Know how to execute your position on a debt buyer.

[PLAY MAKER]

You must understand what a valid assignment is, to effectively kill a debt buyers alleged claim.

 

[WhoCares1000]

And please Mr. Dean tell us what a valid assignment is.

[PLAY MAKER]

A valid assignment is a contract spelling out in detail as to what is being assigned.It is transfer of title (ownership). The best example of a valid of assignment is a car title.If identifies the car or automobile being sold, by vin, make, model, and year, etc. What debt buyers are filing in court are not valid assignments. They file documents that claim to have assigned a pool of accounts, and sue you based on this.Yet, the contract of assignment does not identify a specific account, only a pool of accounts.Now, if you do not attack this correctly, you will allow the presumptive owner ship to be proof.Each state has laws dealing with this.

[Clydesmom]

10 minutes ago, Theodore Dean said:

Yet, the contract of assignment does not identify a specific account, only a pool of accounts.

That was how it used to be.  After several of the major JDBs dealing with this via the CFPB coming after them they have fixed this.  It was also a major issue in the paper records era.  Now in the digital era they get 90% if not all the information on all accounts purchased.  

11 minutes ago, Theodore Dean said:

Now, if you do not attack this correctly, you will allow the presumptive owner ship to be proof.Each state has laws dealing with this.

Yes, each state has laws and most if not all have adopted amended business records laws that allows a creditor to submit an affidavit from a custodian of records that attests to the accuracy of the information and that the Defendant's account was purchased in the pool.  While it still occasionally works the entire attacking the generic pool of sale documents no longer is effective.  In creditor friendly courts you can attack anything you want.  We have seen too many judges listen for a few minutes and award the judgment.  

[BV80]

@Theodore Dean

In addition to the response from @Clydesmom, some JDBs will include affidavits from the original creditors stating that the defendant’s account was sold to the JDB.  

In debt buyer lawsuits, you cannot assume that a court will rule in favor of a consumer merely because the bill of sale does not include certain specifics.  One must research court rulings from his state courts.

[PLAY MAKER]

From the outset.I am in agreement with all that you say.However, I will say again.To defeat the debt buyer alleged assignment of your debt, you must known how to correctly attack it.That means a person needs to known the law that excludes that business affidavit of a debt buyer. See, in every state, I repeat,  in every state a debt buyers business record is not a business record at all.I SAID,IN EVERY STATE A DEBT BUYERS BUSINESS RECORD AFFIDAVIT IS NOT A BUSINESS RECORD! I win because I cite the law that says it is not a business record! Most of the judges are ignorant of the law like most pro se people.The courts are citing case law out of context to trick people and lawyers into thinking it is a business record.When you lack this knowledge about the debt buyers so-called business record and fail to get a ruling on it, it is waived for appellant review.Litigation is a skill. If a debt buyer used a business record affidavit on anyone and got it through, you simply lack litigation skills.

[PLAY MAKER]

I never said anything about ruling in a consumer favor.

[BV80]

1 minute ago, Theodore Dean said:

From the outset.I am in agreement with all that you say.However, I will say again.To defeat the debt buyer alleged assignment of your debt, you must known how to correctly attack it.That means a person needs to known the law that excludes that business affidavit of a debt buyer. See, in every state, I repeat,  in every state a debt buyers business record is not a business record at all.I SAID,IN EVERY STATE A DEBT BUYERS BUSINESS RECORD AFFIDAVIT IS NOT A BUSINESS RECORD! I win because I cite the law that says it is not a business record! Most of the judges are ignorant of the law like most pro se people.The courts are citing case law out of context to trick people and lawyers into thinking it is a business record.When you lack this knowledge about the debt buyers so-called business record and fail to get a ruling on it, it is waived for appellant review.Litigation is a skill.

Of course,  business record affidavit is not a business record.  It is used to authenticate business records.  You must remember that what your court has ruled is not necessarily what every other court in the country has ruled. 

2 minutes ago, Theodore Dean said:

I never said anything about ruling in a consumer favor.

Then what is your purpose if not for a court to rule favorably for the consumer?

[Goody_Ouchless]

2 hours ago, Theodore Dean said:

If a debt buyer used a business record affidavit on anyone and got it through, you simply lack litigation skills.

So many naca lawyers would beg to differ.  

[BV80]

2 hours ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

So many naca lawyers would beg to differ.  

Some people who have been successful in their county courts don’t always understand that what may work in their county court may not work in other courts in their state, much less in courts in other states.  

