Jackie1989

Cavalry Affidavits

Recommended Posts

I wanted to pass this is. This is taking place in Connecticut small claims.

I have found many like this where Cavalry's affidavit comes from what the court considers another entity "cavalry portfolio services"  right now it is just in one particular court in hartford, ct. interesting.

"Magistrate requires additional information. Please submit authorization or assignment of the debt to allow servicer (a different legal entity) to act on behalf of named plaintiff. Case continued 30 days."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jackie1989 said:

I wanted to pass this is. This is taking place in Connecticut small claims.

I have found many like this where Cavalry's affidavit comes from what the court considers another entity "cavalry portfolio services"  right now it is just in one particular court in hartford, ct. interesting.

"Magistrate requires additional information. Please submit authorization or assignment of the debt to allow servicer (a different legal entity) to act on behalf of named plaintiff. Case continued 30 days."

Who is the plaintiff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like an ignorant judge. I assume this is no different that Midland Funding versus Midland Credit Management. My lawyer indicated that there used to be a way to try to exploit the differences between the two, back in the days when witnesses were required, because Midland Funding had no employees, if I remember correctly. Common sense and adoptive business records have closed that loop hole.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

Sounds like an ignorant judge. I assume this is no different that Midland Funding versus Midland Credit Management. My lawyer indicated that there used to be a way to try to exploit the differences between the two, back in the days when witnesses were required, because Midland Funding had no employees, if I remember correctly. Common sense and adoptive business records have closed that loop hole.

 

its actually two different ignorant judges😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Goody_Ouchless @Jackie1989 In 2016, Cavalry entered into a settlement agreement, with W. VA Attorney General arguing each Cavalry entity had to licensed: 

"In February 2016, the West Virginia Attorney General announced a settlement with Cavalry. This settlement requires Cavalry to cease attempts to collect $19.7 million in debt from 2,847 consumers in addition to paying $350,000 to the State of West Virginia. The settlement stemmed from an investigation into complaints alleging that the company engaged in debt collection practices without a West Virginia license and surety bond, as required by the state’s Collection Agency Act. Additionally, the West Virginia Attorney General alleged that Cavalry engaged in abusive debt collection practices including harassing consumers with excessive phone calls and failing to identify the account owner in collection letters. In addition to the monetary penalties, Cavalry agreed to delete all account information from the affected consumers’ credit reports and release all liens filed against the affected consumers’ property."

http://debtbuyeragreements.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/WV-v-Cavalry-SPV-I-LLC-Agreed-Final-Order-02-12-2016.pdf

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE f . '? i ~ l '-

This Settlement Agreement and Release is made on thi? rJ. da; r~o.~ 6, Gy ~nd ', ~ between the State of West Virginia, acting through its Attorney General, Patrick Morrisey (the "Attorney General"); Cavalry SPY I, LLC; Cavalry SPY II, LLC; Cavalry Investments, LLC; and Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC (collectively, the "Cavalry Entities"); and the West Virginia State Tax Department ("Tax Department")( collectively with the Attorney General, the "State").

WHEREAS, on June 3, 201 0, the Attorney General filed a complaint (the "Complaint") against the Cavalry Entities and their principals, which is currently pending only against the Cavalry Entities in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, under the caption State of West Virginia ex ref. Patrick Morrisey v. Cavalry SPV I, LLC; Cavalry SPV II. LLC; Cavalry Investments, LLC; and Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, No. I 0-C-994 (W. Va. Cir Ct., Kanawha Cnty.) (the "Lawsuit"), alleging, among other things, that each of the Cavalry Entities had to be licensed under the West Virginia Collection Agency Act, W. Va. Code §§ 47-16-1 et seq. ("Collection Agency Act") and violations of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act, W. Va. Code§§ 46A-1-l01, et seq. ("WVCCPA"), relating to the collection of the purchased debt;

WHEREAS, on May 30,2012, Cavalry SPY I, LLC; Cavalry SPY II, LLC; and Cavalry Investments, LLC filed a complaint for declaratory judgment ("Declaratory Judgment Action"), which is currently pending against the State Tax Commis~ioner in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, under the original caption of Cavalry SPV I, LLC; Cavalry SPV II, LLC; and Cavalry" Investments, LLC v. Craig A. Griffith, in his official capacity as State Tax Commissioner, which has been consolidated with the Lawsuit under civil action number 10-C-994;

WHEREAS, the Cavalry Entities deny the claims asserted in the Complaint and deny that they have engaged in any wrongdoing; WHEREAS, the Tax Department denies the claims asserted in the Declaratory Judgment Action and denies that it has engaged in any wrongdoing;

WHEREAS, the Cavalry Entities further allege that they reasonably relied upon information furnished by an emp Ioyee of the Tax Department in response to their inquiry in concluding that debt buyers in general, and the Cavalry Entities in particular, did not need to be licensed as collection agencies in West Virginia so long as they employ an entity that is licensed to collect debts on their behalf. The Tax Department denies this assertion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless arbitration is off the table, I'd be wary of basing my hopes on them either not providing the requested affidavit, or, in the other case, becoming duly licensed to practice their craft.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

Unless arbitration is off the table, I'd be wary of basing my hopes on them either not providing the requested affidavit, or, in the other case, becoming duly licensed to practice their craft.

 

Losing the right to collect $19.7 million from nearly 3000 people, plus a $350,000 fine over failure to license each entity in W.VA, probably had Cavalry looking at other states with similar licensing laws. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brotherskeeper said:

probably had Cavalry looking at other states with similar licensing laws. 

Right - I doubt they are going to keep making the same mistake, but it's certainly something to keep in mind when folks come here with Cavalry suits.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's interesting to me is, there is this one particular judge, I guess she works different areas of the state because I have seen her name in other counties. Anyways, I have been looking through cases and noticed on a particular date June 19 every case from cavalry that had a motion for default , about 8, she denied. Stating that cavalry portfolio services was a different entity than cav spv. Then I see a few days later she working in a different county, same plaintiff and law firm. Same circumstances, motion for default, and she grants it!!

What is the deal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Jackie1989 said:

Then I see a few days later she working in a different county, same plaintiff and law firm. Same circumstances, motion for default, and she grants it!!

What is the deal?

I hereby deputize you to see if you can find out. Are you absolutely certain everything is the same except the county she's in???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will follow up and post back.

I know same judge, plaintiff, attorneys and in small claims going for motion for default. I will check them out and post them here

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so, check this out.

 cavalry files suit. goes for default with payments. gets denied "proof computer systems accurate". then files for default for "no show" but, no payments and get approved

dixon-ct.GIF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 12/30/2019 at 5:12 PM, Harry Seaward said:

What happened in the 9 months between the rejection of the first motion for default and the second? 

Nothing.  This law firm files so many of these. i have seen them go over a year and then they follow up.

 it seems , if they get knocked down for failure to appear with payments, they then follow up with failure to appear. which is granted. I have a few of these bookmarked and waiting to see what happens next.

Share this post


Link to post
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.