How in the world can a CA be an Assiginee of another CA, (both listed as plaintiff's) yet in the complaint/summons state they are the Assignee of the OC? I even called my state AG's office. They ( two different people ) didn't know the answer. They suggested calling the OC and finding out what they did with that cc debt. Anyone have a clue?
I don't have a clear answer for you, but lately I am wondering the same question. It would seem that the "Assigned" CA is acting as an agent, on a commission basis only, to a debt "owned" by the "Assigning" CA.
Perhaps this article will help clarify a bit......... http://paulexposes.com/lvnv-funding...ect-lvnv-fundings-junk-debt-buying-activities
________________________________________________ Thanks! This is what the Complaint reads: Plaintiff: UNIFUND CCR Partners assignee of Palisades Acquistion In the writings, it states: Plaintiff, as the Original Creditor's assignee." ____________________________________________________ The cc was Charged Off with Transfer/Sold _______________________________________________________ I need to answer the Plaintiff's Interragatories/ Production/Admissions, but...I'm certainly not going to give them the answers they're looking for because I don't HAVE the answers and can't get them. They never sent a validation back to me. They sent me the Interragatories/ Production/Admissions asking for the complete acct.#, my SS# and my bank acct.# that I used to pay the cc bills with, plus every correspondence/receipt from the cc company. DUH! They need to send ME info. I'm not doin' their footwork for 'em. I sure can't afford an atty., sooooooo...I'm tryin' to wing this on my own.
THANKS, bizwiz41 Seems odd they need my SS# and bank acct.# They've never even told me the complete cc# they say I owe them for.
That's not odd. That's what they need to suck money out of your account and let you worry about the details later.
You do need to answer this summons, don't let them get you on a default. You may want to answer that you believe this debt is past SOL (Statute of Limitations) for legal collection remedies. Let them prove it is not...
They will try to use your SS# as "validation", they will assert that they can validate this debt is yur through matching a SS#.
Thanks, bizwiz41 I did answer the Complaint and filed it in the Courts. In that answer, I asked them to validate the debt, including original billing, etc. etc. etc. Needless to say...they never answered me. Three weeks beyond their deadline to answer me, they send me the Interrogatories,Request for Production & Admissions. In those, is where they ask for all that info. PLUS, they want every piece of mail, including statements from the cc, and a list of all payments and copies of the cancelled checks. They wanna know who all I had/have a cc with...including the full acct. # of each. I don't have records of ANY of it. I'm 'bout due to pull my hair out. Thanks, again!
Why would they need that information? That has nothing to do with this debt.. this is a scare tactic.
That is exactly what I believe. The burden of proof is on THEM, not ME! They should already HAVE all the info. I'm trying to figure out whether I should answer all those questions with: "I don't have anything. NADA!" LOL! The sender of the papers is just as liable for evidence as the receiver. I'm gonna call the courts, Monday morning. Time is runnin' out & my eyes are bulging from reading every thing I can find on the web. I'll get my set of papers out to them, next week.
I'm sure there's a motion or an objection you could file. Or at least move for a continuance to investigate their requests. It sounds like they're trying to shake you up so they can get you on a technicality.
That's going to probably be news to them. Perhaps, but getting "the info" is what discovery is for. If one side can use discovery, so can the other. It might be nice to know "every single document and scap of information" that they have regarding this case. Don't you think that might be nice to know? What are you waiting for? Some of their questions might be improper. Generally there's no rule against asking improper questions. If the other side doesn't know what improper questions are, all the better! Whilte I might guess at what this means, I'm not really sure. Does this include the discovery rules for your court?
