Results of Unsecured Debt package one year later

[scottinalaska]

Although this process has been hashed through at length on another post, it has been 6 months since Troy, my friend got sued by the hired attorney to collect on the debt for the car that is no longer in his possession(now an unsecured debt).
Let all who think they see the silver lining in a letter or two know that it could all be a razor blade that will cut you to shreds too.
I used the 12 page package on a 20K "debt" a year ago and the Credit Card Company(CC) has sold it off to a Debt Collector(DC).http://www.suijuris.net/forum/banks-...uestion-2.html It has since been hot potatoed to a third one now. The only reason is because of a letter sent within 30 days of each of their claims. I went with a Cornforth letter routine and thus far, so good. But just because the CC writes you off(they did) don't think that someone else won't come after you as they have me.


Now back to Troy. After a flurry of motions back and forth with the DC attorney, Troy gets this:

Although Defendant (Troy) has not perfected his claim, the spectre of a material issue concerning a previous billing error dispute[the title of Jason's package], has been raised. The court will allow the Defendant 15 days from the date of this Order to file any evidence supporting his claim that Plaintiff is precluded from recovering this debt because they did not respond to his billing error dispute. Plaintiff(Bank's lawyer) shall have 15 days to respond to any evidence submitted by the Defendant. The court will then rule on the Motion for Summary Judgment.

So here we are crafting our last attack. Anyone want to hop in here? Troy sent three letters to the bank 30 days apart "begging" them to respond otherwise he would consider the matter closed. The third letter(all sent certified) stated that he would have to consider it closed and thank you for your time.
I post this for due diligence for those who need to know what could happen. The judge accepted copies, poor at that, of the original contract above Troy's objections and requests for more definite statements. Troy has been scrambling to put together "proper" lawyerese statements and motions and objections that are kinda good. But his only hook to hang his hat on now is the original request for validation. Here goes.
scottinalaska

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by scottinalaska

After a flurry of motions back and forth with the DC attorney, Troy gets this:

Although Defendant (Troy) has not perfected his claim, the spectre of a material issue concerning a previous billing error dispute[the title of Jason's package], has been raised. The court will allow the Defendant 15 days from the date of this Order to file any evidence supporting his claim that Plaintiff is precluded from recovering this debt because they did not respond to his billing error dispute. Plaintiff(Bank's lawyer) shall have 15 days to respond to any evidence submitted by the Defendant. The court will then rule on the Motion for Summary Judgment.

So here we are crafting our last attack. Anyone want to hop in here? Troy sent three letters to the bank 30 days apart "begging" them to respond otherwise he would consider the matter closed. The third letter(all sent certified) stated that he would have to consider it closed and thank you for your time.
I post this for due diligence for those who need to know what could happen. The judge accepted copies, poor at that, of the original contract above Troy's objections and requests for more definite statements. Troy has been scrambling to put together "proper" lawyerese statements and motions and objections that are kinda good. But his only hook to hang his hat on now is the original request for validation. Here goes.
scottinalaska

This is good news. Perhaps you can make the affirmative defense of Accord and Satisfaction, i.e., the Defendant pleads accord and satisfaction. The Defendant sent the Plaintiff three letters warning the Plaintiff of their duty to respond, or waive the matter by default. The Plaintiff has failed and refused to respond to the letters. Thus, the Plaintiff has waived its rights by default under 15 USC section 1692g(b) of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").

Just a thought. :wink:

[masterduke]

Scott, What about the "Sum Certain" issue? Did they increase the amount of the alleged debt? The validation/verfication issue may not be enuff to stop the debt attorney/jerk judge(check the thread; Letters from Debt Collector for some clarity regarding this topic). You should look to your appeal process and start working on that(with the sum certain question) since if they have done this, there is a documented case now that states, it fundamentaly changes the contract. As the original contract never spiecified the actual dollar amount. This is now a class action suit(sorry to sound like a broken record here)
Stolicker v. Mueller, Mueller is the court case. Once the rats get Troy in court on this summary judgement motion the judge is gonna try real hard to give the debt attorney the "win". So having the appeal ready to file that same day will catch the rats off guard. But you gotta have something of issue, mistakes, judges conduct, lack of proper procedure, sum ceratin amount, etc. to litgate in the higher court to get anywhere. Somewhere in this action that debt attorney/judge made mistakes, its up to you to find 'em. Sure hope you do!