Their “litigation skill” is limited to their experience in their county court.  That’s the case for most of us, and we recognize our limitations.   That is why this site is loaded with court rulings.   We don’t pretend we have a “magic bullet” for every lawsuit.

However, some seem to believe their experience and knowledge is sure to extend to the rest of the U.S.  They do not understand the limited effectiveness of their experience and knowledge.

Hopefully, @Theodore Deanis willing to discuss without assuming we know nothing.

[Harry Seaward]

Do your research on "adoptive business records doctrine" and let us know when you're ready to have a meaningful discussion on that topic. 

[PLAY MAKER]

As  I sit here at my computer, drinking a beer,I am reminded that many consumers have had no dealings with the courts Pro se, until a debt buyer or an original creditor initiated a suit against them. Many consumers could not afford and attorney, or felt they could do it on their own, made an attempt to litigate against experience litigators (lawyers). This is equivalent to a person without experience, who would attempt to box a pro boxer, that have been training on a regular and whom has been doing it for a living. The result is obvious! ........The consumer being sued for an alleged debt, frantically attempt to learn how to best respond and defend himself or herself against the suit . They do not have time to research their state laws, codes and various laws, and appeals court cases

on the issues at hand.So, they respond the best way they can...........uninformed! The judge looks at the defendant's answer and quickly understands that the defendant is clueless. The judge will now handle the clueless defendant by virtue of his or her lack of training.

[BV80]

45 minutes ago, Theodore Dean said:

As  I sit here at my computer, drinking a beer,I am reminded that many consumers have had no dealings with the courts Pro se, until a debt buyer or an original creditor initiated a suit against them. Many consumers could not afford and attorney, or felt they could do it on their own, made an attempt to litigate against experience litigators (lawyers). This is equivalent to a person without experience, who would attempt to box a pro boxer, that have been training on a regular and whom has been doing it for a living. The result is obvious! ........The consumer being sued for an alleged debt, frantically attempt to learn how to best respond and defend himself or herself against the suit . They do not have time to research their state laws, codes and various laws, and appeals court cases

on the issues at hand.So, they respond the best way they can...........uninformed! The judge looks at the defendant's answer and quickly understands that the defendant is clueless. The judge will now handle the clueless defendant by virtue of his or her lack of training.

Have you defended lawsuits in every county in TX?

[WhoCares1000]

8 hours ago, Theodore Dean said:

As  I sit here at my computer, drinking a beer,I am reminded that many consumers have had no dealings with the courts Pro se, until a debt buyer or an original creditor initiated a suit against them. Many consumers could not afford and attorney, or felt they could do it on their own, made an attempt to litigate against experience litigators (lawyers). This is equivalent to a person without experience, who would attempt to box a pro boxer, that have been training on a regular and whom has been doing it for a living. The result is obvious! ........The consumer being sued for an alleged debt, frantically attempt to learn how to best respond and defend himself or herself against the suit . They do not have time to research their state laws, codes and various laws, and appeals court cases

on the issues at hand.So, they respond the best way they can...........uninformed! The judge looks at the defendant's answer and quickly understands that the defendant is clueless. The judge will now handle the clueless defendant by virtue of his or her lack of training.

The problem is that someone could be well informed and still lose because of a judge who is biased against debtors or the state legislature changed the rules in response to court rulings and lobbyists from the debt collection agencies. In this area, law is fluid and what might have worked a couple of years ago will not work anymore.

Years ago in Minnesota, the law strictly required for any account stated case that the plaintiff prove the lawsuit amount by showing the account starting at a $0 balance. A herculean task for any JDB. That has changed in the past 5 - 10 years where now, like other states, the plaintiff only has to provide a few statements. In other words, what used to work in Minnesota does not work anymore. That is the same with the assignment theory. I used to work and may work in some areas but in most courts, the judge is not going to allow that defense. In fact, during the mortgage meltdown, some people were discussing the "Show the Note" defense in foreclosures and that worked in some states but here in Minnesota, the judges just glossed right by that (and the MEIRS scandal) and allowed the foreclosures to go through anyways.

There is no magic get out of debt free card. Even the arbitration strategy has some caveats on when and when not to use it. There is no one size fits all solution to civil cases and the assignment stuff may work in some courts but is not a strategy that is available to everyone.

[Goody_Ouchless]

12 hours ago, Theodore Dean said:

on the issues at hand.So, they respond the best way they can...........uninformed! The judge looks at the defendant's answer and quickly understands that the defendant is clueless. The judge will now handle the clueless defendant by virtue of his or her lack of training.

