Jams Hearing scheduled next month

[Percyb]

I was sued in small claims court.  Motion to compel arbitration was granted.  Filed with Jams immediately.  PRA paid all fees and so far and that’s been about 17,000 to collect on counter claim of 5000.00.  Hearing will be next month.  Pretty nervous. Discovery has been closed.  Witness list and exhibits closed as well.  Waiting for the hearing and I’m trying to stay calm.  Utah law per arbitration agreement.  The rules have been set that no further evidence will be accepted. The only evidence they submitted was a bill of sale.  No authentication or affidavit with it.  Single witness is PRA custodian.  
 

My issue is to fight the bill of sale.  To be exempt from hearsay Utah law states:  The original or a copy of a domestic record that meets the requirements of Rule 803(6)(A)-(C), as shown by a certification of the custodian or another qualified person that must be signed in a manner that, if falsely made, would subject the signer to criminal penalty under the laws where the certification was signed. Before the trial or hearing, the proponent must give an adverse party reasonable written notice of the intent to offer the record — and must make the record and certification available for inspection — so that the party has a fair opportunity to challenge them. 

The Utah business records law states: 

6)   Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. A record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis if:

(6)(A)   the record was made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge;

 

(6)(B)   the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit;

 

(6)(C)   making the record was a regular practice of that activity;

 

(6)(D)   all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness, or by a certification that complies with Rule 902(11) or (12) or with a statute permitting certification; and

 

(6)(E)   neither the source of information nor the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

I’m wondering if this is enough to fight the bill of sale since PRA didn’t create the record.  Nor transmit it.  If this goes out all the left is billing statements.  Am I on the right track here?   I have read so much that my eyes hurt.  Some say PRA can testify as records of regularly conducted business records.  Others say they need the OC. In my opinion it’s pretty clear it fails the immediate certification since there is no penalty/perjury statement.  The way that I read 6a through 6d that the custodian would have to testify to knowledge of creation or transmittal.   PRA can’t testify about records created and transmitted by Discover/Synchrony.

Thank you

 

[Bulldoger]

have you seen this video? 

 

[Bulldoger]

The above video explains what you are trying to do and how to go about it.  Yes uses hearsay to object to BOS and the statements.  Cross examine witness, to get BOS thrown out. IMO even if the statements stay in just getting BOS toss is enough to win.  I would also argue the BOS is only part of the selling contract. Where is the "Agreement" cited in BOS.  Argue how can the arbitrator know that the JDB even has a right to sue you without seeing what the agreement says. The BOS doesn't met the doctrine of completeness without the agreement.  

Rule 106.  Remainder of or Related Writings or Recorded Statements.

 If a party introduces all or part of a writing or recorded statement, an adverse party may require the introduction, at that time, of any other part — or any other writing or recorded statement — that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time.  

2011 Advisory Committee Note.  The language of this rule has been amended as part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility. This rule is the federal rule, verbatim.

The BOS has statement that it is part of an "agreement". This additional evidence is called explanatory evidence, and its purpose is to qualify, explain or put in context the original piece of introduced evidence (e.g. BOS) . 

Argue it's incomplete and the court cannot get an full understanding of what was exchanged.  Maybe the agreement expressly state seller accounts are as is no warranty they are inaccurate (statements could be calculated wrong ) . How does anyone know what was sold without reading the agreement. 

They have the burden of proving they own and owe the debt in they didn't bring the correct witnesses or documents to bad for them. 

[Brotherskeeper]

@Percyb Federal and state rules of evidence are not strictly enforced by the arbitrator. Please read your arbitration clause very carefully to see if it has any mention of how evidence is to be treated in arbitration. This paper explains how evidence is treated in arbitration. 

The Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee of the American College of Trial Lawyers published this in 2018: 

BEST PRACTICES REGARDING EVIDENCE IN ARBITRATIONS

Most arbitrators and academics have long understood that, absent terms to the contrary in
the agreement providing for arbitration, the traditional rules of evidence do not apply, and certainly
do not strictly apply, in arbitration.1
 By contrast, lawyers representing clients in arbitrations often
expect that the arbitrator will enforce the rules of evidence or, at a minimum, will view the rules as
presumptively authoritative.2
 Similarly, lawyers often view arbitrations as merely a non-judicial
forum for presenting evidence in much the same way as evidence would be presented in a courtroom,
while most arbitrators are open to alternative methods for presenting evidence that would not be
permitted in court. The arbitration process would benefit from greater clarity as to how the rules of
evidence, evidentiary principles, and customary practices for receiving evidence should apply in
arbitration. This paper identifies best practices regarding such evidentiary issues in arbitrations.

