U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics > Personal Finance
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 09-08-2010, 03:18 PM
 
36 posts, read 176,013 times
Reputation: 42

Advertisements

Bosco55 David,

I must really be a threat to you!! You are either an Attorney or a bottom feeder Collection agency. The FTC doesn't strike down their own rules!

I have helped many people, with the information I have and have passed along. A lady in Seattle that posted a few months ago, is one that I did help, and provide document templates to, as well as letters and/or information that I have in my files. The document templates were found online, that I have downloaded and saved.

And as an update to my last post, I have since then received formal paralegal training! At this time, I am working towards, becoming a certified paralegal.

I have email references I could copy and paste from people, I've helped in other states than my own; but on the possibility anyone could say I made them up; Contact me and I'll have these people, with your permission, send you an email directly, regarding the help I have given them.
tlcpetmommy@gmail.com. Then you can form your own opinion.

I have way too much on in my life and with helping people with whatever I can, and within my expertise; to be bothered, or have the time, with phishing/scamming. I hate those as much as all of you!!! My techniques work. 7 Lawsuits helped with or ???? and 7 have either gone away, been dismissed and/or been dismissed with prejudice. You decide for yourself.

But for those who need help, and need document forms/templates, letters etc. I'm willing to share what I have with you. My husband and I both paid thousands of dollars to obtain many of my forms, letters etc., which HAVE been written by ATTORNEYS and/or Paralegals. I fone wants to use what I have, then that is fine with me; but if they don't, that is also OK, it's their / your choice.

Here's the copy and paste of the law Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. www.FTC.gov is where this law can be viewed by anyone who wishes to. If you don't trust my link, then do a google search for the website link yourself.

[SIZE=3]1. Section 805(a): Collection calls to consumers ( AKA Debtors ). Without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt – [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Unless you consent or a court order permits, debt collectors may not call to collect a debt: [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] (1). Inconvenient or unusual times or places at any time or place which is unusual or known to be inconvenient to you. 8 a.m. - 9 p.m. is presumed to be convenient; [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] - at any unusual time or place or a time or place known or which should be known to be inconvenient to the consumer. In the absence of knowledge of circumstances to the contrary, a debt collector shall assume that the convenient time for communicating with a consumer is after 8 o'clock antimeridian and before 9 o'clock postmeridian, local time at the consumer's location; [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] Inconvenient or unusual times or places
(Section 805(a)(1)). A debt collector may not call the consumer at any time, or on any particular day, if he has credible information (from the consumer or elsewhere) that it is inconvenient. If the debt collector does not have such information, a call on Sunday is not per se illegal.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]The purpose of this section is to limit collection calls to normal business (work) days which are usually Monday - Friday. If this is your normal work schedule then you could inform the collector that calls on Saturday and Sunday are inconvenient and the collector must then consider these days as "no collection call days". [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]If your normal workdays are Wednesday - Sunday, then collectors can reasonably assume that calling on Saturday and Sunday are not inconvenient. However, if you tell them otherwise they must not call. But, this does not mean you can say every day of the week is inconvenient. It's acceptable to have one or two days that are inconvenient but not all week. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]A first-time call on a "no collection call day", does not violate the fdcpa. But, after informing collectors of your off-limits days, they call a second time on your "no call" day, they are in violation of the fair debt act. [/SIZE]


Good luck to all of you. My help is available if needed. That's all I will say. And from a personal standpoint, when you are faced with threatening letters and/or a Complaint served against you, and can't afford an Attorney, and NO Legal Clinic available - then what? A Default summary Judgment filed against you! I always encourage, anyone who comes to me for help, to speak with an Attorney who offers free consultations, and/or attend local Legal Clinics, if they are offered.

petmommy
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-08-2010, 03:23 PM
 
36 posts, read 176,013 times
Reputation: 42
Smile Discovery Requests

Quote:
Originally Posted by danabcb View Post
I too am being sued by a junk debt buyer . Chase was the original owner .I filed a answer of denial requested a validation of debt . They sent me a affavaidte and some credit card statements. Now i recieved a form interrogatories and a request for admissions, produce of documents.. Now what do i do? My original balance was 5912.00 with interest from the crdeit card now they want 5912+ 3000 plus attorney fees. What is my next step?
I have a guide for Answering Discovery, I'd be willing to attach to an email for you, if you email me @ tlcpetmommy@gmail.com.

