Goody_Ouchless Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 In order to return the Love, Beal, et al thread to it's rightful owner, I have started this to continue discussion. To those new, this discussion concerns an appeal of a granted Motion for Summary Judgment in an Arizona case involving Midland. The appeal text (attached) is interesting because it goes against so much of what we argue here - basically saying that Midland's documentation and affidavit(s) were garbage. We have been trying to figure out what made this case unique. It has been argued that the allegation of a stolen credit card could be the reason, but it also looks like the Plaintiff did not follow the "road map" for self-authenticating business records. Here was the last comment in the other thread: Quote Xerxes Posted: Is it clear that the affidavits were generated 4-5 years prior? If they were, that does explain a lot. And then Harris is entirely consistent with her present self and the five-years-ago version of herself. If this were true, wouldn't Midland be jumping at the chance to cure these deficiencies now by using a telephone witness in a lower court trial? The record is consistent with such action, since Midland did move for a telephonic witness again after the case came back from appeal. I'm reasonably convinced now that this case was a one-off from which no larger import should be taken. Sorry for the distraction. Apologies to OP for sidetracking your thread. This post should be the end of it. A review of the appeal shows that account was purchased in early 2016, so that still leaves it a mystery as to why Midland's affidavit didn't comply with Parker. m8028428.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.