[Percyb]

Thank you @Brotherskeeper and @Bulldoger for replying.   I appreciate both of your comments.   Here is what the terms and conditions state.  

8. The arbitration administrator will appoint the arbitrator and will tell the parties what to do next. The arbitrator must be a lawyer with at least ten years of legal experience. The arbitrator must apply the same law, consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), that would apply to an individual action in court, but may use different procedural rules. The arbitrator will apply the same statutes of limitation and privileges that a court would apply if the matter were pending in court.

11. GOVERNING LAW. This Arbitration section is governed by the FAA. Utah law shall apply to the extent state law is relevant under the FAA, unless otherwise stated herein. The arbitrator’s award will be final and binding, except for any appeal right under the FAA. Any court with jurisdiction may enter judgment upon the arbitrator’s award. The arbitration award and any judgment confirming it will apply only to the specific case and cannot be used in any other case except to enforce the award.

The judge has already ruled Utah Law will be used unless state law applies to WCA violations or Federal Law for FDCPA violations.      

I think the above means they can’t just ignore the hearsay rules of Utah.   I also plan on attacking bills due to lack of trustworthiness if they allow them in.   The 2 statements they used in court are not the same format versus the year of statements they provided in discovery.  As well as name and account differences and even different credit customer services number.   They go to a credit card I never had.   Hoping that’s enough to prove reliability issues.   

[Bulldoger]

Why does Utah law apply when you live in Wisconsin,  Discover is incorporated in Delaware and Synchrony is  incorporated in the Commonwealth of Virginia. 

 

[Percyb]

@Bulldoger I was confused at first by your statement for a minute until I re-read what I wrote.    Sorry about that.  My brain has been befuddled trying to learn as much as I can about the process.   I was referencing the discovery not meaning Discover credit card. Last sentence I wrote didn’t make sense. Sorry.  It is a SC Master Card issued by Synchrony Bank.   The judge said agreement mandated Utah law except Wisconsin law applies to WCA violations.   

[Brotherskeeper]

1 hour ago, Percyb said:

The 2 statements they used in court are not the same format versus the year of statements they provided in discovery.  As well as name and account differences and even different credit customer services number.   They go to a credit card I never had.   Hoping that’s enough to prove reliability issues.   

Can you please explain this statement?

[Percyb]

@Brotherskeeper the two statements filed with the court show my name enlarged in font and enlarged font the says ending account number xxxx and the actual format is entirely different.   Charges, interest, details all show a completely different format like it’s a totally different bill style and the credit customer service number is to a totally different number.  When I called the number it is to a MasterCard issued by the same bank but a credit card I never had.  World elite black.  The 12 months statements show a completely different style.   No enlarged writing of name or anything typed showing ending account number xxxx and credit card customer service number actually matched the credit card that those bill are for.   It was like they doctored the bills for court.  

[Brotherskeeper]

On 5/19/2021 at 11:11 PM, Percyb said:

The rules have been set that no further evidence will be accepted. The only evidence they submitted was a bill of sale.  No authentication or affidavit with it.

Does this bill of sale include information that your specific account was included in the sale? 

How do they connect your credit card account to the portfolio sale the (incomplete) Bill of Sale is from? 

No affidavit included to authenticate from SC Master Card/ Synchrony Bank about the portfolio sale or the account documents included in the sale file?

1 hour ago, Percyb said:

The 2 statements they used in court are not the same format versus the year of statements they provided in discovery.

When you say "used in court" do you mean in your Wisconsin small claims court case or do you mean submitted as evidence to the JAMS arbitrator? 

The year's worth of statements provided in discovery are not to be entered as evidence by PRA in your JAMS hearing? 