Depending on where you live, and your State's Rules of Civil Procedure, is the time limit for answering. The documents you received should also state the time limit for response. Most I've seen have been 30 days; and I've seen one State Rules of Civil Procedure with only 15 days,

Good Luck to you.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2010, 03:23 PM
 
Location: Ohio
18,028 posts, read 13,251,134 times
Reputation: 13835
Quote:
Originally Posted by danabcb View Post
What is my next step?
Ask for the contract.

I don't remember the citation, but Asset Acceptance was the Plaintiff.

The contract I'm referring to is the one regarding the sale of the debt to the junk debt buyer.

If you're being sued by a collection agency and not a junk debt buyer, then also ask for the contract, because the contract for the collection must state explicitly in no uncertain terms that the collection agency has the right to sue and more importantly that they have the right to sue in their own name or to act on behalf of the original creditor.

There's also a recent bankruptcy court ruling concerning the assignment of rights (which is the primary issue in the contract) that you can use.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2010, 05:16 PM
 
10,139 posts, read 22,424,007 times
Reputation: 8239
I suppose this is the case.

ASSET ACCEPTANCE, L.L.C., PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. DENISE M.
WITTEN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

No. 90297

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT,
CUYAHOGA COUNTY

2008 Ohio 3659; 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 3111


July 24, 2008, Released

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Discretionary appeal not allowed by Asset Acceptance, L.L.C.
v. Witten, 120 Ohio St. 3d 1455, 2008 Ohio 6813, 898 N.E.2d 969, 2008 Ohio LEXIS
3640 (2008)

PRIOR HISTORY: [**1]
Civil Appeal from the Euclid Municipal Court. Case No. 07-CVF-00609.

DISPOSITION: Judgment affirmed.


COUNSEL: ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: Michael L. Fine, Zipkin, Whiting Co., L.P.A.,
Beachwood, Ohio.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: Eric T. Kohut, Kimberly A. Klemenok, Matthew P.
Lombardy, Independence, Ohio.

JUDGES: BEFORE: Celebrezze, J., Cooney, P.J., and Kilbane, J. COLLEEN CONWAY
COONEY, P.J., and MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR.

OPINION BY: FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR.

OPINION

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B),
22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 22. This decision will be journalized and will
become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a
motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed
within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time
period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the
journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the clerk per App.R.
22(E). See, also, S.Ct. Prac.R. II, Section 2(A)(1).

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J.:

[*P1] Appellant, Denise Witten ("the debtor"), appeals the Euclid Municipal
Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee, Asset Acceptance, [**2]
L.L.C. ("the creditor"). 1 After a thorough review of the record, and for the
reasons set forth below, we affirm.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1 The
underlying debt in this action relates to the purchase of furniture from Value
City Furniture ("Value City"). The debtor financed the purchase with a Value
City Card, but the creditor was World Financial Network National Bank ("the
bank"). The bank provided the financing, and the debtor's financial agreement
was with the bank. Eventually, on June 10, 2002, the bank assigned the debt to
Asset Acceptance, L.L.C. (the current creditor).
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[*P2] On December 4, 1999, the debtor defaulted on credit card payments
owed to Value City. On March 5, 2007, the creditor filed a complaint for
collection of the debtor account in Euclid Municipal Court. According to the
complaint, the debtor owed $ 800.98, plus accrued interest. The creditor
attached an affidavit regarding damages and a customer account statement to the
complaint; however, a copy of the account was not attached to the complaint.

[*P3] On March 13, 2007, the debtor, pro se, filed an answer in which she
admitted that she had entered into an agreement for a credit card with the
creditor. Within her answer, the debtor raised the six-year [**3] statute of
limitations as an affirmative defense.

