bk85

Velocity Investments LLC/Avant Webbank

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, bk85 said:
 

They have not provided any affidavits. What i provided is all they are basing there case on.

I don’t know if the arbitrator will require authentication of docs or not, but I would raise that argument.  Check the MI rules of evidence for business records.  In court, records must be authenticated.

 I would also argue that despite what the plaintiff claims, the records do not clearly show that your loan was sold to Velocity.  Which specific record shows your account number included in a sale?   

Read the following from the MI Court of Appeals.  Although it’s an unpublished (not precedent) opinion, it is interesting and may give you some ideas and case law that you can use.  Here’s an excerpt from the opinion’

Midland Funding, LLC v. Bassett (MI Court of Appeals, 2018)

“Rather, our issue with the chain of title documents is that they do not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that plaintiff owns defendant's debt. Although the chain of title documents admitted affirmatively show Midland Financial purchased a debt pool from Asset Acceptance, LLC, which was originally owned by FIA Card Services, N.A., the trial court's finding that defendant's individual debt was included in that debt pool is clearly erroneous.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3316089820981380489&q=“assignee”+AND+“credit+card”&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=4,23

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, BV80 said:
 

I don’t know if the arbitrator will require authentication of docs or not, but I would raise that argument.  Check the MI rules of evidence for business records.  In court, records must be authenticated.

 I would also argue that despite what the plaintiff claims, the records do not clearly show that your loan was sold to Velocity.  Which specific record shows your account number included in a sale?   

Read the following from the MI Court of Appeals.  Although it’s an unpublished (not precedent) opinion, it is interesting and may give you some ideas and case law that you can use.  Here’s an excerpt from the opinion’

Midland Funding, LLC v. Bassett (MI Court of Appeals, 2018)

“Rather, our issue with the chain of title documents is that they do not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that plaintiff owns defendant's debt. Although the chain of title documents admitted affirmatively show Midland Financial purchased a debt pool from Asset Acceptance, LLC, which was originally owned by FIA Card Services, N.A., the trial court's finding that defendant's individual debt was included in that debt pool is clearly erroneous.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3316089820981380489&q=“assignee”+AND+“credit+card”&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=4,23

 

Neither the (Bill of Sale) or (Certificate of Loan Sale) mention my name or account number. They make reference to a (Schedule 1). They are trying to insinuate ( Page 3 of Exhibit C) is a portion of the (Schedule 1) as described in the (Bill of Sale) and (Certificate of Loan Sale). They have refused to produce the complete (Schedule 1).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, bk85 said:

Neither the (Bill of Sale) or (Certificate of Loan Sale) mention my name or account number. They make reference to a (Schedule 1). They are trying to insinuate ( Page 3 of Exhibit C) is a portion of the (Schedule 1) as described in the (Bill of Sale) and (Certificate of Loan Sale). They have refused to produce the complete (Schedule 1).

I understand.  You must point out the lack of specificity in their documentation.  Use the rules of evidence to discredit the admissibility of the documents (lack of authentication). 

I think the reason they won’t provide all of Schedule 1 is because it would contain loans belonging to other people.  However, what they provided is no proof of a “Schedule 1”.  They referenced Schedule 1 but have provided no proof of the existence of such a document.  All you have is their claim that that one line came from the alleged document.

They filed the MSJ.  They have the burden of proving there is no genuine issue of material fact that precludes judgment in their favor.  You have to show that they have not met that burden.  

 

 

 

 

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.