 

 

[Percyb]

@Brotherskeeper

 

Does this bill of sale include information that your specific account was included in the sale?    No   Not even certified or authenticated   Not even dated and signed.  Just a signature with the date in the bill of sale paragraph.    Just a general bill of sale  dated at a time prior to the account default date in the statements   So in other words they are saying they agreed to sell the account prior to default   

How do they connect your credit card account to the portfolio sale the (incomplete) Bill of Sale is from?   They didn’t have anything.  They have a PRA custodian to testify they claim 

No affidavit included to authenticate from SC Master Card/ Synchrony Bank about the portfolio sale or the account documents included in the sale file? No, nothing.   Not even certified.   

When you say "used in court" do you mean in your Wisconsin small claims court case or do you mean submitted as evidence to the JAMS arbitrator?  Small claims and they uploaded the entire small claims filing in there exhibits to jams for cross complaint and also exhibits filing.   

 

The year's worth of statements provided in discovery are not to be entered as evidence by PRA in your JAMS hearing?  The judge has not ruled on admissibility     He said he would rule during the hearing    He hasn’t even heard objections .   

 

Edited May 22, 2021 by Percyb
Mistake

[Brotherskeeper]

10 minutes ago, Percyb said:

When you say "used in court" do you mean in your Wisconsin small claims court case or do you mean submitted as evidence to the JAMS arbitrator?  Small claims and they uploaded the entire small claims filing in there exhibits to jams for cross complaint and also exhibits filing.   

Just to be clear, does this small claims court case file they uploaded for JAMS include both the 2 "funny font" statements with World Elite Black info plus the year's worth of statements that appear to you to have correct account/personal info? 

I would suggest you research (esp. Utah's position on) the adoptive (or intergrated) business records doctrine exception to the hearsay rule under Rule 803(6) to learn how PRA likely intends to argue their records incorporated the Synchrony records to satisfy the hearsay exception without the PRA custodian's personal  knowedge of Synchrony's business practices or records creation.

This Bank of New York Mellon v. Shone ruling in Maine explains this doctrine.

“[A] record that one business has received from another is admissible under Rule 803(6) without testimony about the practices of the business that created the record, provided, first, that the proponent of the evidence establishes that the receiving business has integrated the record into its own records, has verified or otherwise established the accuracy of the contents of the record, and has relied on the record in the conduct of its operations, and second, that the opponent of admission has not shown that the record is nonetheless not sufficiently trustworthy to be admitted.”

By a 6-1 majority, the Court vacated the trial court’s judgment.  After an in-depth review of its prior conflicting interpretations of Rule 803(6), as well as the application of the Rule’s federal counterpart in other jurisdictions, the Court determined that Soley remained good law and that integrated business records must only meet the requirements of integration, verification, and reliance by the entity receiving the record from the originating entity—without the need for testimony from the originating entity—to fall within the ambit of Maine Rule of Evidence 803(6).

Under the Court’s decision in Shone, the witness still must have personal knowledge of the current servicer’s recordkeeping practices, as well as how the current servicer integrated the records of any prior servicers into its records, including how those integrated records were verified and relied upon by the current servicer to show that they are trustworthy. The court also noted that a record may still be rejected if the opponent can demonstrate “that the source of the information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.”

 

These combined PRA cases from the Maine Supreme Court ruling in 2021cites the above Shone case, but even though this is a Maine case, read it to see how PRA's custodian demonstrates personal knowledge of Synchrony. Also note how much more documentary evidence PRA submitted than in your case. 

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC v. Clougherty, 2021 ME 20 - Me: Supreme Judicial Court 2021

"¶ 6] At Docampo's trial, Portfolio offered similar documents generated by Synchrony Bank. Portfolio's records custodian testified that she attended a one-hour in-person training session in 2015 on the business practices of Synchrony Bank, but she admitted that the training did not cover Synchrony Bank's day-to-day record-keeping practices."

If your arbitrator is going to use Utah law, you should know how precendential rulings in Utah view this intergrated records doctrine. Be ready to cross examine the PRA custodian. 

[Percyb]

 

@BrotherskeeperJust to be clear, does this small claims court case file they uploaded for JAMS include both the 2 "funny font" statements with World Elite Black info plus the year's worth of statements that appear to you to have correct account/personal info? 
 

The jams counter claim was only the small claims filing with the two statements that have the “funny font” and world elite black info.   Then during discovery they produced the years worth of documents dated prior to the ones they listed in the court case.  Then they uploaded exhibits and they uploaded the small claims info again and the statements produced during discovery.   And one bill of sale that has no info attributed to me and state the PRA custodian will testify.  
 

