Jump to content

Request for Production??


Recommended Posts

Sorry if this has been addressed elsewhere, I searched but could not find it. I received a summons for Midland Funding, LLC the other day. I filed my answer with the court and certified mailed a copy to the attorney. I read that I should send them a request for production of documents such as the original credit application bearing my signature, original agreement showing terms, etc. I have the form prepared, but I'm not sure of the next step. Do I have to file this form with the court? I looked up a list of filing fees for my court but it did not say anything about additional forms, only my first response to the matter. I will certify mail the form/letter, but it didn't seem right that I not need to file this with the court. Couldn't the attorney just deny ever receiving it? I would have proof of mailing but who's to say what the contents inside the envelope were.

 

Thanks all for your time!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, jdbhater2017 said:

I read that I should send them a request for production of documents such as the original credit application bearing my signature,

You should do discovery but do NOT waste time asking for a signed credit contract.  The courts in every state know that does not exist.  You apply for the card, they approve it and by accepting the card with the card agreement/using it/and making payments you renew the contract each month.  You are better off attacking their standing to sue and their evidence as hearsay.

6 hours ago, jdbhater2017 said:

Do I have to file this form with the court?

You will have to find out what your court/state's rules of civil procedure are.  Some states do require that you file it with the court.  Some require you get permission from the court to do discovery and some states like GA do not allow discovery in small claims at all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was under the impression they likely don't have whatever documentation is sufficient to uphold their case in court, could you take a look at my request for production letter below and let me know if it should be modified in any way? On the summons I received, it mentioned account number (*******5013) or something along those lines - it literally had the asterisks and did not include the complete account number. Is this normal? I took out the specific parts of the case below.

 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

FOR XXXX COUNTY

 

 

MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC,                                         )

                                                            Plaintiff            )

                                                                                                                )                   Case No: XXXXXXX

v.                                                                                 )            

                                                                                                                )        REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

XXXX,                                                                          )

                                                        Defendant           )

                                                                                     

Defendant, XXXX requests Plaintiff, Midland Funding LLC to produce the following documents for inspection and copying at the law offices of Plaintiff’s attorney XXXXXXXX, OR 97402 within thirty (30) days. If objection is made, please state the reason for the objection. If denying the matter, please set forth in detail the reasons why the answering party cannot produce such documentation.

 

DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED

 

 

1. The alleged credit application;

 

2. The alleged credit agreement including the complete account number that states interest rate, grace period, terms of repayment, et cetera;

 

3. Itemized statements or credit card statements including the complete account number that demonstrate how the alleged amount of $2500.00 was calculated;

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also I figured I'd mention: about 6 or so months ago Midland was calling me at my work so I had called them and asked them to not call anymore, at which point I let the case manager know that I had purchased a home and the renovation costs caused me to default on a lot of my debts, not just this one and that I would call when I know for sure I can make a payment.

In this case, have I already lost all my leverage since I've acknowledged the debt to them over the phone? Should I just call them and try to settle, or should I go forward with the production request? I just don't want to fight the case if I have no defense and end up paying more in court/attorney fees. Thanks again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@jdbhater2017, as previously pointed out, check the 'Orgeon Rules of Civil Procedure' regarding how to handle discovery.  In many states like mine, Arkansas, discovery is sent back-and-forth between you and the Plaintiff.  While the JDBs are a sketchy bunch, the attorneys who bring these suits on their behalf would not likely claim they did not receive something from you -- as long as you sent it 'certified.'  You can send a copy of your discovery to the court, and the clerk will put it in your file, it's likely not mandatory.  Courts generally want to see cases that have been 'winnowed' down by answers in discovery, and only care (and ACT on) any kind of objection that requires a decision by the judge.  Oregon may be different.

I've also found that, depending on the amount allegedly owed, the Plaintiff may dismiss the case shortly upon receiving discovery from you -- because they want to win by default, from lawsuits filed that 80% of defendents do not answer.  The larger the amount owed, the more time they are likely to answer discovery.  Not ALL the time, but it has been my experience.