[*P4] On April 16, 2007, the creditor served discovery requests on the
debtor, which included requests for admission. The debtor did not respond to the
admissions within the required 28 days. On May 31, 2007, the creditor filed a
motion for summary judgment. The debtor did not file a brief in opposition. On
June 4, 2007, the debtor finally responded to the request for admissions. On
June 19, 2007, the magistrate recommended the granting of the creditor's motion
for summary judgment. The debtor filed objections to the magistrate's decision
on June 25, 2007, and on July 13, 2007, the trial court granted the summary
judgment motion. On August 10, 2007, the debtor, now represented by appellate
counsel, filed a notice of appeal.

[*P5] The debtor brings this appeal, asserting three assignments of error
for our review.

Standard of Review--Summary Judgment

[*P6] "Civ.R. 56(C) specifically provides that before summary judgment may
be granted, it must be determined that: (1) No genuine issue as to any material
fact remains to be litigated; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law; and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds [**4]
can come to but one conclusion, and viewing such evidence most strongly in favor
of the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that
conclusion is adverse to that party." Temple v. Wean United, Inc. (1977), 50
Ohio St.2d 317, 327, 364 N.E.2d 267.

[*P7] It is well established that the party seeking summary judgment bears
the burden of demonstrating that no issues of material fact exist for trial.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett (1986), 477 U.S. 317, 330, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d
265; Mitseff v. Wheeler (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 112, 115, 526 N.E.2d 798. Doubts
must be resolved in favor of the nonmoving party. Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65
Ohio St.3d 356, 1992 Ohio 95, 604 N.E.2d 138.

[*P8] In Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 1996 Ohio 107, 662 N.E.2d 264,
the Ohio Supreme Court modified and clarified the summary judgment standard as
applied in Wing v. Anchor Media, Ltd. of Texas (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 108, 570
N.E.2d 1095. Under Dresher, "the moving party bears the initial responsibility
of informing the trial court of the basis for the motion, and identifying those
portions of the record which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of fact
or material element of the nonmoving party's [**5] claim." (Emphasis in
original.) Id. at 296. The nonmoving party has a reciprocal burden of
specificity and cannot rest on mere allegations or denials in the pleadings. Id.
at 293. The nonmoving party must set forth "specific facts" by the means listed
in Civ.R. 56(C) showing that a genuine issue for trial exists. Id.

[*P9] This court reviews the lower court's granting of summary judgment de
novo. Brown v. County Comm'rs (1993), 87 Ohio App. 3d 704, 622 N.E.2d 1153. An
appellate court reviewing the grant of summary judgment must follow the
standards set forth in Civ.R. 56(C). "[T]he reviewing court evaluates the record
*** in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. *** [T]he motion must be
overruled if reasonable minds could find for the party opposing the motion."
Saunders v. McFaul (1990), 71 Ohio App.3d 46, 50, 593 N.E.2d 24, 8 Anderson's
Ohio App. Cas. 378.

Review and Analysis

Statute of Limitations

[*P10] "I. The Municipal Court erred in granting summary judgment, because
the Complaint was barred by the statute of limitations."

[*P11] The debtor argues that the creditor's complaint was barred by the
statute of limitations. More specifically, she alleges that a six-year statute
of limitations applies to this lawsuit. This [**6] argument is without merit.

[*P12] We find that there is a written agreement between the debtor and the
creditor. Written agreements are subject to a 15-year statute of limitations.
R.C. 2305.06. The debtor failed to answer the requests for admission within 28
days; therefore, the requests have been deemed admitted. See Civ.R. 36(A). It is
settled law in Ohio that unanswered requests for admission render the matter
requested established. Jade Sterling Steel Co. v. Stacey, Cuyahoga App. No.
88283, 2007 Ohio 532, P 11. Further, a summary judgment motion may be based upon
admissions deemed admitted for failure to answer them. St. Paul Fire & Marine
Ins. Co. v. Battle (Apr. 17, 1975), Cuyahoga App. No. 33479, 44 Ohio App. 2d
261, 337 N.E.2d 806.

