What is the name of your state?
Thought this would give some folks a little encouragement.
http://www.insidearm.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=9&threadid=6714
The OP is interesting but on page 3 of the thread, the OP's troubles continue:
Reply Quote Top Bottom
Go Get Them
Member
Posts: 40
Joined: Dec 2006
Thursday 08/09/07 9:29 AM
I think TX hit the nail on the head when it comes to defaults and debtor attorneys. The biggest issue is that there seems to be more debtor attys that "specialize" in debt collection emerging. I know they've always been around, but the number seems to be growing. We had two NACA (consumer/debtor atty association) attorneys handling multiple cases against not only us, but a couple of other purchasers as well. These guys must be scouring court records for debt collection cases and making a pitch to the debtors. For what it's worth, these NACA guys knew their stuff. They absolutely obliviated the two firms representing Arrow, with the judge threatening sanctions on one firm for repeatedly filing without any documentation whatsoever. Judicial grandstanding? Probably. But the firm dismissed every one of it's pending arrow cases that week.
Anyone in this business knows that litigating on purchased debt is pretty much a crap shoot. The legal standing in regards to cause of action, contracts, documentation, title, etc is sketchy at best, and if you honestly believe otherwise than you have been reading to too much indutry literature or something. I'm not going to stand up with a straight face and say that I honestly believe that the suing on defaulted debt I purchased at four cents on the dollar with little or no documentation gives me a clear cut case in court to recover the face value plus fees & interest if I submit my own affidavit or even manage to drum up an OC bill. What I will say is that I honestly believe (or rather I USED TO believe) that I have a good chance of getting enough default judgments or settlements to justify the cost or filing as well as the risk someone will want to fight it out in court, where I stand a good chance to loose based on the merits of the case.
What I am seeing now is a combination of things: A) A greater number of "informed" debtor attys via NACA and other such groups; B) An explosion of screw-the-creditor sites (Hello Dr. Tax) that are equipping debtors with the knowledge to fight us in court (thus leading to a decrease in the number of defaults); C) An increasing number of judges that are granting more weight to pro se defendants that answer their suits; and D) A greater number of judges seeking to further their own political careers by lashing out against "evil" collectors and "junk debt buyers"
I think a lot of it comes down to where you are in the country. I think the areas where a large number of people are drowning in debt (such as the Midwest) are becoming much harder to litigate in. My fear is this trend is going to continue, and I am worried about the long term implications of the current political environment. I know a business acquaintance at another firm is gearing up to buy a huge portfolio of mortgage deficiencies. I think he's nuts. I don't trust the current congress or the state legislatures one bit right now when it comes to creditor rights. I wrote in another post about how one state (MA I think) passed or was about to pass a law imposing a 6 month "moratorium" on foreclosures. If the government is going to tell a secured lien-holding creditor they can't recover their property, what gives people a shred of confidence that they won't declare that a third party purchaser can't sue for the balance, or that the judges (who need to be re-elected) will overturn that?
Just my thoughts. Maybe I’m just being paranoid.
(That’s a clue for my fellow board members to reassure me and tell me I’m being paranoid) Hahaha
One very large issue when dealing with old debts in the hands of 3rd party collectors is, can they prove a valid assignment. When a debt has been passed around a lot of different collection agencies, a lot of times who has the right to collect becomes murky. Yes, you may owe a debt but, do you owe it to the party who is making a claim?
http://www.alabamaconsumerlawblog.com/2007/07/what_happens_when_you_defeat_c.html
A collection suit in Alabama claims that the consumer owes money due to a breach of contract or due to an unpaid "open account" or under an "account stated" or "stated account" theory. (Please note this "account stated" is a twisting of the law and is not, in our judgment, a legitimate theory but that will be a post for another day).
As we previously noted in a blog post about the two essential things to remember when sued (which the Consumerist was kind of enough to mention), the debt collector or debt buyer must show that you (1) owe the debt to someone and (2) the debt buyer owns the debt (i.e. the "someone" you owe the debt to is, in fact, the debt buyer). In our experience, debt buyers are either unable or unwilling to prove both of these. They love to attempt to show that Alabama consumers owe somebody some amount of money but they typically ask the court to presume, to assume, to speculate, that the money is owed to the debt buyer. Thus, the critical factor most debt buyers ignore in court is to prove that they own the debt.
When debt buyers fail to show that you owe the debt and that they own the debt, many judges will dismiss the case with prejudice. Often debt buyers will agree on the morning of trial to dismiss the case with prejudice. (We believe they wait until the morning of trial in a last gasp attempt to hopefully get a default judgment against the consumer if the consumer or her lawyer does not show up at court).
