sandyclaus
Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California - for a friend.
Credit card was issued in their name back in 2005 with the now-defunct Washington Mutual Bank (Wamu). Friend defaulted on the account sometime in late 2007 and it went to collections with Wamu. A payment arrangement was made and payments made as promised until 2008, when the bank was taken over by Chase. Payments continued to be made under the agreement, but now were being made to Chase, until Chase decided to try to renegotiate the arrangement. My friend did not agree with what they were demanding, and let the account go. Since that time, the debt was sold and re-sold to several creditors, attempting to collect on the now written-off credit card debt.
Fast forward to today, when the friend received a summons and complaint by mail from CACH, LLC., the latest creditor to take the debt, to sue for the unpaid balance. However, CACH says they are an assignee of Wamu, NOT Chase. Per the above, Wamu no longer has the debt. They were the ORIGINAL CREDITOR, but did that designation not go to Chase when the accounts were bought out by Chase, especially when the payments continued to be made on the debt were actually sent to Chase after the buyout? Does that make a difference in whether or not CACH would have authority to sue for this debt?
Of course he is going to file an answer and request discovery to include the proof of assignment from Wamu to CACH, which is going to be mighty interesting, since Wamu has been defunct for almost 4 years now. He's just trying to figure out how to answer at this point.
Thanks for any input on this.
Credit card was issued in their name back in 2005 with the now-defunct Washington Mutual Bank (Wamu). Friend defaulted on the account sometime in late 2007 and it went to collections with Wamu. A payment arrangement was made and payments made as promised until 2008, when the bank was taken over by Chase. Payments continued to be made under the agreement, but now were being made to Chase, until Chase decided to try to renegotiate the arrangement. My friend did not agree with what they were demanding, and let the account go. Since that time, the debt was sold and re-sold to several creditors, attempting to collect on the now written-off credit card debt.
Fast forward to today, when the friend received a summons and complaint by mail from CACH, LLC., the latest creditor to take the debt, to sue for the unpaid balance. However, CACH says they are an assignee of Wamu, NOT Chase. Per the above, Wamu no longer has the debt. They were the ORIGINAL CREDITOR, but did that designation not go to Chase when the accounts were bought out by Chase, especially when the payments continued to be made on the debt were actually sent to Chase after the buyout? Does that make a difference in whether or not CACH would have authority to sue for this debt?
Of course he is going to file an answer and request discovery to include the proof of assignment from Wamu to CACH, which is going to be mighty interesting, since Wamu has been defunct for almost 4 years now. He's just trying to figure out how to answer at this point.
Thanks for any input on this.