Sign in to follow this  
YOLO YOLO

THE TRUTH ABOUT MONEY LENT CAUSE

Recommended Posts

Hi, anybody in the forum with knowledge  about "Money Lent" cause of action?

Is it true that Plaintiff is required by law to provided a full and detail account of the debt from Zero to Charged-Off ?. When I requested the Bill of Particulars they replied with a BS attorney-client privilege objection and said that under Account Stated they are not required to provided "nothing more....", but they ignored the fact that they also sued me for Money Lent.

The charged off total is around $8000 but over $6000 is not accounted for. The oldest card statements already showed a previous balance of $6000. I am wondering if they MUST provide an accounting of the full amount "owed" since they sued for 'MONEY LENT" too.

IS THAT TRUE?

Part of my defense will be Plaintiff failing to provide  "complete" copy of the Bill of Particulars and attacking the Bill of Sale and Assignment and the Mickie mouse Word and Excel attachments. No document has been authenticated by the Original Creditor.

THANK YOU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't waste your time. Using and paying the card meant that you agreed everything was OK. Those Micky Mouse defenses get laughed out of court.

 

Share this post


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

Don't waste your time. Using and paying the card meant that you agreed everything was OK. Those Micky Mouse defenses get laughed out of court.

 

I believe Yolo is simply looking to figure out what would work best for their trial brief, not what the winning argument will be in court. Serving/filing a trial brief & written objection are part of the strategy in CA; when served ahead of time, I've noticed plaintiffs are more likely to dismiss before the trial date, which is of course preferable to dragging things out until the morning of trial/showing up to the courthouse, etc. Not a bad idea to make the brief as solid as possible.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This depends on the state.  
 

In Wisconsin, the plaintiff must provide an accounting from zero balance to the current balance, certified by someone with knowledge of the account, if requested by the defendant. 
 

That means whatever the judges say it means. 
 

I had a very pro-consumer judge throw out the affidavit from Crap1 because it was signed by a “legal support specialist “, and the judge ruled that such a person did not have first hand knowledge of my account.  Crap1 abandoned that case.  No NDA so I can talk about that case. 
 

Later, some bigger judges ruled that the accounting requirements only applied to OCs and not to JDBs.  So, amazing but true, there were suddenly a lot more OCs selling accounts to JDBs in Wisconsin.  
 

Would a strategy of demanding accounting to zero balance work in California?  I don’t have an answer to that.  It would take some homework on the part of the defendant 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, YOLO YOLO said:
 

Hi, anybody in the forum with knowledge  about "Money Lent" cause of action?

Is it true that Plaintiff is required by law to provided a full and detail account of the debt from Zero to Charged-Off ?. When I requested the Bill of Particulars they replied with a BS attorney-client privilege objection and said that under Account Stated they are not required to provided "nothing more....", but they ignored the fact that they also sued me for Money Lent.

The charged off total is around $8000 but over $6000 is not accounted for. The oldest card statements already showed a previous balance of $6000. I am wondering if they MUST provide an accounting of the full amount "owed" since they sued for 'MONEY LENT" too.

IS THAT TRUE?

Part of my defense will be Plaintiff failing to provide  "complete" copy of the Bill of Particulars and attacking the Bill of Sale and Assignment and the Mickie mouse Word and Excel attachments. No document has been authenticated by the Original Creditor.

THANK YOU.

Is this a credit card debt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

Don't waste your time. Using and paying the card meant that you agreed everything was OK. Those Micky Mouse defenses get laughed out of court.

 

Its OK if you dont know about Money Lent either. That was my question for the forum. Thanks for your comment.

Share this post


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

Its OK if you dont know about Money Lent either. That was my question for the forum. Thanks for your comment.

Is “money lent’ the cause of action stated in the complaint?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BV80 said:

Is “money lent’ the cause of action stated in the complaint?

YES.

1) Account Stated. 2) Money Lent.

California case.  Under $8000 debt.

Plaintiff is a Junk Debt Collector not the OC.

I was specific on my Bill of Particulars request and asked for the whole accounting (zero to charge-off). They ignored  me and claimed that under Account Stated they dont have too. Not a single word about Money Lent.

Thank you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, YOLO YOLO said:

1) Account Stated. 2) Money Lent.

...

They ignored  me and claimed that under Account Stated they dont have too. Not a single word about Money Lent.

"The essential elements of an account stated are: (1) previous transactions between the parties establishing the relationship of debtor and creditor; (2) an agreement between the parties, express or implied, on the amount due from the debtor to the creditor; (3) a promise by the debtor, express or implied, to pay the amount due."
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4645263204162350065

Caselaw for a "money lent" cause of action is pretty sparse, but it appears that it's treated as a common count in CA, and the elements are "(1) the statement of indebtedness in a certain sum, (2) the consideration, i.e., goods sold, work done, etc., and (3) nonpayment."
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=29608538427428913

Multiple/alternate pleading is allowed in California.  Under Account Stated, they are not obligated to provide a complete accounting of all debits and credits, so they can just abandon their Money Lent cause of action if the court determines "the consideration" requires a complete accounting.  If you didn't dispute their demand for payment, it will likely be determined that your silence was an implied agreement of the amount due and promise to pay. 

Share this post


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

Multiple/alternate pleading is allowed in California.  Under Account Stated, they are not obligated to provide a complete accounting of all debits and credits, so they can just abandon their Money Lent cause of action if the court determines "the consideration" requires a complete accounting.  If you didn't dispute their demand for payment, it will likely be determined that your silence was an implied agreement of the amount due and promise to pay. 

Well,

I denied the debt was mine based on the documents they provided so I did not agree to pay or promise to pay. Card statements didn't show I made any payments nor that I made any purchases.

Plan A will be fighting the unauthenticated documents they provided and the bogus Bill of Sale and made up attachments in blank paper (prepared for litigation purpose....). I doubt anybody from the OC will show up as a witness but I'll be prepared for that. I know what to ask and what not to ask. I am not worry about the Junk Collector own witness.

I read that they could drop the Money Lent action. If they do it during trial, can I turn in a Motion to Limine  and ask the judge to dismiss the case because they failed to comply with discovery when I requested the full account under Money Lent? Just because the cause is dropped now doesn't mean that what they did during discovery was correct. Right?

Exploring into the Money Lent cause is something extra that I was considering, not my main defense.

ONE MORE THING.

Can you explain to me how the "FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE" apply?

The expert witness does not need to have first hand knowledge of the account or they do?

Thanks for your info.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, YOLO YOLO said:

I denied the debt was mine based on the documents they provided

When?  After you are sued is too late.

Quote

Can you explain to me how the "FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE" apply?

The expert witness does not need to have first hand knowledge of the account or they do?

They only need to demonstrate knowledge of the records after they are incorporated.  This will fall under "adoptive business records doctrine".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Harry Seaward said:
17 minutes ago, YOLO YOLO said:

 

When?  After you are sued is too late.

I denied to the debt on my Answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, YOLO YOLO said:

I denied to the debt on my Answer.

This won't count.  You would have to show that you disputed the debt when they sent the demand for payment.

Share this post


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

This won't count.  You would have to show that you disputed the debt when they sent the demand for payment.

Money demanded by who? By the original creditor back in 2014?

If the Junk collector supposed to demand for payment before they filed the case they never did. I never talked to them over the phone. EVER.

One day, somebody showed up in my front door and served me with the suit.

When should I have disputed the debt?

Sorry to bother you with so many questions.

 

 

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.

Sign in to follow this