So when they filed the counterclaim they just uploaded the small case Complaint with the small claim exhibits.  Later during jams discovery produced the other year of statements.  
 

thank you for your info.  I appreciate it! 

[Brotherskeeper]

@Percyb It's helpful for you that PRA intends to admit the "funny font" statements along with the "correct" statements. I'm eager to hear how the PRA custodian will explain why these 2 statements contain incorrect information.

Are the dates, charge amounts, payments, interest, fees, etc. correct in the "funny font" statements? In the other batch of statements? 

Is the final monthly statement balance the same balance PRA is seeking to collect? 

You stated that the date in the bill of sale predates the date of default on the Synchrony account. What evidence do you have that demonstrates that? 

[Percyb]

@Brotherskeeper 

17 hours ago, Brotherskeeper said:

Are the dates, charge amounts, payments, interest, fees, etc. correct in the "funny font" statements? In the other batch of statements? 

No the balance doesn’t make sense.   It actually shows the balance of past statements are higher.  

 

17 hours ago, Brotherskeeper said:

Is the final monthly statement balance the same balance PRA is seeking to collect? 

The final statement.   When you go back to default the charges are standard late fee and interest plus past due balance.  Normal stuff  Then a few statements later.  3 months after default.  Almost 400.00 higher then just standard late fee and interest and past due balance.  Numbers don’t correspond to adding that much extra to bill due.   Then the 5th bill right before charge off some how is lower.  Then the 6th statement after charge off shows the same amount as the prior fifth except breakdown of principle and interest.   
 

18 hours ago, Brotherskeeper said:

You stated that the date in the bill of sale predates the date of default on the Synchrony account. What evidence do you have that demonstrates that? 

The typed date in bill of sale states they agreed as set forth in the forward flow accounts dated this day January 26th 2018.   ...... day to be delivered January 11 2019.   The account was current until July 2018.     It sounds like to me at the time this was written they had no knowledge of what accounts that they were going to sell as we know Synchrony is not in the business of selling current accounts to PRA  

I was also holding back one biggie:  One complete billing statement of someone I don’t know.   Never heard of before but lives in my town.  Not even a SC MC was mixed into the statements they included in the exhibits to use at the hearing with Jams.     

 
 

 

[Brotherskeeper]

1 hour ago, Percyb said:

The typed date in bill of sale states they agreed as set forth in the forward flow accounts dated this day January 26th 2018.   ...... day to be delivered January 11 2019.

Do you think this 2018 is a typo?  Does the 2018 date appear with any signature or any other place? 

1 hour ago, Percyb said:

The account was current until July 2018.

This date would line up with a 6-month charge-off date from default in 7/18.

 

2 hours ago, Percyb said:

One complete billing statement of someone I don’t know.   Never heard of before but lives in my town.  Not even a SC MC was mixed into the statements they included in the exhibits to use at the hearing with Jams.

It's going to be interesting to hear how the PRA custodian explains this piece of evidence included from a completely separate unknown account. Was this other person's account information included in your SC MC account records file by Synchrony? By PRA's inclusion of this unknown account statement in your account files with PRA?  Can the PRA records custodian witness explain exactly how this happened? With personal knowledge? 

. 

[sillycanoe]

@PercybI am trying to figure out how to file an mct in WI. Would you happen to have a redacted version I could use?
I need to try to file my anser and MCT tomorrow or tuesday. answer must be received by 2pm on June 1st.

[Percyb]

@Brotherskeeper 

1 hour ago, Brotherskeeper said:

Do you think this 2018 is a typo?  Does the 2018 date appear with any signature or any other place? 

No it’s not an error.  The bill of sale defiantly has 2018 typed in.    

For value received and in further consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth in the Forward Flow Accounts Agreements (the “Agreement”), dated as this 26th day of January, 2018, by Synchrony Bank formerly known as GE Capital Retail Bank; RFS Holding LLC, and Retail Finance CreditServices, LLC.  (“Seller”) and Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC (“Buyer”), Seller hereby transfers, sells, conveys, grants, and delivers to Buyer, its successors and assigns, without recourse except as set forth in the Agreement, to the extent of its ownership, the Accounts as set forth in the Notification Files (as defined in the Agreement), delivered by Seller to buyer on January 11th, 2019, and as further described in the Agreement.  

