraud Questionnaire 073109 Collection Form":  

asks if it was 'possible' that I opened a Chase Bank account and that I do NOT recognize Midland Funding  the creditor on the account as a result Y/N

If anyone else was authorized to make changes on the account, and if so if it was possible for them to make some or all charges involved Y/N

Statements were mailed to (my actual billing address) and have I ever received mail at that address Y/N

Did I ever make payments on the Chase/Midland card account # (an actual charge card number provided in full) Y/N

Did I ever notify Chase/Midland of fraudulent activity Y/N

Do I contend alleged fraud charges made after I requested the account be closed Y/N

Do I contend alleged fraud charges made after I removed an authorized user Y/N

If I am alleging ID theft, was I victim of ID theft on other accounts as well Y/N (yes)

If I am alleging ID theft, do I know the ID of the person who stole ID info Y/N (no)

 If I am alleging unauthorized use of the account, do I know the ID of the person who used the account w/out authorization Y/N

If I allege unauthorized use, id only part of the balance owing made up of unauthorized charges Y/N

If I allege unauthorized use, even if I did not authorize charges, did I receive benefit from them Y/N

Then, triple signature.

2 - *"Affidavit of Fraud Application 110206 Collection Form":

This asks for full disclosure of my current and any past addresses.

My SS#.

If I ever applied for a Chase/Midland card account,

That I did not receive a card from them with the (full) charge card #,

I did not authorize, direct or empower anyone to apply or seek credit with them in my name, or use any account in my name to make charges,

I have reason to believe the following individuals applied for and/or used the card described (2 - name/address/phone sections)

Then, triple signature, and notarization required + commission exp date.  

*This is the form that caused me to pause as it asks for a lot of info that i'm suspicious about, feel I shouldn't reveal confirmation of my actual contact info in full to these people.

3 -" Identity Theft Victim's Complaint and Affidavit" 

This is a 6-page form that states is "voluntary for filing a report with law enforcement, and disputes with credit reporting agencies and creditors about ID theft-related problems.  If asks for very detailed contact and verification info about me, what this same info was at the time of the theft/fraud, declarations, about, documentation, about the above information or accounts, law enforcement report, signatures, and then using this form in lieu of a law enforcement report if one isn't filed to prove each of the companies where the thief misused my info that I am not responsible for the fraud.

 

I realize this is a lot of info to review in a short window of time, if it's even possible for anyone to respond to before Friday (deadline to mail these forms to Dang's office), but if anyone could give me your thoughts on this, it would be tremendously appreciated!  As much as I want to trust this situation, and can devise what I think might be an appropriate direction to take in filling these forms out (if at all), but there's a side of me that remains highly suspicious and think I could be entering a situation of completing these forms then getting trapped into something i'm going to regret.

 

Thoughts?

  •  
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This guy is not your attorney. Make sure none of the documents you received are disguised discovery, such as a request for admissions. If you do not answer those, they can be deemed as admitted. Discovery rules require them to be clearly marked and usually sent on their own so if you see any games going on, that will be a discovery violation you can bring up. Otherwise do not return or sign these documents.

With your time study the CFPB order against Midland and make them produce this info in court. Specifically start at page 34 for what they're supposed to have before initiating a lawsuit. http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201509_cfpb_consent-order-encore-capital-group.pdf

I would point out that Midland has violated Identity Theft aspects in the past under this consent order. See paragraph 41 and 53 among others of that order. The burden is on them to prove their case after you've denied the charges, not the other way around.

You can do your own ID Theft filings if you feel this is what happened. See https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/features/feature-0014-identity-theft

I would file a complaint with the CFPB that Midland is requiring you to sign and notarize documents and piles of them within three days to show identity theft after they sued. Do that today- http://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CCRP626, thank you so much for this info!  I'm glad I reached out, trusted my instincts that this could be a dicey move not in my favor - there's so much detailed info that these forms seek, as I read through them it felt like I was being interrogated.  I'll comb through the information in the links you provided.  I'm very appreciative of your input, and i'm sure i'll have questions as I read through the CFPB/Midland situation, including the following:

3 hours ago, CCRP626 said:

If you do not answer those, they can be deemed as admitted.

Did you mean 'if I DO answer"?  There is no clear indication, as far as I can tell, that these forms are specifically marked as a request for admissions, but i'm still naturally suspicious with the quantity and quality of info they'd provide.  The one instruction specification that is questionable is below and marked ***

 

At the top of the "Fraud Questionnaire":

"Instructions: Please complete the form below and return in the enclosed envelope.  Please print all information except for your signature."

