Jump to content

Debt Collection Law Firm Stealth Strategy


Recommended Posts

My very deep thanks to those behind this forum. The quality of the content here and the level of detail in many of the postings makes this site really stand out.

I'd like to please ask, how during discovery do I request documentation of the relationship between the original creditor named as plaintiff in a suit and the debt collection law firm claiming to represent them? What might such documentation be called?

Note that the above is my only question. What follows just explains why I'm asking, and probably provides fodder for tangents.

I know that the information I'm asking about might ultimately prove irrelevant to my case, and I also know that there are other approaches. Nevertheless, I specifically am wanting to know how to ask my opponent's attorneys for documentation of their arrangement with the plaintiff.

A summons I received names Capital One as the plaintiff, but I find the attached affidavit fishy and also find it strange that such a big company is going to war with me over the paltry amount in dispute, which is under $1k. I realize that many on the internet accept as a given that this is just how Capital One operates. I've however seen no one explain this notion satisfyingly nor attempts at challenging it.

Several sources online claim that Capital One sues consumers more frequently than do a lot of other banks. However, even though Capital One seemingly specializes in risky customers, that doesn't mean litigation for Capital One should be magically cheaper and more economically feasible than for any of its competitors. To have economy of scale in that way would require Capital One to hold a patent on attorney cyborgs or on cloning of law school grads.

I doubt that Capital One is actually suing at a higher rate than other banks, because I doubt they're able to defy basic principles of economics.

Typically described in online forums is a binary world in which one either gets sued for credit card debt by the original creditor or else by collection agencies and their ilk, with defense tactics decided accordingly. Wouldn't the availability of those tactics however cause the other side to evolve their approach?

To me, since I know nothing about how the legal world works, what's more plausible than lawyer cloning technology would be to imagine innovations whereby certain debt collection law firms act not as counsel for Capital One but as debt assignees, yet while listing Capital One as the plaintiff in suits these firms choose to bring, with Capital One's tacit approval. 

In this arrangement, the debt collection law firms are making their money on volume while Capital One is avoiding the full costs associated with litigation. The courts are leveraged to produce a better result than can be had by involving regular collection agencies, yet Capital One isn't footing that bill. Defendants are better intimidated because they think Capital One is bringing the suit, while judges are maybe swayed by the clout of the big name. The advice to consumers offered by online forums is nullified because of the belief that the original creditor is the plaintiff, yet defendants never question whether Capital One made the choice to sue or will be the recipient of any payout for damages. The firm claiming to represent Capital One is however the only true plaintiff, with this detail being what makes it economically feasible for tiny accounts of a giant original creditor to be litigated.

Even if unlikely or an outright abuse, is this scenario I'm describing possible? 

Is what I'm describing what everybody already knows about and does as a common practice?

I just haven't been able to find much information about this.

Such a solution maybe would be what an entrepreneurial attorney would naturally have pitched in order to land a potential client like Capital One, on merits of being cheaper than litigating and with better effectiveness and higher returns than other approaches. 

The problem I have with the affidavit that was attached to my complaint is that I can't believe the person who signed it is so terrible at her job that she hasn't been offered a promotion for ten years. Her name is on affidavits that can be found online from about that long ago. She's presumably been signing affidavits all day long, every day, for years and years, for people like me all across the nation. How do I properly say, "Your honor, no freaking way"?

I don't think a firm that has Samuel Jackson as a spokesperson would be so sloppy about affidavits.

There also are examples online of cases involving Capital One brought by other firms who list themselves as assignees, namely, PRA. Therefore, it can be said that Capital One does not always itself choose to litigate.

So, I don't think anyone at Capital One actually created the affidavit I got, making me question whether Capital One is really the plaintiff, and because other cases similar to mine are more specific about Capital One not being the true plaintiff, it makes me think the debt collection law firm in the case of my lawsuit just happens to be a shady and sloppy one.

Wouldn't the ideal approach for a debt collection law firm be to target guys like me in high volume, being the type who are dumb enough to let a credit card go unpaid, but smart enough to scour the internet for lawsuit defense strategies and therefore also smart enough to actually come up with the cash in the end? A stealth approach that makes it seem as if a lawsuit for a paltry amount is being brought by an original creditor giant can turn online advice for debtors actually into a plus for the debt collection law firm, because that advice says original creditor lawsuits are hard to fight.

