Has anyone EVER proven that Cap 1 was NOT the true plaintiff in a lawsuit?
Date: Tue, 02/01/2011 - 01:03
I think its a significant issue, some States do not require Collection Attorneys to be licensed as long as they are representing a client rather then buying the debt.
It does change how you would defend an action against you.
especially when faced with an affidavit, do they have original knowledge? it might affect how you would proceed in account stated,
its really an attempt to subvert and deny the consumer their rights to due process, it's confusing, and it violates court rules.
Sure you can say if the credit report doesn't indicate the accounts sold then its not, after all credit reports are never wrong, you can say if Cap1 is the listed plaintiff that it must be so after all Collection Attorneys are honest people.
If a consumer wants proof of assignment so that they know for sure who they are dealing with why not give it to them and be done with it? They don't want a pament agreement with a reduced balance, they want a judgment and 10 years of garnishment so you get ignored intentionally in the early stages of collection by the CA's
thoughts?
True. There are some collection agencies whose main intention is
True. There are some collection agencies whose main intention is to garnish the wages of the consumers. However, I think that the consumers should also be more responsible. Several consumers don't bother to check credit reports and get a shock when they are served summons. If they do check their credit reports, then can know about their debts, creditors, etc. They can also know whether any of their accounts has been charged-off. This can help them deal with the situation in a better way.
Well for starters, Cap One rarely sells their accounts therefore
Well for starters, Cap One rarely sells their accounts therefore they are the true plaintiff in 99.9% of their court cases.
Secondly, collections on a judgment is time consuming and expensive. However, this is the way Cap one has chosen to deal with their receivables...the judgments preserve their rights to collect for a longer period of time.
How do you know for certain that is true? (just asking)
How do you know for certain that is true? (just asking)
but the problem with case law is that it doesnt show the full st
but the problem with case law is that it doesnt show the full story. Most often, when someone is sued, they do not know enough to challenge any claims made by the plaintiff. There is a similar one on this forum going on recently where the debt collector is WWR....they sent a dunning letter to the person claiming to represent Cap One, but not very long after they filed a lawsuit and they listed themselves as the plaintiff. Currently in this case, the person is waiting for the summons to show up. The only way he found out that he is even being sued is because WWR messed up. They offered him a settlement that he could not afford, and they told him that they would be suing him. Then, they came back a few weeks later, and said "here, we can offer you this lower settlement plan, and if you agree to pay it, we will let the court know that you agreed to settle...." Now up to that point, he never knew that they actually filed the suit. And then it gets even funnier--they told him one week later that they didnt actually file anything yet, and if he agreed to settle and sign a consent judgment, that it would keep them from having to file. At my suggestion he checked with the clerk and they lied--they did file the case. So they are breaking the FDCPA all over the place. They actually wanted him to sign a consent judgment while saying "this will keep us from having to file a lawsuit against you". If they are willing to go this far, what would it take for them to pretend other things?