At the top of the Affidavit of Fraud Application:

"Instructions: Please complete the form below and return in the enclosed envelope. Please print all information except for your signature. Have the form signed in the presence of a Notary Public."

 

At the top of the "Identity Theft Victim's Complaint and Affidavit":

A voluntary form for filing a report with law enforcement, and disputes with credit reporting agencies and creditors about identity theft-related problems. Visit ft..gov/idtheft to use a secure online version that you can print for your records.  Before completing this form:

1 - Place a fraud alert on your credit reports, and review the reports for signs of fraud

2 - Close the accounts that you know, or believe, have been tampered with or opened fraudulently.

***In a box at the bottom of the IDTVCA page:

"The Paperwork Reduction Act requires the FTC to display a valid control number (in the case, OMB control #3084-0047) before we can collect - or sponsor the collection of - your information, or require you to provide it."

This seems very suspicious, and I think could be taken as a statement clarifying collecting admissions?

 

I'm also wondering if the SOL actually applies in my instance - on the statements Dand/Midland provided, the most recent statement (that they provided) is dated 1/05/10.   The SOL in Hawaii is 6 years.  But according to TransUnion, this account was 'placed for collection' on 12/28/11 which i'm guessing is when Midland purchased it from Chase.   It states the status is "In Collection", and that this account was last updated on 1/08/16.  This is where i'm confused, about whether account activity dictates the start of SOL, or if when it's sold to a JDB (Dang) it becomes refreshed.

Thank you again for your help!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, on TransUnion, the charge card section specific to Chase, not Midland's purchase of this account states:

CHASE:

Date Updated:  2/13/11

Last Payment Made:  6/04/10

Date Closed:  1/12/10

Pay Status:  Charged Off

MIDLAND:

Placed for Collection:  12/28/11

Date Updated:  1/08/16

 

What makes this information unclear is that the 2 - Chase detail, and Midland collection detail only correspond by the account originating by Chase.  The amount owed is similar but not exact, and the dates overlap but aren't exact - the Chase detail shows a 'High Balance' and 'Credit Limit', and the Midland detail shows an amount that seems to be the mid-average of the 2 Chase amounts listed.  It's clear on the Chase detail, that this account was closed and charged off on 1/12/10, but i'm unclear about the significance of the Midland "Date Updated" 1/08/16.

Am I wasting time hoping the SOL applies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about Hawaii or this lawyer but this sure does sound like a scheme to get you to admit a particular debt/card belonged to you and give them plenty of information they can use to continue collection activities.  Or is could just be a delay tactic as he obviously wants to confuse you about your rights.  One other thing.. if he was doing you some kind of favor as a friend, then he would have just dismissed the case I think.  But I really don't know.

The reason I say this is because last month I sent a cease and desist letter to Portfolio Recovery telling them to stop contacting me via phone or mail regarding 4 debts and that I dispute the debts.  I received form letters back from Portfolio for each debt with the following documents:

1. A letter describing the debt and telling me how to contact them to dispute the debt.

2. A form entitled" Instructions for filing a dispute related to identity theft/fraud".

3.  A form entitled " Identity Theft Affidavit"

I never told Portfolio that these debts were related to identity theft.  They just sent me this stuff automatically.  All I told them was I don't owe these debts and to stop contacting me.   

Two of the documents state "This communication is made for the limited purpose of responding to your dispute and is NOT an attempt to collect at (sic) debt."

So I expect if I hear from them again it will be when I am served with a lawsuit.  In that case I will just kick their butts in court or by electing arbitration if applicable.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@GTHMHNL

Is it the result of ID theft?   Is your name and correct address on credit card statements?  If it's your account and your name and address are correct on statements showing that you got the statements, claiming ID theft could be a problem if you never filed a claim before now.  You'd have to deny receiving any credit card statements to attempt to show you knew nothing about the account.

Check your bank records to see if you made a payment on 6/4/2010.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no reason to return any of those. It's also laughable that you're given three days to complete this. Only answer actual discovery and you can object following the rules. You're also free to do your own discovery with them. The SOL is based on your date of default which would be when your payment was late with Chase. It has nothing to do with when it was sold to a JDB.