So, how do I prove that Capital One is not the plaintiff? How do I prove the affidavit is fake? Would proving these give me grounds for a countersuit?

I realize that I can right now look at my credit report to see who is listed as the current creditor. I also could maybe phone Capital One and hope to get an official answer. I am however specifically wanting to see written documentation of what Capital One considers to be their relationship with the debt collection law firm listed on the complaint.

I'd be grateful if someone with insider knowledge can please disabuse me of my ignorance of how this all really works and shred my theories, or else tell me please how to attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Theorist said:

I'd like to please ask, how during discovery do I request documentation of the relationship between the original creditor named as plaintiff in a suit and the debt collection law firm claiming to represent them?

Nevertheless, I specifically am wanting to know how to ask my opponent's attorneys for documentation of their arrangement with the plaintiff.

I am however specifically wanting to see written documentation of what Capital One considers to be their relationship with the debt collection law firm listed on the complaint.

Absolutely ZERO chance you get this information  That is protected by attorney client privilege and neither the law form nor Capital One can be compelled to disclose it.  PERIOD.  You will not get to see anything related to this.

47 minutes ago, Theorist said:

To me, since I know nothing about how the legal world works, what's more plausible than lawyer cloning technology would be to imagine innovations whereby certain debt collection law firms act not as counsel for Capital One but as debt assignees, yet while listing Capital One as the plaintiff in suits these firms choose to bring, with Capital One's tacit approval. 

Nice fantasy but not reality.  And yes, you know nothing about the legal world.

48 minutes ago, Theorist said:

In this arrangement, the debt collection law firms are making their money on volume while Capital One is avoiding the full costs associated with litigation.

This happens all the time but not under the bizarre scenario you suggest.  MOST large creditors whether it is a large bank like Capital One or a junk debt buyer like PRA contract a law firm at a fixed retainer annually  The amount negotiated is for a specified number of cases/billable hours annually  The retainer includes an amount for costs such as copies, court fees etc.  Cap1 and large creditors have no aversion to suing because 95% or more end in a default judgment because consumers either know they owe the money and do nothing or due to extreme stress and circumstances bury their head in the sand and ignore the summons with the same end result.  Attorney fees, court costs and post judgment interest are all assessed to the consumer/defendant NOT the creditor as part of that.

52 minutes ago, Theorist said:

Wouldn't the ideal approach for a debt collection law firm be to target guys like me in high volume, being the type who are dumb enough to let a credit card go unpaid, but smart enough to scour the internet for lawsuit defense strategies and therefore also smart enough to actually come up with the cash in the end?

There is no cut and paste template as for who creditors go after.  Cap1 is known as one of the most aggressive choosing to pursue the claims themselves for the past 3-5 years.  After the recession they did sell some accounts to PRA and other JDBs but that is old accounts not current business.  The 95% default judgment rate more than compensates for the few who actually fight back.

54 minutes ago, Theorist said:

So, I don't think anyone at Capital One actually created the affidavit I got, making me question whether Capital One is really the plaintiff, and because other cases similar to mine are more specific about Capital One not being the true plaintiff, it makes me think the debt collection law firm in the case of my lawsuit just happens to be a shady and sloppy one.

I am surprised there is even an affidavit.  Cap1 does not need one to attest to their own records though that could be a requirement of the MI courts.

56 minutes ago, Theorist said:

I doubt that Capital One is actually suing at a higher rate than other banks, because I doubt they're able to defy basic principles of economics.

You are completely wrong. They are one of the top 3 that heads straight to court within a year of default.  The other 2 being AMEX and Discover.

57 minutes ago, Theorist said:

A summons I received names Capital One as the plaintiff, but I find the attached affidavit fishy and also find it strange that such a big company is going to war with me over the paltry amount in dispute, which is under $1k.

That amount you think is "paltry" will get about $750-1000 in attorney fees added on with the judgment along with about $100 in costs and what ever the filing fees were in MI. Then they can let it "marinate" so to speak racking up post judgment interest at the rate of 10% annually and that judgment balloons from less than $1k to $3k easily.  That is when a well time garnishment is issued seizing 25% of your paycheck until they get their money.   That is why they do it.

1 hour ago, Theorist said:

Even if unlikely or an outright abuse, is this scenario I'm describing possible? 

