Jump to content

Cavalry SPV Summons & Complaint for Money Due . . .


Recommended Posts

I am re-writing this, because I realized after some cross-referencing that this is not the same account with which I'd already dealt. Apologies for my error & for cluttering this board with a bad post.

Though, I DO need help responding to this lawsuit, if anyone is willing to help. I don't remember when the last payment was made, but it has been several years.  I know that I took exception to a compiling of fees and charges at some point & told them I'd not pay until they removed one (something to do with an auto-debit that failed). I think there's another $1000 of fees and interest added to get the amount claimed in this lawsuit.

I have my old responses from the prior lawsuit. What are the odds they can be recycled to answer this one? 

Scan0004.pdf

Edited by English Major
Corrected original information. Added document scans.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did not.  They wanted me to find more documentation (receipt) on the payment, even though I told them that we'd moved twice since then, so I knew I wouldn't find it.  The judge was simply unwilling to give the summary judgment.

 

Apologies. I was confused. This lawsuit is by Cavalry, but for a different account. That was a BoA account, this is a Capital One. I need to research it better.  Thank you for your response. Made me cross-reference better. Can't believe I didn't look at the original debt owner!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, English Major said:

The date at the end of both documents is May 10, 2016. 

I was served on either June 1 or 2 (as I was packing to leave for a two-week business trip, thanks).

If the complaint has not been filed or was filed after Dec. or Jan. of 2016 (6 years after the date of last payment or when a payment was due), the SOL has passed.

Check with the court to see if the complaint was filed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, CCRP626 said:

@English Major this is Capital One? How long since last payment? Might be able to use Washington's borrowing statute to use Delaware's three year SOL but need to see caselaw on how that's interpreted?  http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=4.16.290

If the governing state is DE, the WA Court of Appeals nixed the borrowing statute in Unifund v. Sunde  because the DE SOL would have been tolled due to the fact that Sunde was not in DE and could not have been served.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6881248198285580411&q=%22Unifund+CCR+Partners+v.+Sunde%22&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=4,48

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, English Major said:

But I MUST respond to the summons and/or complaint regardless, yes? 

Yes.   For affirmative defenses, you could claim Lack of Standing (no proof that the plaintiff owns the account) and the Statute of Limitations (debt is time-barred).

Just make sure the complaint has not yet been filed.  If it was not filed before Jan., 2016, I'd include a counterclaim for a violation of the FDCPA for filing a lawsuit on a time-barred debt.

Quote

How can I know if the governing state is DE or WA, though? If it's DE, it's definitely been beyond three years.

The cardmember agreement would reference the governing state.   However, as I explained in another post, if the governing state is DE, the borrowing statute will not apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The May 2016 date would be the filing date, yes? I'm now fairly certain that my last payment on this was beyond six years ago.

I'm going to do the "lack of standing" and also the counterclaim, because I am now certain it's outside the SoL. I still need to check whether this has actually been filed.

Can you recommend any references for wording on responses, or do I need to post the language from the complaint to get help on that one? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BV80 I got a good laugh out of that case. So, basically if you're in Washington, Nebraska, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon and maybe Minnesota and the cardmember agreement states Delaware or you send payment there, you can never use the three year Delaware SOL because you can't be served there. The Delaware SOL according to them is infinite so the only thing they can do is use their own. Ohio though, you send the payment to Delaware and it's good enough to give you a three year SOL. Florida is pretty loose as well.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CCRP626 said:

@BV80 I got a good laugh out of that case. So, basically if you're in Washington, Nebraska, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon and maybe Minnesota and the cardmember agreement states Delaware or you send payment there, you can never use the three year Delaware SOL because you can't be served there. The Delaware SOL according to them is infinite so the only thing they can do is use their own. Ohio though, you send the payment to Delaware and it's good enough to give you a three year SOL. Florida is pretty loose as well.

 

 

I don't understand how the court could conclude that the SOL is tolled when the defendant never lived in DE.  I just don't get it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, English Major said:

Anyone willing to read my response draft and give feedback? 

 

 

lawsuit answer anon.doc

You didn't raise the SOL as an affirmative defense.  If you don't claim that the debt is beyond the WA statute of limitations and, therefore, time-barred, you waive the defense.

Plaintiff's complaint fails to allege whether or not the purported assignment was partial or complete and there is no evidence that the purported assignment was bona fide.

They don't have to allege the above.


Plaintiff's Complaint fails to allege that the Assignor even has knowledge of this action or that the Assignor has conveyed all rights and control to the Plaintiff. The record does not disclose this information and it cannot be assumed without creating an unfair prejudice against the Defendant.

All they really have to allege is that they are the assignee or current owner of the account. 


Defendants invoke the Doctrine of Unclean Hands as the Defendants allege that the Plaintiff or the person or entity that assigned the alleged claim to Plaintiff acted in a dishonest or fraudulent manner with respect to the dispute at issue in this case.

Can you prove the above?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, BV80 said:

You didn't raise the SOL as an affirmative defense.  If you don't claim that the debt is beyond the WA statute of limitations and, therefore, time-barred, you waive the defense.

Plaintiff's complaint fails to allege whether or not the purported assignment was partial or complete and there is no evidence that the purported assignment was bona fide.

They don't have to allege the above.


Plaintiff's Complaint fails to allege that the Assignor even has knowledge of this action or that the Assignor has conveyed all rights and control to the Plaintiff. The record does not disclose this information and it cannot be assumed without creating an unfair prejudice against the Defendant.

All they really have to allege is that they are the assignee or current owner of the account. 


Defendants invoke the Doctrine of Unclean Hands as the Defendants allege that the Plaintiff or the person or entity that assigned the alleged claim to Plaintiff acted in a dishonest or fraudulent manner with respect to the dispute at issue in this case.

Can you prove the above?



Blech. Okay, forgot to add the SoL thing, so I'l add that.

Drop the partial/complete thing and rights & control things?

I guess I cannot prove unclean hands, but thought raising it was a way to force them to prove they have the legal standing to pursue this debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, English Major said:



Blech. Okay, forgot to add the SoL thing, so I'l add that.

Drop the partial/complete thing and rights & control things?

I guess I cannot prove unclean hands, but thought raising it was a way to force them to prove they have the legal standing to pursue this debt.

Yes, drop the partial/complete thing and right & control thing.

Standing boils down to the JDB proving it owns your account.  If they can't prove the OC sold the debt to them, they have no right to sue you.

Unclean hands means that they did something underhanded.   That doesn't necessarily apply only to standing.   In any case, when you raise a defense, you're the one who has to prove it, not the plaintiff.

Do you mind posting the allegations in the complaint?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BV80 said:

Yes, drop the partial/complete thing and right & control thing.

Standing boils down to the JDB proving it owns your account.  If they can't prove the OC sold the debt to them, they have no right to sue you.

Unclean hands means that they did something underhanded.   That doesn't necessarily apply only to standing.   In any case, when you raise a defense, you're the one who has to prove it, not the plaintiff.

Do you mind posting the allegations in the complaint?

@BV80  I uploaded the summons and complaint in the original post.

Rather, I attempted to do that. Let me check!

 

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.