Dragonfire78

Beeing suied bye lvnv

Recommended Posts

really need help with a debt collection that suing bye Lloyd & McDaniel,
 in court cant find no laywer even help cause it only like 1000 i have sent a debt vaild letter all they sent was bill of sells of account dose not state mine a cedit card statement and a affidavit thats who ever stamped it didn't even look at who signed it cause it not even signed bye who did it i ask for chain of title each time it was sold think it was 3 or more. Proof they own it with a agreements each time ut was sold .legal aid wont even help
And i been out work since aug i have a trail date for jan 7 130 pm even with all the wrong stuff and no proof of stuff laywer still said cost more i even said ill counter sue if i can cause its against fdca to try collect if they can't prove they own it i
I belive they said they have witness to but shouldn't there be one for each time it was sold and a affidavit from credit one whi sold it says they no how records are keeped and stuff i have ask for proof on contract where i signed my name on credit one i cant even get no one help aslo there affadavit who ever stamp it didnt put when there lic exp on is there any help cauae i belive a judge that dont no much on this is just going side with them
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dragonfire78 said:
really need help with a debt collection that suing bye Lloyd & McDaniel,
 in court cant find no laywer even help cause it only like 1000 i have sent a debt vaild letter all they sent was bill of sells of account dose not state mine a cedit card statement and a affidavit thats who ever stamped it didn't even look at who signed it cause it not even signed bye who did it i ask for chain of title each time it was sold think it was 3 or more. Proof they own it with a agreements each time ut was sold .legal aid wont even help
And i been out work since aug i have a trail date for jan 7 130 pm even with all the wrong stuff and no proof of stuff laywer still said cost more i even said ill counter sue if i can cause its against fdca to try collect if they can't prove they own it i
I belive they said they have witness to but shouldn't there be one for each time it was sold and a affidavit from credit one whi sold it says they no how records are keeped and stuff i have ask for proof on contract where i signed my name on credit one i cant even get no one help aslo there affadavit who ever stamp it didnt put when there lic exp on is there any help cauae i belive a judge that dont no much on this is just going side with them

Post a copy of the complaint with your personal information redacted. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Research the doctrine of privity of contract. Read the attachments. If LVNV was not apart of the original contract, the do not stand to sue. They must prove assignment, too. Chances are they do not it. 

I presume their suing under account stated?  See the case involving Target National Bank regarding account stated. 

AND 

You may be able to get the case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  READ BELOW!

Check with your the local state agency that handles Financial Institutions and Banks to see if licensing/permitting is required for any bank to to operate as a bank within your state without managing a branch or banking office in your state. Check with the 10-K Annual Report filed by each credit card company with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. 

I was sued by Discover Bank, by and through its counsel, Gurstel Law Firm, here in the Phoenix, AZ area.  I took the suit to the appeals court level and WON (ruling as of October 2020). As it turns out, Discover Bank violated several Arizona laws because the bank is not licensed in the state of Arizona to conduct banking business because it does not maintain a branch/banking office in Arizona. The appeals judge reversed the lower court's decision and vacated the judgment against me based on subject-matter jurisdiction.

Discover Bank is a Delaware state banks chartered and and regulated by the Office of the Delaware State Bank Commissioner. Discover Bank had referenced nothing in its record of appeal or to the trial court that it has acquired the appropriate licensing/permits required under Arizona state law to operate as  bank within Arizona pursuant to A.R.S. §6-217 or A.R.S. §6-322(A). 

The appellate judge stated,

"Since then, the court has determined that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction in this matter. Thus, the judgment must be reversed and vacated. Discover Bank's complaint alleged that this cases arises out of a credit card debt that XXXXXXXXXXXXXX owes the Bank, which had opened an account for, and extended credit to, him. It surely is beyond fair dispute that a bank seeking to collect a debt owed to the bank by a bank customer is a bank that is engaged in the business of banking. Under A.R.S. §6-201, however, "[n]o person, except a national banking association with its home office in this state or a bank authorized to do business in this state pursuant to [A.R.S. §§ 6-217 or 6-322(A)] shall engage in the banking business in this state without a banking permit. 

Because no showing was made in the trial court proceeding, nor is there any evidence in the record on appeal, that Discover Bank was either issued a banking permit or excused from operating without a permit before the trial court entered judgment, and because the effort to collect the debt was an effort associated with the business of banking, the Bank was not permitted to pursue collection of the debt in an Arizona court proceeding. Thus, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to treat with this matter. "

REGARDING BANKS WITH N.A. after its name and Credit Card Companies with the word "bank" in its corporate name:

Citibank, N.A., or any bank with "N.A." does not have to be licensed at the state level as it is licensed nationally (N.A. National Banking Association). However, Arizona has a law that forbids a bank from using the word "bank" in its corporate name when it does not maintain a branch/banking office in the state. I have a suit in the Court of Appeals involving Citibank, N.A. citing this very issue stating Citibank and the trial court lacked jurisdiction because of it violating ARS 6-391. Citibank filed ALL of its court documents under Citibank, N.A., which clearly violates Arizona law. Arizona defines a branch/banking office as a place where one can cash a check, make a deposit and apply for alone.  Offices used for administrative purposes, IT, storage, etc., DO NOT qualify. 

See:  https://www.azleg.gov/arsDetail/?title=6

Check with your local attorney general's office for information regarding the department of financial institutions and licensing.

Good luck!

cavalry_chris_ellis_AFFIDAVIT_OF_SERVICE_ON_CHRIS ELLIS_cs-2013-5193.pdf cavalry_chris_ellis_ANSWER_CERT_OF_MAILING_cs-2013-5193.pdf cavalry_chris_ellis_DISMISSAL_WO_PREJUDICE_cs-2013-5193.pdf cavalry_chris_ellis_ENTRY OF APPEARANCE_COUNSEL FOR CHRIS ELLIS_CERT_OF_MAILING_cs-2013-5193.pdf cavalry_chris_ellis_ENTRY OF APPEARANCE_COUNSEL_FOR_PLAINTIFF_cs-2013-5193.pdf cavalry_chris_ellis_PLAINTIFFS_PETITION_cs-2013-5193.pdf lc242_privity-of-contract-contracts-for-the-benefit-of-third-parties.pdf Target_Greiner.pdf

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.