In case it helps, here's what I sent Midland a couple of years ago -- in asking for a 'Request for Production of Documents'

1. Please provide original signed application establishing the alleged account.

2. Please provide charge slips bearing defendant's signature which establish use of the
alleged account.

3. Please provide the original written agreement in which Defendant allegedly assented
to the terms of the account.

4. Please provide a complete history of the alleged account from day one, establishing
the legitimacy of the alleged balance sought.

5. Please provide any document setting forth the choice of law provision.

6. Please provide any document Plaintiff intends to introduce at trial which establishes
the exact day the alleged subject account went into default.

7. Please provide any document produced by Plaintiff in the normal course of business
which states and defines the exact statutes the choice of law provision seeks to enforce.

8. Please provide any recording or transcript of any recording of telephone calls in
which Defendant disputed the alleged amount owed.

9. Please provide any cancelled checks or copies of cancelled checks, or other verified
payments on the alleged account Plaintiff intends to introduce as evidence at trial.

10. Please provide proof of mailing of monthly statements.

11. Please provide any documents evidencing that Defendant retained monthly
statements for an unreasonable amount of time.

12. Please provide any document produced by Plaintiff in the normal course of
business defining "unreasonable amount of time."

 

At the bottom, you generally need to include what's called a 'Certificate of Service' that might look like this:

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this 18th day of February, 2017, served  (Plaintiff attorney name and address)  with the foregoing “Request for
Production of Documents” by placing same in the U.S. Mail with sufficient postage for
Certified with Return Receipt service attached.
_________________
Signed: @jdbhater2017

Feel free to change any of this if necessary to abide by 'Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure.'

Good luck!

Jimmy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and I wouldn't worry about your call to Midland six months ago.  Also, I just noticed your case is in Circuit Court, which generally is for alleged amounts owed of $5000 and greater.  At least it is that way in Arkansas.

I forgot to mention previously that before you send discovery, you might also find out if you can enter into ARBITRATION, which JDBs HATE!   @shellieh98, a valued member of the forum, or others might be able to comment on whether this method might be available for you.  If so, that is the direction I would take, if possible.

Either way, fight on!

Jimmy

Edited by Jimmy E
Additional Info
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2017 at 9:36 AM, jdbhater2017 said:

I was under the impression they likely don't have whatever documentation is sufficient to uphold their case in court...

Maybe 10 years ago, but most information about fighting back in court is woefully out of date. Unless your state is has debtor-friendly rules (like California) you will most likely lose in court. Once boards, like this, taught people how to defend these cases, debt buyers started demanding better documentation from the original creditor - combine that with rules that allow affidavits to essentially self-authenticate (no need for a conga line of live witnesses) and these cases are unbeatable.

As mentioned above, check your cc agreement for Contractual Arbitration - here, in AZ, one has no chance to win in court, yet I don't believe we have seen anyone lose using arbitration. If it is granted, the plaintiff will dismiss your case. Otherwise, try to settle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you all for the awesome advice and info. I did call my local court and the civil clerk seemed very friendly, looked up my case and told me that since it is below $50,000 it will go to arbitration.

Can I ask, being someone that has very little knowledge of how courts work: assuming Midland has what they need in terms of documentation to win the case, what is so different about arbitration that would cause them to dismiss? All I know from reading about arbitration is that it is often less formal and handled by a paralegal or someone like that, rather than a judge. What does arbitration change about my position?

Thanks again!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jdbhater2017 said:

Thank you all for the awesome advice and info. I did call my local court and the civil clerk seemed very friendly, looked up my case and told me that since it is below $50,000 it will go to arbitration.

Can I ask, being someone that has very little knowledge of how courts work: assuming Midland has what they need in terms of documentation to win the case, what is so different about arbitration that would cause them to dismiss? All I know from reading about arbitration is that it is often less formal and handled by a paralegal or someone like that, rather than a judge. What does arbitration change about my position?

Thanks again!!

The arbitration referenced by the clerk is court-ordered arbitration (mediation).  That's not the same as contractual arbitration referenced in a cardmember agreement.  You want contractual arbitration. 