Thought this would give some folks a little encouragement.
http://www.insidearm.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=9&threadid=6714
The OP is interesting but on page 3 of the thread, the OP's troubles continue:
Reply Quote Top Bottom
Go Get Them
Member
Posts: 40
Joined: Dec 2006
Thursday 08/09/07 9:29 AM
I think TX hit the nail on the head when it comes to defaults and debtor attorneys. The biggest issue is that there seems to be more debtor attys that "specialize" in debt collection emerging. I know they've always been around, but the number seems to be growing. We had two NACA (consumer/debtor atty association) attorneys handling multiple cases against not only us, but a couple of other purchasers as well. These guys must be scouring court records for debt collection cases and making a pitch to the debtors. For what it's worth, these NACA guys knew their stuff. They absolutely obliviated the two firms representing Arrow, with the judge threatening sanctions on one firm for repeatedly filing without any documentation whatsoever. Judicial grandstanding? Probably. But the firm dismissed every one of it's pending arrow cases that week.
Anyone in this business knows that litigating on purchased debt is pretty much a crap shoot. The legal standing in regards to cause of action, contracts, documentation, title, etc is sketchy at best, and if you honestly believe otherwise than you have been reading to too much indutry literature or something. I'm not going to stand up with a straight face and say that I honestly believe that the suing on defaulted debt I purchased at four cents on the dollar with little or no documentation gives me a clear cut case in court to recover the face value plus fees & interest if I submit my own affidavit or even manage to drum up an OC bill. What I will say is that I honestly believe (or rather I USED TO believe) that I have a good chance of getting enough default judgments or settlements to justify the cost or filing as well as the risk someone will want to fight it out in court, where I stand a good chance to loose based on the merits of the case.
What I am seeing now is a combination of things: A) A greater number of "informed" debtor attys via NACA and other such groups; B) An explosion of screw-the-creditor sites (Hello Dr. Tax) that are equipping debtors with the knowledge to fight us in court (thus leading to a decrease in the number of defaults); C) An increasing number of judges that are granting more weight to pro se defendants that answer their suits; and D) A greater number of judges seeking to further their own political careers by lashing out against "evil" collectors and "junk debt buyers"
I think a lot of it comes down to where you are in the country. I think the areas where a large number of people are drowning in debt (such as the Midwest) are becoming much harder to litigate in. My fear is this trend is going to continue, and I am worried about the long term implications of the current political environment. I know a business acquaintance at another firm is gearing up to buy a huge portfolio of mortgage deficiencies. I think he's nuts. I don't trust the current congress or the state legislatures one bit right now when it comes to creditor rights. I wrote in another post about how one state (MA I think) passed or was about to pass a law imposing a 6 month "moratorium" on foreclosures. If the government is going to tell a secured lien-holding creditor they can't recover their property, what gives people a shred of confidence that they won't declare that a third party purchaser can't sue for the balance, or that the judges (who need to be re-elected) will overturn that?
Just my thoughts. Maybe I’m just being paranoid.
(That’s a clue for my fellow board members to reassure me and tell me I’m being paranoid) Hahaha
One very large issue when dealing with old debts in the hands of 3rd party collectors is, can they prove a valid assignment. When a debt has been passed around a lot of different collection agencies, a lot of times who has the right to collect becomes murky. Yes, you may owe a debt but, do you owe it to the party who is making a claim?
http://www.alabamaconsumerlawblog.com/2007/07/what_happens_when_you_defeat_c.html
A collection suit in Alabama claims that the consumer owes money due to a breach of contract or due to an unpaid "open account" or under an "account stated" or "stated account" theory. (Please note this "account stated" is a twisting of the law and is not, in our judgment, a legitimate theory but that will be a post for another day).
As we previously noted in a blog post about the two essential things to remember when sued (which the Consumerist was kind of enough to mention), the debt collector or debt buyer must show that you (1) owe the debt to someone and (2) the debt buyer owns the debt (i.e. the "someone" you owe the debt to is, in fact, the debt buyer). In our experience, debt buyers are either unable or unwilling to prove both of these. They love to attempt to show that Alabama consumers owe somebody some amount of money but they typically ask the court to presume, to assume, to speculate, that the money is owed to the debt buyer. Thus, the critical factor most debt buyers ignore in court is to prove that they own the debt.
When debt buyers fail to show that you owe the debt and that they own the debt, many judges will dismiss the case with prejudice. Often debt buyers will agree on the morning of trial to dismiss the case with prejudice. (We believe they wait until the morning of trial in a last gasp attempt to hopefully get a default judgment against the consumer if the consumer or her lawyer does not show up at court).