Is what I'm describing what everybody already knows about and does as a common practice?

NO.

Nice fantasy story you cooked up there (much of which is unreadable by the way) but the reality is you are being by the original creditor Capital One who you defaulted on.  There are two defenses available in OC cases:  SOL expired before suit was filed or identity theft. Unless one of those two applies to your situation you will lose this case. You either settle or file BK if you qualify.  Even arbitration is not an option because Cap1 removed it almost a decade ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Theorist

First, check your credit report to see if Cap1is reporting.  If it is, and if the bank sold the account, Cap1’s entry will state “sold” or “transferred”.  It will also show a -0- balance.  

If the account has merely been charged off and still shows a balance, Cap1 still owns the account.

In regard to the law firm, most law firms do not purchase debts.  They merely represent their clients.  

If the person making the statements in the affidavit claims to work for Cap1, it would be your burden of proof to show that he or she is not an employee of Cap1.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, Clydesmom, for the very straightforward and detailed answers, which I find helpful. I'd call your insults unnecessary, but I don't mind paying the small price of reading them for whatever satisfaction that sort of thing brings you in life.

Thank you also, BV80, very much for your time and attention. I am a fan of your many posts throughout this forum.

My intention has been to settle, and the answers both of you have provided seem to me to reinforce the correctness of that choice. 

I unfortunately was out of it for a period and allowed my financial affairs and income to slip, only to be awakened by receiving this summons. I can get back on track, and I prefer to just pay everything honestly, but, it will take a month or three. Suddenly though, I don't know who I'm dealing with and am needing to learn about an entire new world. 

I want to respond to the summons in a way that maximizes my chances of being offered the smoothest settlement possible and a peaceful resolution of all of this. For that purpose, I have no moral qualms about making the other side think I'm going to put up a fight. However, I don't want to let it get to the point where I find myself standing in front of a judge making flat denials. I figured the first thing to do was to look for anything blatantly improper in the paperwork before me.

Thus, as Clydesmom so very sweetly put it, the fantasy story I cooked up.

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Clydesmom said:

Absolutely ZERO chance you get this information  That is protected by attorney client privilege and neither the law form nor Capital One can be compelled to disclose it.  PERIOD.  You will not get to see anything related to this.

Nice fantasy but not reality.  And yes, you know nothing about the legal world.

This happens all the time but not under the bizarre scenario you suggest.  MOST large creditors whether it is a large bank like Capital One or a junk debt buyer like PRA contract a law firm at a fixed retainer annually  The amount negotiated is for a specified number of cases/billable hours annually  The retainer includes an amount for costs such as copies, court fees etc.  Cap1 and large creditors have no aversion to suing because 95% or more end in a default judgment because consumers either know they owe the money and do nothing or due to extreme stress and circumstances bury their head in the sand and ignore the summons with the same end result.  Attorney fees, court costs and post judgment interest are all assessed to the consumer/defendant NOT the creditor as part of that.

There is no cut and paste template as for who creditors go after.  Cap1 is known as one of the most aggressive choosing to pursue the claims themselves for the past 3-5 years.  After the recession they did sell some accounts to PRA and other JDBs but that is old accounts not current business.  The 95% default judgment rate more than compensates for the few who actually fight back.

I am surprised there is even an affidavit.  Cap1 does not need one to attest to their own records though that could be a requirement of the MI courts.

You are completely wrong. They are one of the top 3 that heads straight to court within a year of default.  The other 2 being AMEX and Discover.

That amount you think is "paltry" will get about $750-1000 in attorney fees added on with the judgment along with about $100 in costs and what ever the filing fees were in MI. Then they can let it "marinate" so to speak racking up post judgment interest at the rate of 10% annually and that judgment balloons from less than $1k to $3k easily.  That is when a well time garnishment is issued seizing 25% of your paycheck until they get their money.   That is why they do it.

NO.

Nice fantasy story you cooked up there (much of which is unreadable by the way) but the reality is you are being by the original creditor Capital One who you defaulted on.  There are two defenses available in OC cases:  SOL expired before suit was filed or identity theft. Unless one of those two applies to your situation you will lose this case. You either settle or file BK if you qualify.  Even arbitration is not an option because Cap1 removed it almost a decade ago.