For how much are you being sued?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jimmy E said:

2. Please provide charge slips bearing defendant's signature which establish use of the
alleged account.

DO NOT send this.  The charge slip is ONLY needed if there a dispute between you and the merchant.  i.e. fraudulent use of the card.  It is NOT needed for them to prove the case.  WASTE of an RFP and a very common mistake.

3 hours ago, Jimmy E said:

4. Please provide a complete history of the alleged account from day one, establishing
the legitimacy of the alleged balance sought.

Again, no.  The Plaintiff can object that it is over burdensome and the court will likely agree.  Request the last 6 months up until the account was closed.

3 hours ago, Jimmy E said:

9. Please provide any cancelled checks or copies of cancelled checks, or other verified
payments on the alleged account Plaintiff intends to introduce as evidence at trial.

HUGE mistake because this allows the creditor to subpoena your bank records and introduce that you made payments therefore establishing you used the account and agreed to the terms.  DO NOT send this.

3 hours ago, Jimmy E said:

10. Please provide proof of mailing of monthly statements.

NO NO NO NO NO.  They are not required to prove they mailed anything and the court knows it.

3 hours ago, Jimmy E said:

11. Please provide any documents evidencing that Defendant retained monthly
statements for an unreasonable amount of time.

12. Please provide any document produced by Plaintiff in the normal course of
business defining "unreasonable amount of time."

WHAT does this prove?  Nothing.  I have a set of rogs, RFP etc. on a thumb drive at home.  Will upload that later tonight when I am off work.  DO NOT send this stuff until you see what I have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, jdbhater2017 said:

Thank you all for the awesome advice and info. I did call my local court and the civil clerk seemed very friendly, looked up my case and told me that since it is below $50,000 it will go to arbitration.

Can I ask, being someone that has very little knowledge of how courts work: assuming Midland has what they need in terms of documentation to win the case, what is so different about arbitration that would cause them to dismiss? All I know from reading about arbitration is that it is often less formal and handled by a paralegal or someone like that, rather than a judge. What does arbitration change about my position?

Thanks again!!

We need someone from Oregon to chime in, as I recall that their courts are somewhat adamant that their "mediation" is a suitable replacement for contractual arbitration. As to why Contractual Arbitration works, it never gets to the documentation stage. The cost to the plaintiff in terms of time and money to participate in arbitration is more than the case is worth. Basically it is a loophole - you have no intention of arbitrating (as you would lose there, as well) and Midland's lawyer and the judge both know this. You are using a clause in the cc agreement for something it was never meant for. They include that clause to protect themselves and some clever (or sketchy) individual figured out that using it against them in these cases was like a "get out of jail free card." That is why we need to know what type of credit card this was, as some recent agreements have added exception language that prevents arbitration in certain courts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, BV80 said:

For how much are you being sued?

In the realm of $2,500.

15 minutes ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

That is why we need to know what type of credit card this was, as some recent agreements have added exception language that prevents arbitration in certain courts.

It was a Sears card issued by Citibank.

I hope that helps. I tried googling Sears/Citibank's arbitration  but couldn't find much, and I don't have the original contract to reference to.

On a side note, I was just called by a relative about 10 minutes ago that told me someone from Midland called their number asking for me (I found out it was Midland by googling the number they left). I thought this was strange, since just a few days ago when I called Midland myself (before receiving the summons) they told me I had to speak with the attorney regarding the matter. Could this mean anything???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, jdbhater2017 said:

In the realm of $2,500.

It was a Sears card issued by Citibank.

I hope that helps. I tried googling Sears/Citibank's arbitration  but couldn't find much, and I don't have the original contract to reference to.

On a side note, I was just called by a relative about 10 minutes ago that told me someone from Midland called their number asking for me (I found out it was Midland by googling the number they left). I thought this was strange, since just a few days ago when I called Midland myself (before receiving the summons) they told me I had to speak with the attorney regarding the matter. Could this mean anything???