[*P13] Under Civ.R. 36(B), "any matter admitted under this rule is
conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or
amendment of the admission." If a party does not move the court for leave to
file untimely responses, a trial court is within its discretion to grant summary
judgment upon the admissions. State ex rel. Schmardebeck v. Bay Twp. Bd. of
Trustees (Dec. 30, 1993), Ottawa App. No. 90OT012, 1993 Ohio App. LEXIS 6440.

[*P14] Here, the debtor failed to respond to the request for admissions
within [**7] 28 days and did not move the court for leave to file untimely
responses. As a result, the debtor was deemed to have admitted that she had an
agreement with the creditor and that she signed an application for the
creditor's card; therefore, the evidence shows that there is a written agreement
between the parties. The debtor also failed to submit any evidence to the court
opposing the summary judgment motion demonstrating that a six-year statute of
limitations should apply.

[*P15] We find that, because there is a written document, the 15-year
statute of limitations applies to this lawsuit.

[*P16] We shall briefly address the debtor's contention that a six-year
statute of limitations (under R.C. 2305.07 or 1317.01) applies in this case. 2

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -2 In her
appellate brief, the debtor also argues that a four-year statute of limitations
under R.C. 1302.98 applies in this case. However, we note that she only raised a
six-year statute of limitations in her answer; therefore, her four year statute
of limitations argument is not properly before us. Nevertheless, we find that
where a bank provides financing, but does not sell the goods, an action brought
to recover the balance owed is not governed by R.C. 1302.98. BancOhio Nat'l Bank
v. Freeland (1984), 13 Ohio App.3d 245, 13 Ohio B. 298, 468 N.E.2d 941. [**8]
Accordingly, R.C. 1302.98 does not apply to this case.
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

R.C. 2305.07

[*P17] The debtor argues that the six-year statute of limitations under
R.C. 2305.07 is applicable to this case. Under R.C. 2305.07, "except as provided
in sections 126.301 [126.30.1] and 1302.98 of the Revised Code, an action upon a
contract not in writing, express or implied, or upon a liability created by
statute other than a forfeiture or penalty, shall be brought within six years
after the cause thereof accrued." (Emphasis added.) In the case at bar, there is
a written agreement between the parties; therefore, R.C. 2305.07 does not apply.


R.C. Chapter 1317 - Retail Installment Sales Act

[*P18] The debtor argues that the Retail Installment Sales Act, codified in
R.C. Chapter 1317, applies to this case. Under R.C. 1317, there is a six-year
statute of limitations. Jenkins v. Hyundai Motor Fin. Co. (S.D. Ohio 2005), 389
F.Supp.2d 961, 969. R.C. 1317.01 does not apply here. An arrangement between a
seller of goods (here, Value City) and a financial institution (here, the bank)
where the seller presents to the buyer documents obligating the buyer to make
installment payments to a financial institution, has been held to create a
debtor-creditor [**9] relationship between the buyer and the institution. Bank
One, Dayton, N.A. v. Doughman (Nov. 16, 1988), Hamilton App. No. C-880001, 59
Ohio App. 3d 60, 571 N.E.2d 442. This is true even in the absence of any direct
contact between the buyer and the institution. Id. Here, the debtor purchased
merchandise from Value City, but her financial contract was with the bank.
Because the bank is not a seller of merchandise, the debt is not subject to R.C.
1317.01.

[*P19] In conclusion, we find that, because there is a written document,
the 15-year statute of limitations applies to this lawsuit, and none of the
alternative statutes apply. Accordingly, the debtor's first assignment of error
is overruled.

Deficient Complaint

[*P20] "II. The Municipal Court erred in granting summary judgment, because
the Complaint was deficient on its face."

[*P21] The debtor argues that the creditor's complaint was deficient on its
face. More specifically, she argues that the creditor failed to comply with
Civ.R. 10(D). This argument is without merit.