If you've already answered the complaint you can look into amending it if you want to add SOL as an affirmative defense.

What indication have you seen that there is identity theft outside of the statement that attorney provided and his suggestion? Is there anything to back that up, such as credit report surprises? Do the credit report amount for Chase and Midland match? Have they provided an affidavit with any of the statements? Identity theft would not be what I'm thinking if this is the only proof.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, CCRP626 said:

1 - What indication have you seen that there is identity theft outside of the statement that attorney provided and his suggestion?

2 - Is there anything to back that up, such as credit report surprises?

3 - Do the credit report amount for Chase and Midland match?

4 - Have they provided an affidavit with any of the statements?

 

Identity theft would not be what I'm thinking if this is the only proof.

 

1 - The only indication i've seen is the page on the Chase statement that Dang/Midland provided, dated 12/10/08 where there are 32 consecutive charges that are clearly curious, half made by "Credit Fraud Purchases" and  the other half by "Credit Purch FIN Chrgs".  I have no idea what these charges are, and why they would originate in Helsinki.  Of the year of statements they provided, this is the only page with questionable activity.  The other statement pages indicate charges that COULD have been made.  But none of them are dated beyond 1/05/10.  

2 - No, there isn't credit report detail that reflects this alleged fraud activity.

3 - No, but they are close.  The original Chase detail shows the high balance and credit limit as 2 dollar amounts.  The Midland detail details 1 dollar amount that's right in-between the 2 Chase amounts.

4 - No affidavit, only the printouts of statements.  

Thankfully, I haven't answered with the ID theft forms sent back to Dang.  After reading them when I got them yesterday, the kind and amount of info they seek felt too suspicious.  It felt more prudent for me to reach out here than react to the IDT forms - i'm glad I did.  I did also feel 3 days to respond was unreasonable, and also another cause for suspicion - nothing good can come of rushed processes in this context.    

Not quite sure what to do next, but it does seem clear that returning completed IDT forms to them isn't it...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, BV80 said:

@GTHMHNL

Is it the result of ID theft?   Is your name and correct address on credit card statements?  If it's your account and your name and address are correct on statements showing that you got the statements, claiming ID theft could be a problem if you never filed a claim before now.  You'd have to deny receiving any credit card statements to attempt to show you knew nothing about the account.

Check your bank records to see if you made a payment on 6/4/2010.

The account info on the statements are correct in terms of my contact and billing info on the year of statements Dang provided.  But the page that shows strangely blatant signs that seem to be IDT isn't anything i've ever seen, nor have any reason to think it's related to me, so there was never any reason for me to file a claim.  It's dated 1/06/09, and there are 32 consecutive charges originating in Helsinki from 'CREDIT FRAUD PURCHASES' and 'CREDIT PURCH FIN CHRGS' for amounts ranging from  $.10 - $103.29.  

Is it possible Midland somehow generated this page to steer me into complying with a IDT defense, while tricking me into divulging other info they can use against me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, GTHMHNL said:

The only indication i've seen is the page on the Chase statement that Dang/Midland provided, dated 12/10/08 where there are 32 consecutive charges that are clearly curious, half made by "Credit Fraud Purchases" and  the other half by "Credit Purch FIN Chrgs".  I have no idea what these charges are, and why they would originate in Helsinki.  Of the year of statements they provided, this is the only page with questionable activity.

I'd be surprised if the Chase fraud department at the time didn't flag those on their own very quickly and contact the card holder or just credit the account. Then two years of nothing out of the ordinary.

Seems odd to me if this is so clearly ID Theft and Midland has attorneys review these cases before pouncing they went ahead and sued first then made sure first thing they asked in a peculiar way after that was if these are not your charges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CCRP626 said:

I'd be surprised if the Chase fraud department at the time didn't flag those on their own very quickly and contact the card holder or just credit the account. Then two years of nothing out of the ordinary.

Seems odd to me if this is so clearly ID Theft and Midland has attorneys review these cases before pouncing they went ahead and sued first then made sure first thing they asked in a peculiar way after that was if these are not your charges.

Not odd at all....remember, it's Midland.  We're talkng about a JDB that doesnt care if it sues the wrong person, as long as it does not get caught.  Midland like all JDBs deals in volume--since more than 90% of all consumers will ignore a summons, they get tons of easy money.  All they needed was for this defendant not to respond and they would get easy money in this case too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@GTHMHNL  I think there are three important dates involved here that you need for calculating your specific SOL.