Yes, it means that Midland just violated the FDCPA.  The only time they are permitted to contact a third party regarding you is to try to locate you. Once they have already located you, and/or been in contact with you, they have no permissible purpose in calling other people about you.  You would need to show that they were fully aware of how to be in contact with you---such as, a correct mailing address, and especially a correct phone number.  Once they have located you, there's no legit reason to be calling relatives like that.

Midland has a long and distinguished history of ignoring the FDCPA.  If I remember right, there's also a consent judgment against them from the CFPB.  Midland is part of Encore Capital Group, and CFPB investigated them.  Here's a link, it's 63 pages long, and may or may not apply to your situation.  At the very least, it could help you frame up some good interrogatories or RFP's to ensure that they comply fully with this consent judgment in your case.

http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201509_cfpb_consent-order-encore-capital-group.pdf

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@jdbhater2017

Back in the good old days we had at least two OR members who knew OR law and procedure well.  As Goody said, OR does have mandatory court arbitration, which as I recall nearly always rules in favor of the creditor.  If your card provides for it, private contractual arbitration is the way to go.  However, you may well have a FDCPA violation for which a consumer lawyer may  take your case on a contingency basis.  Go to www.consumeradvocates.org and get several opinions.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎01‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 3:09 PM, Clydesmom said:

DO NOT send this.  The charge slip is ONLY needed if there a dispute between you and the merchant.  i.e. fraudulent use of the card.  It is NOT needed for them to prove the case.  WASTE of an RFP and a very common mistake.

Again, no.  The Plaintiff can object that it is over burdensome and the court will likely agree.  Request the last 6 months up until the account was closed.

HUGE mistake because this allows the creditor to subpoena your bank records and introduce that you made payments therefore establishing you used the account and agreed to the terms.  DO NOT send this.

NO NO NO NO NO.  They are not required to prove they mailed anything and the court knows it.

WHAT does this prove?  Nothing.  I have a set of rogs, RFP etc. on a thumb drive at home.  Will upload that later tonight when I am off work.  DO NOT send this stuff until you see what I have.

 

@Clydesmom, I offered these *cautiously* to the OP, as RPD that has worked perfectly for me on two separate occassions in Arkansas.  Your 'NO NO' was a 'WIN WIN' for me.

I can't in good conscience, leave out what worked for me two separate times.  If some of it helps the OP, great!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/30/2017 at 9:57 AM, Jimmy E said:

 

@Clydesmom, I offered these *cautiously* to the OP, as RPD that has worked perfectly for me on two separate occassions in Arkansas.  Your 'NO NO' was a 'WIN WIN' for me.

I can't in good conscience, leave out what worked for me two separate times.  If some of it helps the OP, great!

 

Jimmy, you really need to stop posting bad information and learn something from the people who are posting here.  Didnt you just try to bash me recently in another thread because I disagreed in a conversation with clydesmom before??  And here you are doing the same thing?  They named a street after you..."one way".

 

For what its worth, CM is right on this. 

On 1/27/2017 at 11:25 AM, Jimmy E said:

In case it helps, here's what I sent Midland a couple of years ago -- in asking for a 'Request for Production of Documents'

1. Please provide original signed application establishing the alleged account.

"a couple of years ago" is not necessarily the same as today, because JDBs often change their tactics to bend around what the courts rule.  Nowadays, for example, the courts know that there's almost no chance of the JDB ever having  a signed application in their possession, and yet, courts have many many times ruled in favor of a JDB without requiring them to have one.  That's why they use things like copies of billing statements.  If you lived at that address at the date shown on the billing statement, it's a reasonable assumption for the court to make that you probably are tied to the account.  You forget, civil court is based upon a preponderance of the evidence.  They do not have to offer concrete proof of anything.  They simply have to be at least 51% believable to the court.

 

Also, consider this--in this day and age, most OC's would not have an original signed application because most applications are done online....where you do not ever actually sign anything by hand.  The courts know this and have already adjusted their rulings to show it.