[*P22] Under Civ.R. 10(D)(1), "when any claim or defense is founded on an
account or other written instrument, a copy of the account or written instrument
must be attached to the pleading. If the account or written instrument is
[**10] not attached, the reason for the omission must be stated in the
pleading." In Ohio, the proper procedure to attack a plaintiff's failure to
attach a copy of a written instrument is to serve a motion for a more definite
statement under Civ.R. 12(E). Point Rental Co. v. Posani (1976), 52 Ohio App.2d
183, 368 N.E.2d 1267. Because the debtor failed to move for a more definite
statement, she has waived her right to assert Civ.R. 10(D) as a basis to
dismiss. See Fletcher v. Univ. Hosps. of Cleveland, 172 Ohio App. 3d 153, 2007
Ohio 2778, 873 N.E.2d 365, P10. Accordingly, the debtor's second assignment of
error is overruled.

Complaint Not Supported by Evidence

[*P23] "III. The Municipal Court erred in granting summary judgment,
because the Complaint was not supported by any evidence."

[*P24] The debtor argues that the municipal court erred when it granted
summary judgment in favor of the creditor. More specifically, she alleges that
the creditor's complaint was "not supported by any evidence." This argument is
without merit.

[*P25] The crux of the debtor's argument is that the creditor relies on
"incompetent and inadmissible documents" in support of its motion for summary
judgment. Specifically, she contends [**11] that it was inappropriate for the
trial court to rely on the admissions. According to the debtor, she responded to
the requests for admission (albeit late), and her procedural errors occurred
because she represented herself.

[*P26] We find that the trial court appropriately relied on the admissions
in support of the creditor's motion for summary judgment. This court has held
that "the neglect of an individual to seek legal assistance after being served
with court papers is not excusable." James Lumber Co. v. Shelton (Jan. 29,
1987), Cuyahoga App. No. 51597, 1987 Ohio App. LEXIS 6914. Therefore, it is of
no consequence that the debtor represented herself in the proceedings below.

[*P27] The debtor failed to respond to the requests for admissions until 50
days later, which is well beyond the required 28 days. In Cleveland Trust Co. v.
Willis (1985), 20 Ohio St.3d 66, 20 Ohio B. 364, 485 N.E.2d 1052, the defendant
responded to requests for admissions 42 days after the requests were made. In
Cleveland Trust, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the
plaintiff due to the defendant's failure to respond to admissions in a timely
manner, and the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision.

[*P28] The debtor also suggests that, [**12] under Civ.R. 37(E), the
creditor was required to resolve the discovery dispute prior to filing a motion
for summary judgment. 3 However, in Clause v. Freshwater (June 30, 1998),
Jefferson App. No. 97-JE-37, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 3221, the Fourth District
Court of Appeals held that "Civ.R. 37 does not apply to a party's failure to
respond to a request for admissions. Civ.R. 37 is a general rule regarding the
failure to make discovery. Civ.R. 36 specifically relates to requests for
admissions. Consequently, Civ.R. 37 is not applicable to the issue at hand." In
accordance with Clause, we find that Civ.R. 37 does not require the creditor to
resolve the dispute before moving for summary judgment.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -3 Under
Civ.R. 37(A)(2), "if a deponent fails to answer a question propounded or
submitted ***, or a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted ***, or if
a party, in response to a request for inspection *** fails to respond that
inspection will be permitted as requested or fails to permit inspection as
requested, the discovering party may move for an order compelling an answer or
an order compelling inspection in accordance with the request."

Under Civ.R. 37(E), "before filing a motion authorized by this rule, the
party [**13] shall make a reasonable effort to resolve the matter through
discussion with the attorney, unrepresented party, or person from whom discovery
is sought."
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[*P29] We find that the debtor's arguments are unpersuasive, and the trial
court did not err when it relied on the debtor's admissions in granting the
creditor's motion for summary judgment. The debtor was deemed to have admitted
that she signed an application for the creditor's card; that she used the card
to purchase items; that she failed to pay the balance on the card; and that she
is responsible for paying the balance. The admissions were more than sufficient
to illustrate a lack of issue of material fact and to support the creditor's
motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the debtor's third assignment of error
is overruled.