Date Closed by Chase:  1/12/10

Last Payment Made:  6/04/10     Is this accurate?   Did you make a payment 5 months after the account was closed?

Date that Midland filed the lawsuit:  What specific date is stamped or shown received  on the complaint by the court clerk.

I believe the 6-year SOL clock starts ticking from the 1/12/10 date or the date of your last payment if it was after 1/12/10.   This is important.  If they did not file the lawsuit within 6 years of that date, then you have a solid defense.

If the only documentation they have is old statements, that is not proof that Midland purchased your specific account from Chase.   Midland has to show proof they purchased YOUR specific account, otherwise they have no standing to make the claim.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@NormInGeorgia - thank you for this insight.  There are a lot of dates involved provided by several sources" 

 

According to my 1/2016 TransUnion Personal Credit Report section "Adverse Reports", for the Chase-specific detail:

"Balance: $0

Date Updated:  2/13/2011

Payment Received: $0

Last Payment Made:  06/04/2010

High Balance: $______.__

Credit Limit: $______.__

Pay Status:  Charged Off

Date Closed:  1/12/10 >Maximum delinquency of 120 days in 2009 for $_ ,_ _ _   and in 1/2011< "

***This is verbatim.  They do list a dollar amount but I felt uncomfortable publicizing it.  This verbiage is confusing, and there are no indications of what the precise significance of the information inside the brackets means, or the origins of the 2 listed dates.  

 

In the TransUnion Credit Report section "Adverse Reports", for the Midland-specific detail:

"Placed For Collection:  12/28/2011

Balance:  $_____.__

Date Updated:  1/08/16

Original Amount:  $____.__

Past Due:  $____.__

REMARKS:  >PLACED FOR COLLECTION<

Estimated month and year this item will be removed:  05/2016"

 

***This last line provides a lot of hope that SOL applies, but with the barrage of varying dates i'm uncertain.  I'd like to take it at face value - it is on the TransUnion Personal Credit Report that I received 1/2016, but there are a lot of listed dates and other elements that cause me to question this.  And I unfortunately don't have records of any kind of activity or payments on this account, in this timeframe, or with Chase, or Dang/Midland, nor do I have any real recollection or record of the stated circumstances.  

The actual lawsuit summons cover form is dated 10/15/2015, stamped by the court clerk on 12/18/2015.  On the summons it states the "Last date of indebtedness: 10/15/2015".  It was accompanied with a signed affidavit from a Midland representative in Minnesota dated 10/19/2015.   It was also accompanied by what I assume is the formal summons post-clerk that's also dated 12/18/2015.  I was served on 1/15/2016.

So the dates involved are all askew.  I'm unsure if this is a standard disorientation tactic, but without clear understanding of the law it's been a challenge for me to decipher...really appreciate your guidance!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1/12/10 to 12/18/15 is just under 6 years.  I do not think SOL will work in your case.

I don't know how evidence rules work in your specific court, but in general a JDB has to prove they purchased your specific account from the Original Creditor.   Having copies of your old statements and affidavit from a JDB employee are not sufficient evidence. 

You need someone with more experience in your state's laws and case law and your specific court rules to provide specific guidance on how to argue that point.  Or talk to a consumer lawyer.

In the meantime, 

Research the  CFPB orders mentioned in the posts from   @CCRP626   to see what restrictions and rules apply in your case. 

Locate a Chase cardmember agreement from 2009 or 2010 that would best apply to you to see if there is an Arbitration Clause.  If one exists, you should start a demand for arbitration per the rule of the cardmember agreement and file a motion to compel arbitration.     Start here:  http://www.consumerfinance.gov/credit-cards/agreements/issuer/284/

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For oddities like the surprise charges, in addition to the Midland one, I'd look through that Chase order linked above since it has mentions such as-

Because Respondents sometimes failed to accurately update, maintain, and reconcile the Account information in their databases before selling defaulted Accounts to Debt Buyers, the resulting Account information was not always accurate for accounts that had gone to judgment.

Respondents also sold certain Accounts that were not enforceable or otherwise should not have been subject to collection, including: Accounts that had been identified as fraudulently opened or subject to fraudulent charges or otherwise not owed by the identified debtor.