On 1/27/2017 at 11:25 AM, Jimmy E said:

2. Please provide charge slips bearing defendant's signature which establish use of the
alleged account.

To what end?  See above.  While I understand that charge slips could prove that a specific person signed the charge, again you are missing out on key facts here.  Courts are keenly aware that many of these debts are several years old.  That means that NO ONE is required to keep paper copies of anything forever.  This is where the billing statements come in.  They will argue that they have these billing statements, that they show your name and address on them, and that they show purchases being made and balances being owed.  The court WILL generally believe this unless you can provide something to counter it with.  They will tell the court that to the best of their knowledge you never disputed anything on those billing statements.   You need to understand that, while the plaintiff has to prove its case, YOU have to DISPROVE it.  You have to challenge it.  They produce these billing statements....if your argument in response is, "where are the charge slips?", you WILL lose.  The way to discredit their case is to discredit their evidence as either inadmissible or show that it does not prove what they claim it does.  It's not to argue over charge slips that the courts already consider to be unnecessary.  Focus on what they DID present and discredit it...

On 1/27/2017 at 11:25 AM, Jimmy E said:

3. Please provide the original written agreement in which Defendant allegedly assented
to the terms of the account.

4. Please provide a complete history of the alleged account from day one, establishing
the legitimacy of the alleged balance sought.

3--same as above.  Courts rarely require the original signed agreement because as noted, in the electronic age it's uncommon for that to have ever taken place.  You're using old information and today it no longer applies.  Credit card companies long ago inserted language saying that each use of the card constitutes your acceptance and agreement to the terms.  All they need to do is 51% convince the court that you either used the card or were aware of it being issued and used in your name, and did you pay the bill afterwards.  Hence, the billing statements.

4--This will often be rejected as overly burdensome.  If you have proof of wrongdoing, such as balance errors, payments not credited, or erroneous fees, that would be on YOU to present in your defense.  If you do not have anything there, you cannot expect the court to permit such a lengthy fishing expedition like this.  It also does something else--it can open up your own bank records to the proceedings.  If you demand that they produce all payment records on the account, they can in turn request through discovery your banking records for that time period, and this is where you WILL lose if the account was actually yours.  Courts will look at your bank records, showing payments made in those amounts to the OC, and declare that you owe the debt...often that is the end.  Our job in this situation is not only to address if we actually had the account, but also to argue that the plaintiff is not the proper party to sue.  Once you open yourself up to the court seeing payments being made in your own records, you lose because most judges will often ignore all the rest.

On 1/27/2017 at 11:25 AM, Jimmy E said:

7. Please provide any document produced by Plaintiff in the normal course of business
which states and defines the exact statutes the choice of law provision seeks to enforce.

There is no point in this.  The typical choice of law provision simply states that this agreement shall be governed by the laws of the state of ________.  The "exact statutes" that you ask about in this one are simply found within the laws of the chosen state.  They do not need to set forth the exact specific laws or statutes anywhere, the blanket statement that they use is sufficient. 

On 1/27/2017 at 11:25 AM, Jimmy E said:

8. Please provide any recording or transcript of any recording of telephone calls in
which Defendant disputed the alleged amount owed.

A JDB is NEVER required to have in its possession communication logs or records between you and the OC.  Again, this is a fishing expedition that serves no purpose.  It is upon each party to prove its claims before the court.  Therefore, if you ever disputed anything, it's up to YOU, not them, to provide admissible evidence of this.

On 1/27/2017 at 11:25 AM, Jimmy E said:

9. Please provide any cancelled checks or copies of cancelled checks, or other verified
payments on the alleged account Plaintiff intends to introduce as evidence at trial.

10. Please provide proof of mailing of monthly statements.

9--CM addressed this above, and she is totally correct.  You NEVER want to open up the possibility that your bank records will be a part of this trial...unless, of course, you can prove by those records that you never made a single payment because it's not your debt. 

10--it has long been known that the standard applied to this situation is that they only have to show that they have a practice or capability in place that allows them to send out things...they NEVER have to prove that they actually did, or that you received it.  This is called a "reasonable assumption"...the court will reasonably assume that if there's a billing statement introduced into evidence with your correct name and address on it, that it's probable that it was sent and received. 