I, believe you may have a shot during discovery. The Bank Charter is the law of the United States, and give the bank the right to be sued or sue. If you require the Bank to produce all pages of its charter, they may dismiss their own case as that can open up a can of worms, also the attorney can only represent a corporation thus must have a delegation of authority by an officer of the bank in which a business meeting must happen to delegate such authority. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, Robby8900. The problem with Clydesmom's answer on this point, even though she's probably correct, and even though my post makes clear that I'm submitting a cooked-up "fantasy story" (the term Albert Einstein and I both prefer to use is "theory"), is that the logic involved is circular. I asked if a firm could in truth be acting like a collection agency as far as Capital One is concerned but while presenting itself to me as if Capital One's attorney, and her answer is that I can't find out because of client-attorney privilege. I appreciate your offering further options to consider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. 738 (1824)  ''….. The charter of incorporation not only creates it, but gives it every faculty which it possesses. The power to acquire rights of any description, to transact business of any description, to make contracts of any description, to sue on those contracts, is given and measured by its charter, and that charter is a law of the United States. This being can acquire no right, make no contract, bring no suit, which is not authorized by a law of the United States. It is not only itself the mere creature of a law, but all its actions and all its rights are dependant on the same law. Can a being thus constituted have a case which does not arise literally, as well as substantially, under the law? Take the case of a contract, which is put as the strongest against the Bank. When a Bank sues, the first question which presents itself, and which lies at the foundation of the cause, is has this legal entity a right to sue? Has it a right to come, not into this Court particularly, but into any court? This depends on a law of the United States....The right of the plaintiff to sue cannot depend on the defence which the defendant may choose to set up. His right to sue is anterior to that defence, and must depend on the state of things when the action is brought. The questions which the case involves, then, must determine its character, whether those questions be made in the cause or not. The appellants say that the case arises on the contract, but the validity of the contract depends on a law of the United States, and the plaintiff is compelled in every case to show its validity. The case arises emphatically under the law. The act of Congress is its foundation. The contract could never have been made but under the authority of that act. The act itself is the first ingredient in the case, is its origin, is that from which every other part arises. That other questions may also arise as the execution of the contract or its performance cannot change the case, or give it any other origin than the charter of incorporation. The action still originates in, and is sustained by, that charter.
'' These points will be considered in the order in which they are made. 1. It is admitted that a corporation can only appear by attorney, and it is also admitted that the attorney must receive the authority of the corporation to enable him to represent it. It is not admitted that this authority must be under seal. On the contrary, the principle decided in the cases of the Bank of Columbia v. Patterson, &c. is supposed to apply to this case, and to show that the seal may be dispensed with. It is, however, unnecessary to pursue this inquiry, since the real question is whether the nonappearance of the power in the record be error, not whether the power was insufficient in itself. Natural persons may appear in Court, either by themselves, or by their attorney. But no man has a right to appear as the attorney of another without the authority of that other. In ordinary cases, the authority must be produced, because there is, in the nature of things, no prima facie evidence that one man is in fact the attorney of another ''.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Theorist said:

I want to respond to the summons in a way that maximizes my chances of being offered the smoothest settlement possible and a peaceful resolution of all of this.

Then all you need to do is answer it and as clearly as possible.  There is no need for cooked up schemes or attempts at subterfuge that will only communicate to the Plaintiff you have no idea what you are doing.  That only incites them to dig in because they know you are not familiar with the court or rules.

3 hours ago, Theorist said:

For that purpose, I have no moral qualms about making the other side think I'm going to put up a fight.

While this strategy can work keep in mind there are a few OCs that once you do this then dig there heels in and refuse to settle for less than what you owe and their costs to date.  Sometimes your best settlement numbers come BEFORE you start to fight.

2 hours ago, Theorist said:

I asked if a firm could in truth be acting like a collection agency as far as Capital One is concerned but while presenting itself to me as if Capital One's attorney, and her answer is that I can't find out because of client-attorney privilege.

You used TWENTY TWO paragraphs to ask what could have been done with that one sentence!  You may not like my answer but try that with a Judge and watch how fast he finds for the Plaintiff.  At best you will be lucky if he/she responds with "son, what the HELL are you talking about?"  The major issue is your confusion of when an attorney is a debt collector vs. only legal counsel representing their client.  There are law firms that do both services.  However, the days of mixing up the two flat lined and about stopped after the recession.  The CFPB went after several of the largest firms doing both roles and pretty much put an end to the practice.  Even in those cases the law firm was not purchasing the debts and suing as though they were the creditor hiding their ownership of the debt, they were not complying with FDCPA laws.  If you think this is what the law firm that filed against you is doing then start searching cases they have lost and see if you can find a ruling that says they owned the debt but concealed that fact from the Defendant.  You cannot just claim it the burden of proof is on YOU.