Respondents also sold certain Accounts that Debt Buyers could not lawfully collect, or which were susceptible to unlawful collection practices by Debt Buyers, including: a. Accounts with inaccurate amounts owed;

Respondents' actions caused harm to certain Consumers because the Debt Buyers who purchased the Accounts demanded payment from Consumers and filed lawsuits based on invalid or inaccurate Debts, or inaccurate information provided by Chase. Consumers were thus pursued to pay amounts not owed or which were uncollectable. Consumers also could be sued and have a judgment entered against them based on documents that were falsely sworn. Further, if Debt Buyers furnished faulty information to Consumer Reporting Agencies,
then the Consumers' credit files and credit reports would contain inaccurate information, which could affect these Consumers' ability to obtain credit, employment, housing, and insurance in the future.

@GTHMHNL Did you file a CFPB complaint, mentioning both Chase and Midland? Including the dates wouldn't be a bad idea since this falls right into when Chase was at its worst.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How in-depth should I go into with the CFPB complaint?  I don't want to divulge information unnecessarily - i'm understanding that less if often more, especially in writing.  But i'm unsure of how minimally I can submit a complaint to where CFPB appreciates it, and I steer the effect of this complaint in my favor...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think when you file a CFPB complaint online it gives you the option of keeping the details private.  Only the CFPB and the company you complain about can read the complaint.  I'm not completely sure about that but read their website to confirm it.   When I sent complaints I gave as much details as I could and stated specifically what violations had occurred.   I don't know what, if any, the effect would be in your case.    Looks like you have plenty of time before your next court date, so sending in complaints again each company would not cause any harm I think.    

For me, it just put pressure on the offending companies because they HATE to answer CFPB complaints but it is mandatory that they do so.  One bank even proactively sent me $100,  just for the inconvenience they caused me, after I sent a 100% valid detailed complaint that I could prove, hahaha!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may want to review those orders to include areas you feel are relevant. Something like this should suffice, adding time barred if you think it's appropriate and their attorney advising you to file identity theft after they initiated the lawsuit. Did you challenge standing when you answered the complaint? Have you checked your court rules for discovery if you want to initiate that.

" I am being sued by Midland Funding LLC, who claim that they purchased alleged debt from Chase.

Documentation they provided does not show proof of ownership, or how the alleged amount of debt was calculated.

They have provided a bill of sale from the original creditor stating that all accounts in Exhibit A were sold/transferred to Midland Funding LLC, however, Exhibit A is blank as the accounts were Redacted.

They also provided an affidavit of sale from the Finance Manager of original creditor (Chase) stating that a "pool of accounts" were sold to Midland Funding, however there is no mention of any accounts.

They have also included two statements, seven months apart, from the original creditor. However nothing shows how the alleged amounts were calculated or that the charges are mine. "

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are fantastic!  All this legal jargon and tricky nuances of the law can be daunting, and i'm super relieved to have your guidance.  I went through bank statements from '09-'10 and can't find any payments after 07/2009 so I am confused about the possibility of a SOL claim, based on the info on the TransUnion report.  But I also changed my bank around then, and honestly, i'm not that confident that the paperwork in-hand is iron-clad.  I think i'm better off just keeping that in my back pocket, and focus more on proving Midland is unprepared with the lawsuit they've already dragged me into, and the ID theft angle was their diversion to disorient me.  Does this sound rational?

Thank you so much!  (i'm sure i'll have more questions as things continue to progress...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@CCRP626 is correct.  The focus needs to be on the fact that Midland has no proof that any specific account was sold to them.   There is no paperwork showing a specific account was sold from the original creditor to the subsequent JDB who filed suit.   They have a bunch of papers but none of them refer to each other in a way that could prove a specific account number was sold to Midland.  When confronted with this fact, some lawyers will back down and fill out a "dismiss with prejudice" form.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi guys - here's the response to the CFPB complaint:

 

Response 
Mr. _____, you express concern that suit has been filed against you for a debt, for which you have not been provided sufficient validation and documentation. On January 9, 2012, Midland Credit mailed you a validation letter, which informed you that Midland Funding had acquired the account, and informed you of your rights pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.  ("FDCPA"). The letter was not returned as "undeliverable" by the United States Postal Service, satisfying the notification requirements of the FDCPA.  15 U.S.C. § 1692.

Midland Credit's business records indicate that it did not receive any correspondence disputing the debt or requesting validation from you in response to the letter. In fact, no correspondence was received directly from you prior to the complaint filed through the CFPB.

