logo

Debtconsolidationcare.com - the USA consumer forum

Forums
  • Latest topic

PLEASE HELP CAR REPO

Date: Mon, 04/27/2009 - 17:04

Submitted by anonymous
on Mon, 04/27/2009 - 17:04

Posts: 202330 Credits: [Donate]

Total Replies: 7


I recieved what I guess is a notice of defieciency 5 whole months after my car was repoed. The letter states that I owe $7,996.00 and the car will be auctioned off May 26th. The funny thing about this is the CA that has the account recieved the account last year when it was only a charge-off. When I tried to make payment arrangements with the OC they told me that they couldnt accept payment and to contact the CA who told me that the amount was only $6496.00. I paid them $2000.00 bringing the balance down to $4496.00. This amount was also reflected on my CR. So when I receive this letter today showing this so called balance I'm like whoa how is this possible. I tried calling the CA whose office was closed. So I decide to give the OC a call. After rudely being told by the collection agent that they didnt have my account, I asked if she would tell me if the CA owned the debt or if they were assigned it, she said I dont have to tell you that because we have no business with you any longer. I stated that it would still show whether or not it was assigned or sold and she said Im terminating this call. I call back and speak to a so called supervisor who tells me that the CA is only assigned the debt. I asked her to give me the chargoff amount and she said that she didnt want to give me this because she's not sure if its "accurate" I said what wouldnt be accurate about it if you charged it off there shouldnt be any diffrence with the amount that you show. She then states the CA is only across the hall, let me go and see if the manager can help you. So of course I get a light bulb in my head that goes off and Im like so what do you mean they are across the hall are they in-house she said no. I say are they the same company she said well no we have diffrent names, but why do you want to know if it was assigned I said well if it was assigned then the account could have been called back and I shouldnt have to deal with them, she sat for a minute. So I said well since you dont know any accuracies well then I will contact your president tomorrow and see what he knows.....any suggestions because I am confused? PLEASE HELP


also I did some research and found a case where the CA went after a customer and were awarded a judgment but it was reversed for some reason according to this:

Appellants did not assign as error non-compliance with R.C.1319.12 in their brief to this Court. Failure to do so constitutes waiver of that argument.

What does it all mean????

so confused:(


lrhall41

Submitted by on Mon, 04/27/2009 - 17:48

( Posts: | Credits: )


It's possible it is still an interest bearing account. If not then depending on your state's laws interest can occur on the account as well.

My suggestion would be to send a debt validation letter and they should, if they have all of their ducks in a row, be able to show you why the amount is what they say it is.


lrhall41

Submitted by FYI on Mon, 04/27/2009 - 19:27

( Posts: 1950 | Credits: )


The appeals case in question is here. Basically, here is what I can ascertain:

Appellant (the person filing the Appeal) defaulted on a car loan. The car was repossessed when the appellant defaulted. Then it went to collections. The CRA went to court and got a judgment. The debtor appealed the judgment based on: "{??14} ???THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR BY GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON AN AFFIDAVIT WHICH WAS NOT MADE UPON PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION, OR BELIEF AS REQUIRED BY OHIO RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 56??? (all caps on the original - see pg 4).

R.C.1319.12 is explained on page 6, beginning with paragraph 24. Basically, the collection agency could not (or did not) prove that they had the right to collect the debt for the original creditor, at least for discovery purposes (that's why you *always* request Discovery). That information was just above the paragraph you quoted and in great detail.

And the CRA had to pay court costs.

Yay!


lrhall41

Submitted by Chrys Henderson on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 01:45

( Posts: 2538 | Credits: )