The answer is the same.  Attorney client privilege protects the documents that Cap1 signed in retaining the law firm they hired to sue you.  The case law (which is from 1824 and OH by the way) is based on taxing a bank. It is not binding on a judge and court in MI and isn't relevant to your case.  Cap1 is a recognized lawfully filed corporation that is well known in the USA.  No court will compel them to produce their entire charter to prove what is a stipulated fact.  They have a registered agent in every state complying with the laws of incorporation which are way more current than the case Robbie cited from almost 200 years ago.  Not to mention that they will simply object to your demand as overly broad, burdensome and irrelevant to the case.  They are NOT going to fold over it.  Clearly Cap1 has hired an attorney to represent the corporation against you as they filed the suit and have identified themselves as the attorney of record to the court.  That is sufficient to prove the contracted relationship.  Again, NO court is going to allow you to read or possess the retainer agreement it is protected by privilege.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Robby8900 said:

Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. 738 (1824)  ''….. The charter of incorporation not only creates it, but gives it every faculty which it possesses. The power to acquire rights of any description, to transact business of any description, to make contracts of any description, to sue on those contracts, is given and measured by its charter, and that charter is a law of the United States. This being can acquire no right, make no contract, bring no suit, which is not authorized by a law of the United States. It is not only itself the mere creature of a law, but all its actions and all its rights are dependant on the same law. Can a being thus constituted have a case which does not arise literally, as well as substantially, under the law? Take the case of a contract, which is put as the strongest against the Bank. When a Bank sues, the first question which presents itself, and which lies at the foundation of the cause, is has this legal entity a right to sue? Has it a right to come, not into this Court particularly, but into any court? This depends on a law of the United States....The right of the plaintiff to sue cannot depend on the defence which the defendant may choose to set up. His right to sue is anterior to that defence, and must depend on the state of things when the action is brought. The questions which the case involves, then, must determine its character, whether those questions be made in the cause or not. The appellants say that the case arises on the contract, but the validity of the contract depends on a law of the United States, and the plaintiff is compelled in every case to show its validity. The case arises emphatically under the law. The act of Congress is its foundation. The contract could never have been made but under the authority of that act. The act itself is the first ingredient in the case, is its origin, is that from which every other part arises. That other questions may also arise as the execution of the contract or its performance cannot change the case, or give it any other origin than the charter of incorporation. The action still originates in, and is sustained by, that charter.
'' These points will be considered in the order in which they are made. 1. It is admitted that a corporation can only appear by attorney, and it is also admitted that the attorney must receive the authority of the corporation to enable him to represent it. It is not admitted that this authority must be under seal. On the contrary, the principle decided in the cases of the Bank of Columbia v. Patterson, &c. is supposed to apply to this case, and to show that the seal may be dispensed with. It is, however, unnecessary to pursue this inquiry, since the real question is whether the nonappearance of the power in the record be error, not whether the power was insufficient in itself. Natural persons may appear in Court, either by themselves, or by their attorney. But no man has a right to appear as the attorney of another without the authority of that other. In ordinary cases, the authority must be produced, because there is, in the nature of things, no prima facie evidence that one man is in fact the attorney of another ''.

What is the purpose of asking for the bank charter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BV80 said:

What is the purpose of asking for the bank charter?

Capital One is a National Association, its charter grants its right to sue. If a junk debt buyer is the assignee with all rights and hires a attorney to represent the JDB, the charter of the OC is the law and the charter must be present before court, i don't believe the JDB attorney has delegated authority from Capital One, or its charter. So request a copy of the charter, and the delegated authority granted from OC to the attorney working for JDB, and a copy of the minutes of the meeting by the officer of the bank who delegated the authority to the named attorney.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Robby8900 said:

Capital One is a National Association, its charter grants its right to sue. If a junk debt buyer is the assignee with all rights and hires a attorney to represent the JDB, the charter of the OC is the law and the charter must be present before court, i don't believe the JDB attorney has delegated authority from Capital One, or its charter. So request a copy of the charter, and the delegated authority granted from OC to the attorney working for JDB, and a copy of the minutes of the meeting by the officer of the bank who delegated the authority to the named attorney.  