[Percyb]

@sillycanoe I sent you a private message with motion to compel arbitration.    I took out my identifying info.   Try and change it to your case.   In my case the PLANTIFF had already admitted the terms and conditions in the record.  Not sure what your situation is.  During the first hearing the judge never ruled or denied the   Motion really.  Just denied motion to dismiss and then set another date.  Next hearing when the judge asked about arbitration motion.  The PLANTIFF said I never filed with JAMS and I said motion was never ruled on.  PLANTIFF agreed to arbitrate and judge stayed case for six week then closed.  He read the clause and said yep it’s in there.  It was all strange and less then 10 minutes.  
 

I think I made mistakes on the way but no one told me I did.  I was trying to dismiss on improper service.  That’s the motion the judge denied.   I never filed an answer to the case.  I’m no way an expert but I got through it.  So far. ..... 

[Percyb]

2 hours ago, sillycanoe said:

@PercybI am trying to figure out how to file an mct in WI. Would you happen to have a redacted version I could use?
I need to try to file my anser and MCT tomorrow or tuesday. answer must be received by 2pm on June 1st.

What county? I faxed all my docs in and had no trouble.  

[Brotherskeeper]

21 hours ago, Percyb said:

When you go back to default the charges are standard late fee and interest plus past due balance.  Normal stuff

Do you know what the interest rate was on the account when it was opened?

Was there any special introductory rate or interest-free period with this account? 

 Is the interest rate correct on the all monthly statements?

On the "funny font" statements does "World Elite Black" appear anywhere (front, back, by logo, or in fine print) on the statements? Or, did you have to call the customer service number to find this out? 

[Brotherskeeper]

 

 

On 5/22/2021 at 1:52 PM, Percyb said:

Does this bill of sale include information that your specific account was included in the sale?    No   Not even certified or authenticated   Not even dated and signed.  Just a signature with the date in the bill of sale paragraph.    Just a general bill of sale  dated at a time prior to the account default date in the statements   So in other words they are saying they agreed to sell the account prior to default   

How do they connect your credit card account to the portfolio sale the (incomplete) Bill of Sale is from?   They didn’t have anything.  They have a PRA custodian to testify they claim 

No affidavit included to authenticate from SC Master Card/ Synchrony Bank about the portfolio sale or the account documents included in the sale file? No, nothing.   Not even certified.   

@Percyb Although it is clear that in JAMS the rules of evidence are not strictly enforced, I would think (Caveat: I am not a lawyer. I have never been to arb.) that, absent an affidavit or some certification ( Rule 902(11-14)) from Synchrony Bank regarding the SC Mastercard account records, PRA intends to rely on its own custodian as a "qualified witness" to satisfy the hearsay execption. If you were to succeed in having the arbitrator rule that the 2 "funny font" statements cannot be used as evidence, will the other regular statements be allowed in? Maybe. You have to prepare your argument in case they are. 

 

803(6)   Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. A record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis *** if : ***

(6)(A)   the record was made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge;

(6)(B)   the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit;

(6)(C)   making the record was a regular practice of that activity;

***(6)(D)   all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness, *** or *** by a certification that complies with Rule 902(11) or (12) or with a statute permitting certification; and...

 

Rule 902.  Evidence That Is Self-Authenticating. 

(11) Certified Domestic Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. The original or a copy of a domestic record that meets the requirements of Rule 803(6)(A)-(C), as shown by a certification of the custodian or another qualified person that ***must be signed*** in a manner that, if falsely made, would subject the signer to criminal penalty under the laws where the certification was signed. Before the trial or hearing, the proponent must give an adverse party reasonable written notice of the intent to offer the record — and must make the record and certification available for inspection — so that the party has a fair opportunity to challenge them. 

(12) Certified Foreign Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. The original or a copy of a foreign record that meets the requirements of Rule 803(6)(A)-(C), as shown by a certification of the custodian or another qualified person that must be signed in a manner that, if falsely made, would subject the signer to criminal penalty under the laws where the certification was signed. Before the trial or hearing, the proponent must give an adverse party reasonable written notice of the intent to offer the record — and must make the record and certification available for inspection — so that the party has a fair opportunity to challenge them.