On 1/30/2017 at 9:57 AM, Jimmy E said:

I offered these *cautiously* to the OP,

No, you did not.  There's not one single mention of "cautiously" or anything similar anywhere in that post of yours.  But then, this is not the first time we've seen you totally unaware of your own post.  Perhaps its time to re-read again?

You said it yourself, a lot of JDBs will dismiss because they want the easy victims--the default judgments.  So, perhaps you should consider this when trying to present your discovery requests.  The outcome of your two cases most likely was based on the JDB not wanting to incur the expense of trial, and not based on the actual content of your requests.  Finally, please, learn how to handle it when people disagree with you.  This is the second time around now that we've seen where you refuse to accept that you could have been mistaken...even when people post case law and actual law showing you what is legit, you still argue against them.  There are people here who have been doing this far longer than you or I...and it would be mighty wise if you could learn to accept that you, like everyone else out there, gets things wrong.  CM is a wealth of information, but she too gets things wrong sometimes.  I do too.  We all do.  Time to grow up and just learn to accept that you fall into that same category.  And no, Jimmy, admitting you were wrong while still trying to argue that you were not is not the same thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kraftykrab said:

Jimmy, you really need to stop posting bad information and learn something from the people who are posting here.

I take issue with your accusation that @Jimmy E provided "bad information".

Bad information is harmful.  While some of the requests were unnecessary and would be objected to by the plaintiff, they were not harmful to the OP. 

If you'd like to debate the issue of document requests, start a new thread regarding that issue.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, BV80 said:

I take issue with your accusation that @Jimmy E provided "bad information".

Bad information is harmful.  While some of the requests were unnecessary and would be objected to by the plaintiff, they were not harmful to the OP. 

If you'd like to debate the issue of document requests, start a new thread regarding that issue.  

 

I respect your right to opinion, but the truth is this--tons of pro se consumers lose in court exactly for this reason--because they place their faith on arguments that are irrelevant.  That IS harmful.  If the OP were to actually use those requests in a  court case, his real arguments would become lost in the static of the irrelevant, and the plaintiff and court will most likely consider him to have no credibility and no clue what he is doing.  I should not have to tell you with your experience that we are already walking into court on the short end because we are intruding on their arena.  Judges a TON of times have ignored pro se's who go into court using invalid arguments and requests.  As a pro se, we are still expected to know the rules of procedure, the applicable case law, and to follow the current standard.  The requests that Jimmy posted will kill credibility.  We need the court to take us seriously, right?  A judge will not allow us unlimited time in which to make our points.  That time should not be wasted on ANYTHING that is not relevant or valid.  Giving someone an example of invalid and irrelevant requests has plenty of potential to cause harm.

I also understand what you said about wishing to debate the issue of document requests, but I posted this here for the simple fact that it is 100% relevant to this discussion.  I'm also not the only one here that has questioned those requests.  I provided legit reasoning and explanation as to why I called those bad information.  That's relevant to THIS topic, not another one.  This is not a debate about "document requests" in general, it's a post about this specific thread and how those requests can harm the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@kraftykrab

I respect your opinion, but what  you have stated does not in any way deter the fact that the requests for production offered by @Jimmy E does not harm the OP and was not "bad information".   He did not state that his suggested requests would result in a dismissal of the lawsuit.  In fact, he made it known that  his suggestions were based upon his own experience(s).

If you want to disagree, fine, but he did not provide "bad information".    He merely provided information with which you disagreed. 

We can disagree on what is and is not relevant.  But I would be hesitant to accuse another poster of providing "bad information" unless I had precedent or law to support my accusation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BV, 

Thanks for your explanation.  I do agree with what you are saying, but in this case, there is precedent...tons of it.  No court in the land requires a JDB in a credit card lawsuit to EVER produce signed charge slips.  That is NEVER a basic requirement of that lawsuit.  Same goes for requiring the JDB to provide an original signed application or agreement...you know as well as I do that courts not only have not required it, but have RULED that it is not needed, which emphatically creates this precedent.  And you know these things already, you have discussed these situations with people on this forum before.  