The OP is being sued by Cap1, not a JDB.

However, in the event one is sued by a JDB, please show me which court has ruled that a bank charter must be present before the court.   

Also show where a JDB can only hire an attorney that has been delegated authority from the OC.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BV80 said:

The OP is being sued by Cap1, not a JDB.

However, in the event one is sued by a JDB, please show me which court has ruled that a bank charter must be present before the court.   

Also show where a JDB can only hire an attorney that has been delegated authority from the OC.  

Your misquoting me. The charter is the law that allows the OC  to sue a debtor. Did you not read the Osborne case. Nobody demands the charter because they don't know. The OC (coporation) must delegate authority to an attorney to rep the corp. That delegation comes from an officer of the corp, you demand the name of that officer and his sworn affidavit asserting his delegation. The commerce clause an Act of congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Robby8900 said:

Your misquoting me. The charter is the law that allows the OC  to sue a debtor. Did you not read the Osborne case. Nobody demands the charter because they don't know. The OC (coporation) must delegate authority to an attorney to rep the corp. That delegation comes from an officer of the corp, you demand the name of that officer and his sworn affidavit asserting his delegation. The commerce clause an Act of congress.

Yes, I read it.  The ruling was in regard to conferring jurisdiction on federal courts.   

No one knows about the delegation of authority but you?   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Robby8900 said:

A JDB can hire any attorney they want, but when you require his delegation of authority granted by the charter governing the contract he will soon have a problem. 

 

Show me the case law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, BV80 said:

Show me the case law.

Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. 738 (1824)   '' These points will be considered in the order in which they are made. 1. It is admitted that a corporation can only appear by attorney, and it is also admitted that the attorney must receive the authority of the corporation to enable him to represent it. It is not admitted that this authority must be under seal ''.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Robby8900 said:

Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. 738 (1824)   '' These points will be considered in the order in which they are made. 1. It is admitted that a corporation can only appear by attorney, and it is also admitted that the attorney must receive the authority of the corporation to enable him to represent it. It is not admitted that this authority must be under seal ''.

NOT the 200 year old case law.  Show us case law where a court, ANY court has ruled that because there was no delegation of authority or production of the charter that a debt collection case was tossed out.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Robby8900 said:

Did you not read the Osborne case.

Apparently you only read the Wikipedia summary.  It is 200 years old and while it is the foundation for being able to sue a debtor, there is far more current case law that negates what you are claiming.

1 hour ago, Robby8900 said:

A JDB can hire any attorney they want, but when you require his delegation of authority granted by the charter governing the contract he will soon have a problem.

Contract law 101.  You are wrong.  When the JDB purchases the account they get all the rights and responsibilites.  Producing the Bill of Sale from the OC corporate officer is conferring that delegation of authority.

1 hour ago, Robby8900 said:

The OC (coporation) must delegate authority to an attorney to rep the corp. That delegation comes from an officer of the corp, you demand the name of that officer and his sworn affidavit asserting his delegation.

Corporate legal counsel retaining a firm to represent them in court IS delegating authority.  That is why thousands of companies go into court every day and litigate using counsel.  The Osborn case establishes that a corporation must hire legal counsel for court and cannot use a corporate officer to represent them but it does not make the process so difficult that it is impossible to achieve.  

Again, show ONE published case where a court has ruled that not producing the corporate charter or the delegation of authority has resulted in a finding there is no debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Robby8900 said:

Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. 738 (1824)   '' These points will be considered in the order in which they are made. 1. It is admitted that a corporation can only appear by attorney, and it is also admitted that the attorney must receive the authority of the corporation to enable him to represent it. It is not admitted that this authority must be under seal ''.

It’s already known that a corporation has to appear by attorney.   Where is the case law that says a debt buyer must reference the charter of the bank from which it bought the debt?  

Where is the case law that says the attorney hired by the JDB must have his authority delegated by the OC that no longer owns the account?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, BV80 said:

It’s already known that a corporation has to appear by attorney.   Where is the case law that says a debt buyer must reference the charter of the bank from which it bought the debt?  

