Hi I am being sued and they have provided "copies of monthly statements" I believe I am going to attack them as hearsay but I'm not sure as to wether they actually are monthly statements from the OC or not. They say OC Itemization report at the top. Then the next line says UNIT/DEPT then it has some letters and numbers in a wierd sequence and then it says who it was requested by and the date which is semi towards the end of 05. Thats on the top of each page of these "copies of montly statements" Then each month has its own section that looks like this essentially. HD - HISTORICAL DETAIL as of XX/XX/XXXX ACCOUNT NUMBER ==> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX My Name ACCT TYP: XXX STATUS: XX XX XX XX NOW DUE : XXXX.XX SCHED NEW BAL: XXXX.XX BAL LMT : XXXX.XX PAYMT: XXXX.XX PRV BAL: XXXX.XX CASH BALANCE CASH LMT: .XX BAL : XXXX.XX TRN AMT: .xx TRAN DATE STORE# REG# TRAN# TC PROC TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION AMOUNT Then it lists the transactions which pretty much only comprise of a late fee charge every month and the initial charge. Never lists any payments or anything. Finance charge on avg daily balance of XXXX XX Current balance: XXXX Delayed Sales: XX New Balance : XXXX Theres several of these per page and several pages .Does anyone know if "copies of monthly reports" come like this and are useable as evidence without an oc affidavit or whatever? It seems pretty detailed but besides it saying the oc's name at the top I have no clue if it really did its not on the oc's letterhead or anything and there's no affidavit from the oc saying its true or whatever. Its pretty wierd that it doesn't list a payment ever. The now due does go down in may but not nearly completely and no payment is listed in the transactions part. There is also no explanation of the finance charge rate or anything it just shows the avg daily balance and then what the charge is. Does anyone have any idea as to what something that detailed would hold up like in court without an affidavit? Would the oc have gave them this much info when they bought the account but not the little bit else its missing? I appreciate any insight. Do monthly statements like this show payments? or just the charges?
Those statements would probably hold up... UNLESS, you have EVIDENCE that those statements are incomplete, or inaccurate. For instance, if you find one canceled check/money order receipt, etc. and those payments are not included into the statements, you've shot one hole into them. It would be up to you to convince the judge that there are similar missing entries like the one that you have shown. Secondly, open up Excel, plug the numbers in that they provide, every last one of them, into a spreadsheet and balance them... If that balance sheet doesn't rectify to an exact copy of what they're saying is owed, you've now found a second leg of that documentation to attack. I'll give you a good example... DADS (DUMB A$$ DIP S__T) Collection Agency, obtained an account, when they were demanded validation of the entire amount of the debt, they provided (after NINE MONTHS) three statements, with a SIX MONTH gap between them. Less than a week after they provided that good laugh, they tried to file a suit. During the three weeks that followed in addition to eatting, drinking, and sleeping here, and in Word in the version of the USCode provided on the house.gov web site, I was glued to Excel, nit-picking every cent which was un-accounted for... They chickened out and sold the account to the first fish that came along as soon as they found ut that I had the audacity to intend to defend myself. How dare I?!?!?! Here's the kicker, years later, I get the OC to admit in writing that DADS Collection Agency never contacted them to obtain the validation; and even when the OC provided the documentation directly to me... They supposedly made an "oversight" in the amount of $85.00... An "oversight" that I had actually discovered during my audit, and played dumb with until I "innocently" asked the OC whether the amount provided in their first documentation was the amount which they were alleging was the balance at the time they sold the debt. (Nothing like knowing to ask, not so innocent, innocent questions.)
First thanks for the reply. These papers do have some wierd holes in them. One is that it will say HD - Historical Detail as of then list a date like 02/16/2002 for example. But under that date it will list transactions that occured after that date. Like the late fee that is charged every single month. It lists a date that is in the future of that date. Like that example month the late fee shows as charged on 3/15. And maybe that could somehow someway be explained to mean that its the detail that started from that date going forward but then their very first month where they show the charge is thrown out of whack as(again the dates moved around by a little bit) it shows HD-Distorical Detail as of 01/16/2002 but then under the transactions it shows a late fee charged on 02/15/2002 and the initial charge on 01/02/2002. I guess these really won't hold up in court it seems and even if they do they never show a payment from me. The initial charge is also several hundred less than the new balance shown that first month and it says prev balance is 0 so that definately doesn't add up. Do statements like this usually show an actual payment in the transactions part?
These statements are likely to have been created from an accounting system after the fact, either the OCs, but possibly the CAs. If done by the OC, and done correctly, they could be accurate validation. If done by the CA, they are not. It they don't show payments, though, how can you determine whether the balance due is accurate? If the statements show a balance, then the itemization should add up to that balance. If any of your payments are not shown, either they won't add up to the balance shown, or the whole statement and balance will be erroneous for not showing your payments. Not only should each payment you made be shown, but in addition, the starting balance, and each monthly balance should match any statement records you have.
thanks for the reply Yeah each of these month summaries shows a prv bal and a new balance and they all seem to add up. Except for the beginning month and the one month where the now due goes down by a little bit and the new bal goes down by an even smaller amount with no corresponding payment in the transactions part. I'm trying to decide whether to just leave this be and use sol since they don't show a single payment and the initial charge date puts it past the sol period since the charge shows beginning of january 2002 and its 4 years here for written or open contract, or to attack this document and still go after sol but then worry about them somehow getting more documentation. I feel that they may be able to convince a judge that the now due and new balance going down show a payment though so I fear for not attacking it. ahhhhh. Thanks for the replies I really appreciate it.