(13) Certified Records Generated by an Electronic Process or System. A record generated by an electronic process or system that produces an accurate result, as shown by a certification of a qualified person that must be signed in a manner that, if falsely made, would subject the signer to criminal penalty under the laws where the certification was signed. Before the trial or hearing, the proponent must give an adverse party reasonable written notice of the intent to offer the record—and must make the record and certification available for inspection—so that the party has a fair opportunity to challenge them.

(14) Certified Data Copied From an Electronic Device, Storage Medium, or File. Data copied from an electronic device, storage medium, or file, if authenticated by a process of digital identification, as shown by a certification of a qualified person that must be signed in a manner that, if falsely made, would subject the signer to criminal penalty under the laws where the certification was signed. Before the trial or hearing, the proponent must give an adverse party reasonable written notice of the intent to offer the data—and must make the data and the certification available for inspection—so that the party has a fair opportunity to challenge them.

 

[Brotherskeeper]

On 5/23/2021 at 5:12 PM, Percyb said:

@Brotherskeeper 

No it’s not an error.  The bill of sale defiantly has 2018 typed in.    

For value received and in further consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth in the Forward Flow Accounts Agreements (the “Agreement”), dated as this 26th day of January, 2018, by Synchrony Bank formerly known as GE Capital Retail Bank; RFS Holding LLC, and Retail Finance CreditServices, LLC.  (“Seller”) and Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC (“Buyer”), Seller hereby transfers, sells, conveys, grants, and delivers to Buyer, its successors and assigns, without recourse except as set forth in the Agreement, to the extent of its ownership, the Accounts as set forth in the Notification Files (as defined in the Agreement), delivered by Seller to buyer on January 11th, 2019, and as further described in the Agreement.  

@BV80 @BackFromTheDebt @fisthardcheese Have you ever come across a situation where the Bill of Sale between an OC and JDB is prepared 1 year in advance to the actual completion of the sale and delivery of the credit card account files? OP ocnfirms this is not a typo.

OP's Synchrony account did not go into default until 7/2018. It could not have been contemplated that OP's account would be included in this sale on 1/26/2018. By the time of the delivery of the "Notification Files" on 1/11/2019, OP's Synchrony account was just 6 months beyond default in 7/2018. 

[BV80]

6 minutes ago, Brotherskeeper said:

@BV80 @BackFromTheDebt @fisthardcheese Have you ever come across a situation where the Bill of Sale between an OC and JDB is prepared 1 year in advance to the actual completion of the sale and delivery of the credit card account files? OP ocnfirms this is not a typo.

OP's Synchrony account did not go into default until 7/2018. It could not have been contimplated that OP's account would be included in this sale on 1/26/2018. By the time of the delivery of the "Notification Files" on 1/11/2019, OP's Synchrony account was just 6 months beyond default in 7/2018. 

I’ve never seen one dated a year in advance.  I suppose extra accounts could have been added to the sale, but I would argue that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the account in question was included in the alleged sale of accounts to the plaintiff when the facts show that the account was not in default on January 26, 2018 and, therefore, could NOT have been included “in the Forward Flow Accounts Agreements (the “Agreement”), dated as this 26th day of January, 2018”.

[BackFromTheDebt]

26 minutes ago, BV80 said:

I’ve never seen one dated a year in advance.  I suppose extra accounts could have been added to the sale, but I would argue that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the account in question was included in the alleged sale of accounts to the plaintiff when the facts show that the account was not in default on January 26, 2018 and, therefore, could NOT have been included “in the Forward Flow Accounts Agreements (the “Agreement”), dated as this 26th day of January, 2018”.

Exactly 

 

I work in the audit department at a bank.  
something like this would raise a red flag so big ...

 

This could be an FDCPA violation   I’m not a lawyer so I can only say maybe   This clearly mis states the status of the debt   

 

I won several cases by attacking banks’ records or the person verifying their records.  
 

One time I pointed out very serious discrepancies between different documents, as well as filing  counter claims for the mis statement.  The opposing attorney agreed to a mutual walk away.  
 

Perhaps offer the opposing attorney a mutual walk away.  If they don’t accept, file FDCPA counter claims.