The problem is when experienced lawyers do what you suggest and go down in flames.

[Harry Seaward]

16 hours ago, Theodore Dean said:

As  I sit here at my computer, drinking a beer....

You didn't bother to research adoptive business records, did you? You can't have the discussion you're wanting to have without knowing how that principal works and is being applied nearly universally in US courts. It seemed there are a few places here and there where the 'stand your ground' approach still works, but these are rare exceptions. As Goody pointed out, consumer attorneys with 25 years of debt collection experience are now getting steamrolled because courts had to have a way to find debtors responsible for legitimate debts that were legitimately sold and legitimately sued on by the new owner. Enter adoptive business records doctrine. 

[PLAY MAKER]

Theodore Dean, knows the law of Business Records, better than any lawyer. If a debt buyer is using an incorporated business affidavit of an original creditor or third party in your state(this means any state) if you are ignorant of the law behind this, you will not be able to invoke it to kill it,  nor any lower court cases ruling saying it can be used! LITIGATION, IS A SKILL! Most lawyers lack such.

 

[WhoCares1000]

3 minutes ago, Theodore Dean said:

Theodore Dean, knows the law of Business Records, better than any lawyer. If a debt buyer is using an incorporated business affidavit of an original creditor or third party in your state(this means any state) if you are ignorant of the law behind this, you will not be able to invoke it to kill it,  nor any lower court cases ruling saying it can be used! LITIGATION, IS A SKILL! Most lawyers lack such.

 

The problem is that the law is changing all of the time. As Harry says, most states and courts are using adoptive business records now. This is something new that we have did not see 5 to 10 years ago. Now you might know a way around this new doctrine but if you have only used it in one court, if might be that the judges of the court are ignorant of the doctrine and all it will take is one JDB to be willing to spend the money to appeal the ruling to put an end to your idea.

I do have to agree with one part of your comment however. Litigation in indeed a skill and most lawyers do lack the skill to litigate. The pubic got to see that in the Casey Anthony case where the DA and the defense attorney could not litigate their way out of a paper bag.

[Harry Seaward]

28 minutes ago, Theodore Dean said:

If a debt buyer is using an incorporated business affidavit of an original creditor or third party in your state....

.... they are following adoptive business records doctrine.

Contrary to your misunderstanding, an affidavit can be a business record if it conforms to 803(6). 

[Goody_Ouchless]

1 hour ago, WhoCares1000 said:

The pubic got to see that in the Casey Anthony case where the DA and the defense attorney could not litigate their way out of a paper bag.

Methinks Jose Baez would beg to differ - he helped his client get away with murder - allegedly, as Jim Rome says every time the subject turns to O.J.

2 hours ago, Theodore Dean said:

Theodore Dean, knows the law of Business Records, better than any lawyer

Ha - the new Anon Amos! One falls out of the trees every year. I like how he refers to himself in the third person - very Seinfeldian!

 

[texasrocker]

2 hours ago, Harry Seaward said:

.... they are following adoptive business records doctrine.

Contrary to your misunderstanding, an affidavit can be a business record if it conforms to 803(6). 

If that is all there is to it then a well drafted preemtive set of discovery could counter it according to the provision in 803(6e)

(D) All these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another
qualified witness, or by an affidavit or unsworn  declaration that complies
with Rule 902(10); and

(E) the  opponent  fails  to  demonstrate that  the  source  of  information  or  the
method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

[Clydesmom]

3 hours ago, Theodore Dean said:

Theodore Dean, knows the law of Business Records, better than any lawyer.

WHO IS this @$$clown?  FYI:  referring to yourself in third person does not make you more credible.  It makes you less so.

What is the over/under on how long it will be before the moderator swatter bans him?

[Harry Seaward]

3 hours ago, texasrocker said:

If that is all there is to it then a well drafted preemtive set of discovery could counter it

I've yet to see any discovery requests that can't be defeated by a well prepared witness. (And I've seen yours - ain't nothin special.)

[PLAY MAKER]

Please. We are adults , let us be respectful and tolerant of differing positions. I have done nothing to deserve name calling.I do not agree with a lot of things people are saying on here, however, I will not resort to common stupidity of name calling , because I do not agree with something being said. This is how children act, we are adults and we have a responsibility to set examples; so, please conduct yourself as though you were in front of children and speak with a season voice of disagreement.

[Clydesmom]

36 minutes ago, Harry Seaward said:

And I've seen yours - ain't nothin special.

No they aren't but he clings to them regardless.  The worst part is how he blames the poor soul who came here for help when it fails.