I'm confused about this...
Date: Tue, 11/15/2011 - 10:07
My wife had a debt with MBNA, the debt was purchased by CACV of NJ. She was sued by Bronson and Migliaccio (CACV of NJ Collection Lawyers) and a judgement was awarded. Wage garnishments were started in Jul 2008, to date she has paid approx. 80% of debt. Last month she recieved a letter from Fein, Such, Kahn & Shepard, P.C.stating she owed then the original amount of the debt. We requested a validation of debt, the reply was, "They were substituted on the judgement", "And entire amount of judgement was due to them". We requested an payment history from the court and it also shows almost 80% of judgement paid. How can they do this?
[COLOR=black][/COLOR]
Is CACV of NJ responsible to show burden of proof or Bronson and Migliaccio or Fein, Such, Kahn & Shepard? We can show proof of payments through court records, do we have any legal recourse? Against whom?
[COLOR=black][/COLOR]
Thank You
[COLOR=black][/COLOR]
Is CACV of NJ responsible to show burden of proof or Bronson and Migliaccio or Fein, Such, Kahn & Shepard? We can show proof of payments through court records, do we have any legal recourse? Against whom?
[COLOR=black][/COLOR]
Thank You
Why would you have legal recourse? You have no damages...someon
Why would you have legal recourse? You have no damages...someone just made a clerical error. It happens.
If you are paying the prevailing plaintiff in the court judgment
If you are paying the prevailing plaintiff in the court judgment, you are clear until another party overturns that judgment on the assertion that they, and not the prevailing plaintiff to which you are remitting payment, is the true owner of the debt.
You have the facts on your side. It is up to another party asserting the debt is owed to them to pursue it. I would ignore them.