Judgment affirmed.

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this
judgment into execution.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule
27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., JUDGE

COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, [**14] P.J., and

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CO
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2010, 08:50 PM
 
48,519 posts, read 81,063,674 times
Reputation: 17978
The mioan thing to notice is that the debtor eventwuolly hired a attorney after being loss in the porocess. thi9s is what a attorney is for and needed. Do not rely on any forum attroney as they are like jailhouse lawyers with nothing to lose and no trainig that allows them to presnt anything in court.If you need a lawyuer then get a real lawyer.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2010, 12:53 AM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,752 posts, read 18,404,323 times
Reputation: 8941
Quote:
Originally Posted by petmommy View Post
Bosco55 David,

I must really be a threat to you!! You are either an Attorney or a bottom feeder Collection agency. The FTC doesn't strike down their own rules!
Bad move. The Iraqi Army made better tactical decisions than you just did. First, let's start with the fact that you have pretty much spammed the far reaches of the internet with your tripe. So far a simple Google search has found you here...

Caller ID: Unknown Caller (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:FF25fwQxJ7gJ:www.namethatnumber.net/phone-call-id/unknown-caller%3Fpage%3D11%26%2524Version%3D1%26%2524Path% 3D/+rcmeek%40yahoo.com&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&clien t=firefox-a - broken link)

...and here...

whocalled.us / 866-460-9016

...and here...

877-465-0305 / 8774650305 (http://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-877-465-0305 - broken link)

...and here...

Allied Interstate Verizon Wireless Review | Rip-off Report #579832

...among a hundred other sites. Odd that just about everything you post is a blatant copy and paste job that's been posted everywhere. Huge, gigantic red flag #3 is that you ask people to EMAIL you confidential information. No one does that. Red flag #4 is that your opinion of debt validation is word for word what the collection industry believes despite the often intentionally misquoted Chaudry case and the Wollman letter absolutely obliterating that stance. How funny that your retort is "you must be a debt collector!" when the gap between my pro-consumer views and your pro-industry views is something like the spacial differences between galaxies. You've even been made aware that what you cut and paste is inaccurate but it appears obvious that you doesn't care about the inaccuracies as you continue to leave them unchanged.

I'm not sure exactly what game you're running here, but at the very least you're an incredibly misinformed consumer advocate who is giving people horrible advice. At worst (and my suspicion) is that you're putting on a pro-consumer front to gain valuable information about people's pending lawsuits and then passing that on to the plaintiffs in the case. Given the information I pulled up on you through Google, I even have a pretty good idea of which debt collector you work for.

In closing, let me reference one of my favorite movies.



Last edited by McBain II; 09-09-2010 at 01:13 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2010, 09:36 PM
 
36 posts, read 176,013 times
Reputation: 42
Really which collection agency? That's news to me. B/c If I work for any particular company; I'd like to know first! And the copy pastes, as you put it, is not have any copyrighted material. I know and am familiar with copyright laws also; as my husband and I used to work, in a similar company to UPS stores and Kinko's.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2010, 11:11 PM
 
1 posts, read 4,590 times
Reputation: 10
I have been sharing information and learning from "petmommy" and have found her very committed to helping people. She is helping me understand the importance of validation and verification of the debt. It really helps to understand what the law says, so of course, like anyone else, we go to the source , the law and copy and paste. A law is public information, but very difficult for most of us to find, let alone understand. I have learned more in a week from petmommy, that I have in a year with the credit consultant we have been working with. I am sending blessings to petmommy, and all of you others who are dilgently resisting the monstor of debt

Last edited by jmfavor; 09-12-2010 at 11:12 PM.. Reason: sp
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2010, 03:06 AM
 
36 posts, read 176,013 times
Reputation: 42
Sean:

I have recently learned that in Washington State, a lawsuit or Summons Complaint can be served to you BEFORE the Attorney files the Complaint in Court. Even though there is NO case # on the lawsuit at time of service - it is still considered to be Served, and needs to be responded to.