Where is the case law that says the attorney hired by the JDB must have his authority delegated by the OC that no longer owns the account?

 

it challenges standing to sue. if you demand a copy of the charter (production of documents) during discovery and they don't provide it, then you have been prejudiced for appeal purposes in the higher court of original jurisdiction regarding standing to sue speaking of OC and debtor. JDB,  i am not sure of, but in the chain of title assignment to JDB of all rights and interest, that corporate charter is most certainly the foundation. Yes there is a ''Cardholder Agreement'' governing the parties, but for a bank to have standing to sue it must come from the charter.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Robby8900 said:

it challenges standing to sue. if you demand a copy of the charter (production of documents) during discovery and they don't provide it, then you have been prejudiced for appeal purposes in the higher court of original jurisdiction regarding standing to sue speaking of OC and debtor. JDB,  i am not sure of, but in the chain of title assignment to JDB of all rights and interest, that corporate charter is most certainly the foundation. Yes there is a ''Cardholder Agreement'' governing the parties, but for a bank to have standing to sue it must come from the charter.  

Again, where is your case law that says a bank’s standing to sue ONLY comes from the charter?  Do you not realize that basic contract law gives an injured party a right to sue?   That is based on state law.

You cited Osborn, but that ruling was based upon whether or not a bank’s charter conferred jurisdiction on federal court.  It did not say that banks are required to provide the charter in order to prove standing.  

You keep skirting the issue.  Show the case law in which courts have ruled that a bank must present its charter to show that it has standing to sue.   Show the case law in which courts have ruled that an attorney hired by a JDB must receive his authority from the OC.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, BV80 said:

Again, where is your case law that says a bank’s standing to sue ONLY comes from the charter?  Do you not realize that basic contract law gives an injured party a right to sue?   That is based on state law.

You cited Osborn, but that ruling was based upon whether or not a a bank’s charter conferred jurisdiction on federal court.  It did not say that banks are required to provide the charter in order to prove standing.  

You keep skirting the issue.  Show the case law in which courts have ruled that a bank must present its charter to show that it has standing to sue.   Show the case law in which courts have ruled that an attorney hired by a JDB must receive his authority from the OC.

 

 

I don't know a case law to answer your question. However, my mom did this during discovery when she was sued by Merrick Bank Corp. During a pretrial i witness the judge walk in the court room take off his robe and sat next to my mom at a table across from the banks attorney. The bank spent $135.00 to file the suit, over $1,100.00 debt. When mom filed production of documents demanding the charter, and account General Ledger, in accordance with GAAP, the attorney for the bank immediately filed for continuance to get those docs, and stated it wasn't for purposes of delay. But, within a week the attorney filed for SJ, and the court granted it. Two weeks after that the attorney sent mom a letter stating the account of $1,100.00 which they sued for was paid in full and account closed. You tell me why that happened mom didn't pay it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Robby8900 said:

I don't know a case law to answer your question. However, my mom did this during discovery when she was sued by Merrick Bank Corp. During a pretrial i witness the judge walk in the court room take off his robe and sat next to my mom at a table across from the banks attorney. The bank spent $135.00 to file the suit, over $1,100.00 debt. When mom filed production of documents demanding the charter, and account General Ledger, in accordance with GAAP, the attorney for the bank immediately filed for continuance to get those docs, and stated it wasn't for purposes of delay. But, within a week the attorney filed for SJ, and the court granted it. Two weeks after that the attorney sent mom a letter stating the account of $1,100.00 which they sued for was paid in full and account closed. You tell me why that happened mom didn't pay it. 

That anecdote really doesn’t mean a thing.  All it means that the attorney tried to comply with her request.  If he had objected and said it wasn’t relevant, it would have been your mom’s burden to show the relevance.   Unless your mom could prove that relevance, the judge would not have required that documentation.

Are you thinking that the bank charter (articles of association) must specifically state that the bank has the right to sue and be sued?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BV80 said:

That anecdote really doesn’t mean a thing.  All it means that the attorney tried to comply with her request.  If he had objected and said it wasn’t relevant, it would have been your mom’s burden to show the relevance.   Unless your mom could prove that relevance, the judge would not have required that documentation.

Are you thinking that the bank charter (articles of association) must specifically state that the bank has the right to sue and be sued?

Sir, i am done with this conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 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.