 

Jimmy is from Arkansas.  Calvary SPV L.L.C. v. Anderson, Arkansas Court of Appeals 2007.....this case makes it clear that the individual signed charge slips are not at all needed for the JDB to prove the indebtedness, and this case was actually reversed and remanded...Calvary brought the appeal and won the reversal.  Same court, same year, Danner v. Discover....this is an OC even, and that court ruled on appeal that a plaintiff does not even need to rely on the charge slips when fraud has been alleged by the consumer.....even where he lives, there's sufficient precedent that relying on those requests instead of focusing on legitimate arguments will lose a consumer his case.  These consumers sure did lose theirs.

This case law:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10793669867943032987&q="signed+credit+card+application"&hl=en&as_sdt=ffffffffffffe04

....is filled with a list of several other cases where, even in the attempt to confirm an arbitration award, the JDB did not need to provide even a signed agreement.  

We all also know already that there has NEVER been ANY standard, either within the law or from the courts, that requires a JDB to prove that it mailed any specific document--much less, to prove that the OC did so.  Can you find ANY case law example where a JDB lost specifically because they could not prove that they mailed something to a consumer?  

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=93220742229884744&q="signed+credit+card+application"&hl=en&as_sdt=ffffffffffffe04

New York:  "  Defendant's argument that plaintiff was required to submit a signed credit card application in order to establish its claim based on an account stated is without merit (see Citibank (SD) N.A. v Reine, 14 Misc 3d 130[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50013). We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining arguments. "

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15295688475094681874&q="signed+credit+card+application"&hl=en&as_sdt=ffffffffffffe04

Ohio:  "Thus, "a creditor need not produce a signed credit card application to prove the existence of a legally binding agreement because the credit card agreement created one." Discover Bank v. Poling, 10th Dist. No. 04AP-1117, 2005-Ohio-1543"

In that case, Discover won MSJ with just a signed affidavit and some credit card statements.  Yes, I know that this is an OC, but still, the point remains that the "original signed" documents are not required.  Judgment affirmed.  

When I said that a consumer should not waste time in making irrelevant arguments, it was because that consumer should be working to counter the evidence that they did produce instead.  For a JDB, that involves proper chain of title and so on.  One of the best arguments that many of us can have is that the chain of title as presented does not establish the plaintiff as the party with standing to sue.  But there was not a single mention of anything related to that in Jimmy's requests...not one.  If we do not show the court how their "evidence" is insufficient, it WILL be entered and accepted by the court against us.

This is now the second time that I have personally posted either the text of the law itself, or case law examples, showing that the information Jimmy has posted here is not valid.  That is why I stand by what I said above.  It's not designed to be an insult, it is just the truth about the information that is being posted.

 

Please understand, I'm not questioning your wisdom at all.  You are saying that without precedent, you advise one to be hesitant in making the claim I made, and I agree with that. Well, here's precedent.  Thanks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@kraftykrab

I never said there's no case law to support that some of the requests were unnecessary.   In the past, I've pointed out how some requests are not necessary due to the fact that such documents are not required by courts.

"Bad information" and unnecessary information are not always one and the same.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BV, 

 

The case law I showed does not say that those things are "unnecessary".  The truth is, the  consumer relied on those exact same arguments in their cases.  The information they relied on was BAD, in that they trusted it and they lost their cases because of it....ALL of them and a lot more.  The case law shows that relying upon those requests CAN and WILL cause you to lose your case.  That's not just "unnecessary".  I showed you cases where the courts actually said that the JDB had proven its case sufficiently without those documents.  This is not just a matter of unnecessary requests, it's a matter where those arguments utterly fail, and making them causes the litigant to fail.  This is why I mentioned that we need to focus on the relevant issues, such as chain of title for example.  Out of all the requests that I called "bad information", every one of these cases and plenty of others prove that relying in this info WILL cost you.  That's why I call it bad information....can you really not see that it's dangerous, it causes harm, to rely upon this bad info, when even the courts are ruling against consumers that try those same arguments?

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.