Yet if the Served consumer were to call the court, there would be NO record of the Lawsuit, Complaint and/or Summons. And if the served citizen doesn't respond, within the allowed amount of time, they will have a default judgment filed against them.

There is NO time limit, for the Attorney to file the Lawsuit in Court, once it has been served as a Summons Complaint, to the citizen/consumer.

And as has happened to a number of people, they send the Answer to the Complaint, to the Attorney, but go to file the Answer to the Complaint in Court; and find they aren't able to, because, the Attorney hasn't filed the complaint in Court, and there is no case #.

Again though, had they called the Court during the 20 days after being served, the Court will have no record of the summons complaint - Lawsuit; and no Case #; but that lawsuit is very much valid, and the clock is ticking for the deadline for an Answer to the Complaint, to be sent to the Attorney, on the Summons Complaint. Many people have found this out the hard way, and had a Motion for Summary Judgment filed against them which resulted in a Default Summary Judgement against them.

The best thing is to take ANY legal document, especially if served to you in person, very serious. Don't chance NOT answering the Complaint; and having a Default Summary Judgment filed against you. I can help you if you have questions. tlcpetmommy@gmail.com.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2010, 11:02 AM
 
36 posts, read 176,013 times
Reputation: 42
Recently it was posted that my information regarding Verification/Validation on alleged debts, is exactly what the Collection Industry uses; including Debt Collector Attorneys. I know that for a fact, as, their reply is nothing more than what I have stated previously. However I take my information from the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Secton 809, which I have copied to paste.

If anyone has information on the Chaudry case and the Wollman letter, that says differently; I'd really like to have that, so I can quote to the next Lawyer, who sends a collection letter.

And regardless what another Attorney posted against me, on another website; my OWN personal Attorney, who is suing 2-3 Collection Agencies for us, has confirmed, EACH violation is a $1,000.00, complaint claim and not an aggregate amount of $1,000.00. And in some cases, (please check with your own Attorney on this), there can be unlimited punitive damages allowed.


[SIZE=3]Section 809(a) requires a collector, within 5 days of the first communication, to provide the consumer a written notice (if not provided in that communication) containing [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3](a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing – [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3](1) the amount of the debt; and[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3](2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed; along with a statement that he will[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3](3) assume the debt's validity unless the consumer disputes it within 30 days, - [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector; [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3](4) send a verification or copy of the judgment if the consumer timely disputes the debt, and - [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3](5) identify the original creditor upon written request - a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]2. Who must provide notice. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]If the employer's debt collection agent gives the required notice, employee debt collectors need not also provide it. A debt collector's agent may give the notice, as long as it is clear that the information is being provided on behalf of the debt collector. [/SIZE]
Unlike a lot of Pro Se Defendants', I have won my cases in Court against Lawyers. I must be doing something right!!! I have also helped others, family & friends win theirs as well! My husband was just served a lawsuit last month, so I'm again back at work. Will keep you all posted.

However, b/c I am not an Attorney, I need to put my disclaimer in my posts:

I’m not an Attorney, I’ve had some formal Paralegal training. Everything I say/do is what I have learned through my own experiences, of fighting 2 lawsuits against us, on my own; and through research and extensive studying, of the Consumer Protection laws. I cannot legally advise you, but I can tell you what I’ve done, and/or what I would do if it were me in a given situation.

I am willing to help anyone who contacts me, via my email. I have guides, letters etc. I am willing to share, that HAVE been prepared by Attorneys.

I am becoming a Certified Paralegal, and taking classes towards that goal. I will help the best I can, and share what information I have, if contacted by email www.tlcpetmommy@gmail.com.

Good Luck to ALL of you, especially those being sued by Credit Card banks an Collection agencies.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics > Personal Finance
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top