A review of Midland Credit's business records indicates that on October 11, 2015, this account was placed with the Law Offices of Marvin S.C. Dang, LLLC ("Dang Law"). The firm advises that suit was filed on December 18, 2015, and service was completed on January 14, 2016.

You ask for specific information as to how the amount owed was calculated. The account was charged-off with a balance of $12,315.61. Subsequent post-charge off payments totaling $348.00 resulted in a balance at the time of purchase of $11,967.61, which is the principal balance claimed and placed with Dang Law. Additional costs of a $155.00 filing fee and $49.00 service and mileage fee result in current balance of $12,171.61.

Dang Law advises that their first contact with you was when you appeared at the first pre-trial conference on March 28, 2016. At that time, you indicated you were not familiar with the debt, and were provided copies of the account statements. These documents are again enclosed. Please note that the redaction of certain information is required by court rule. 

Also enclosed is a copy of the bill of sale verifying Midland Funding as the rightful owner of the account, along with a copy of a seller data sheet confirming the account was included in the purchase from Main Street Acquisition Corp.

During the pre-trial conference, as you had indicated you were not familiar with the debt, you were asked if this could be a case of identity theft, to which you were unsure, but questioned some of the charges appearing on the statement.  You were then asked to submit documentation indicating that the account was fraudulent, to which you agreed.

Midland Credit stands ready to assist you in clearing your record if you have been a victim of identity theft or fraud.  If such is in fact the case, Midland Credit respectfully requests that you provide it with a copy of either a police report or affidavit of fraud showing that you reported the fraudulent activity.  Please note that an affidavit of fraud can be found at www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/resources/forms/affidavit.pdf.  If submitting an affidavit of fraud, you should complete the form and have the form notarized.  You can contact Midland Credit online at www.midlandcreditonline.com/consumer-resolution-center/.  Or you may forward appropriate documentation to CSS using the contact information on this letterhead.

Please be assured that Midland Credit is a reputable firm, and that it is a member of the Better Business Bureau of San Diego in good standing.  With numerous scams noted in the media, it can be confusing for a consumer to discern which companies are operating within the law.

Midland Credit encourages you to work with Dang Law to assist in reaching a positive resolution.  Please see Midland Credit's comprehensive response letter, which is attached for additional information."

 

Naturally, I don't have any record or recollection of the validation letter Midland says they sent to me.
The attachments were the same photocopied statements I was originally handed that at the bottom states "This Statement is a Facsimile, not an Original".  
Then there is a copy of a notarized Bill of Sale and Assignment indicating sale of the debt from Main Street Acquisition Corp in Nevada (seller) to Midland Funding in Delaware (purchaser), and notarized in Georgia.  It indicates a purchase of the account by wire.  The amount it was purchased for is redacted, of course.  What I find odd is there's no indication of the transfer of this account directly from Chase - Wamu.  In fact, Chase is not mentioned anywhere at all.  It also states at the bottom of the Bill of Sale and Assignment:
"Data printed by Midland Credit Management, Inc. from electronic records provided by Main Street Acquisition Corp. pursuant to the Bill of Sale / Assignment of Accounts transferred on or about 12/18/2011 in connection with the sale of accounts from Main Street Acquisition Corp. to Midland Funding LLC."
 
Not sure where all of this leaves me.  Thoughts?
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@GTHMHNL Compare what they have provided with the CFPB order. However the CFPB has it set up for you to add to the complaint, go ahead and do so, indicating the chain of title is not complete and your specific account is not mentioned along with any inaccuracies in their reply.

You still have to fight your case in court pointing out the same deficiencies for standing and unknown charges and whatever else. Have you read the order for the requirements?

BTW, I like how they say you didn't contact them like it means anything. A letter in the mail from a JDB doesn't mean anything. If Chase sent a letter indicating sale of the account, that might hold a bit more weight. As the FDCPA says: The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer.

I think if you read the order they require consumers to provide a lot of unneeded dispute documentation putting the burden on the consumer instead of them buying as-is debt. They seem to be verifying it's business as usual in their response.

38 minutes ago, GTHMHNL said:

Dang Law advises that their first contact with you was when you appeared at the first pre-trial conference on March 28, 2016. At that time, you indicated you were not familiar with the debt, and were provided copies of the account statements.

Wasn't it more like it was their idea for you to say it was identity theft while answering their veiled discovery? Weren't they the ones initiating that conversation when you'd never mentioned identity theft previously?

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.