UCC 9-406

Date: Sun, 12/14/2008 - 11:01

Submitted by anonymous
on Sun, 12/14/2008 - 11:01

Posts: 202330 Credits: [Donate]

Total Replies: 4

Hi... Quick question about UCC 9-406 (h). This section states that... "This section is subject to law other than this article which establishes a different rule for an account debtor who is an individual and who incurred the obligation primarily for personal, family, or household purposes."
I have a debt buyer taking me to court for an alleged debt that they say I owe them. I have asked for a chain of custody for proof. I am not denying that the debt never existed, just that they (the debt buyer) has a right to collect it. My main defense was UCC 9-406, proof of assignment. But then I noticed section "h". Does this section poke holes in my argument? The debt was for a car.

Nope, they should definitely be able to prove the assignment if

Nope, they should definitely be able to prove the assignment if they want to claim you owe them.

Paragraph H just means that if your state has created other laws specifically for consumer debts, then those other laws will take precedent over the UCC.

lrhall41

Submitted by DebtCruncher on Sun, 12/14/2008 - 19:27

( Posts: 2293 | Credits: )

Thank you. I figured that they must show proof that they actuall

Thank you. I figured that they must show proof that they actually have a legal right to collect. I just didnt know which law to quote in case I am asked. How much weight will Brennan v. Spears carry? Are judges normally swayed by precedent?

lrhall41

Submitted by on Mon, 12/15/2008 - 04:52

( Posts: | Credits: )

In a formal setting, you would file an answer to the complaint,

In a formal setting, you would file an answer to the complaint, where you would lay out your defenses. You could also file a countercomplaint. Once it actually gets in front of a judge, the judge won't usually ask you to quote laws to him.

Brennan vs Spears isn't going to be a UCC issue, that's FDPCA. Specifically it has to do with a CA filing suit before they validated the debt, pursuant to written 1692g dispute. Did you already dispute the debt?

Personally, the way I see it, everyone has heard of Brennan v Spears; and probably anyone who wanted to sound intelligent has quoted that case. I'm sorry, not to put you down or anything; I just think it's cliche to quote that case. I would say don't quote it unless 1) it's actually relevant to your case, and 2) it would have a direct bearing on the judge's decision.

lrhall41

Submitted by DebtCruncher on Mon, 12/15/2008 - 18:17

( Posts: 2293 | Credits: )

UCC 9-406

the company I work for received a notice from a company to pay them instead of our vendor based on UCC 9-406. Is there anything from the court or our vendor I can get to verify this is correct?

lrhall41

Submitted by on Thu, 01/08/2009 - 12:35

( Posts: | Credits: )