Land Sharks on the Attack!

[afterhrs]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? MI

****I have come to believe that when someone purchases your debt, that they can not attest to the accuracy of the debt, and it is considered
heresay by the court, because the current record keeper has no first hand knowledge of the account. I have an affidavit claiming they have , get this, "information and belief" about the original account. Is this truly
heresay according to the law
****I also know that they do not have the original contract, for some reason, it does not come accross with the purchased debt. I dont know if the original contract was lost or the original creditor doesnt send it for liablity reasons. One other possability is that the original contract has a
"non-transferrable clause" in it.
****They claim the original contract was "lost, destroyed or,
inaccessable." Sounds like a multiple choice exam to me.

Thanks
Afterhrs

 

[Tayla]

So may I ask, what are your legal questions being presented from your post? Curious on what specifically you are inquiring about.

 

[Ladynred]

****I have come to believe that when someone purchases your debt, that they can not attest to the accuracy of the debt, and it is considered
heresay by the court, because the current record keeper has no first hand knowledge of the account. I have an affidavit claiming they have , get this, "information and belief" about the original account. Is this truly
heresay according to the law

I don't know about hearsay, may not qualify, but I can tell you that that affidavit is only good for T.P. !! Unless they have first hand knowledge of the whole history of that account, they can't attest to anything !

I also know that they do not have the original contract, for some reason, it does not come accross with the purchased debt. I dont know if the original contract was lost or the original creditor doesnt send it for liablity reasons. One other possability is that the original contract has a non-transferrable clause" in it.

They never have the original contract - the debt buyer's don't buy all the documentation that goes with an account. A non-transferrable clause would refer to the account holder not being able to transfer the account, they would never keep themselves from selling a bad debt !

****They claim the original contract was "lost, destroyed or,
inaccessable." Sounds like a multiple choice exam to me.

Typical and fairly standard answer - they don't have the original contract, likely can't get it from the original creditor w/o paying more for it -- and that's IF the OC even still has it.

 

[afterhrs]

****The account was started back in 1991, before corporations became
suspect in every since of the word.

REGARDS,
Afterhrs

 

[Ladynred]

Not sure what that has to do with your questions, except that if its THAT old, then even the original creditor won't be able to produce a contract with your signature on it.

 

[afterhrs]

Ladynred,
That was the point I was trying to make.

On a different note, I am seriously considering reporting this attorney that
represents the company to the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commision.
In this state, they can not sue you for filing a complaint as long
as you dont tell anyone else.
Michigan court rule 9.104 "grounds for discipline" subsection 3 "Conduct
that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals.
This would be a direct response to the shady affidavit the attorney and
plaintiff filed.

Any thoughts,

Thanks,
Afterhrs

 

[JETX]

I have come to believe that when someone purchases your debt, that they can not attest to the accuracy of the debt, and it is considered heresay by the court, because the current record keeper has no first hand knowledge of the account. I have an affidavit claiming they have , get this, "information and belief" about the original account. Is this truly
heresay according to the law

No. The creditor only needs to have the records and an affidavit of fact. It is NOT hearsay (or 'heresay').

I also know that they do not have the original contract, for some reason, it does not come accross with the purchased debt. I dont know if the original contract was lost or the original creditor doesnt send it for liablity reasons. One other possability is that the original contract has a
"non-transferrable clause" in it.
****They claim the original contract was "lost, destroyed or,
inaccessable." Sounds like a multiple choice exam to me.

Was there a question in there??? If you are asking do they have to have a copy of the contract showing the debtors signatures to prove the debt.... the answer is 'more than likely'. It could be possible for a court to 'assume' a contract existed due to a provided payment plan, schedule, etc., but the court would obviously NOT be able to determine what the contract required.