Because of interest and late fees, a debt of less than $70 ballooned to over $1000 by the time a bad debt buyer purchased it. The buyer stated that the balance it bought was “principal” and added its own interest thereafter. The plaintiff had to show both that the statement was false, and that it would mislead the unsophisticated consumer. From the perspective of the debt buyer, the interest charged by the original creditor was very much part of the principal. Defendant obtained the entire debt, including interest, presumably for pennies on the dollar; so the starting or original amount owed, as far as it was concerned, was full amount of the debt. The amount of the debt from the collector’s perspective was what it was seeking. This would not be technically false or deceptive to the consumer.
Very relevant. Midland added interest from the time of charge-off — NOT from the time when it purchased my accounts.
Not only is this one more reason to have ALL Midland judgments vacated, but the FDCPA needs to be enhanced to state that collectors MUST provide the interest rate and the time period they charged interest.
I’ve seen a decision stating that the collector does NOT need to disclose the interest rate — totally crazy!
I’m going to look for people with Midland judgments, settlements and even open accounts, although it is impossible to determine what the DATES interest was charged for from their collection letter — which is WHY the FDCPA has to be updated.
Legal Action. We generally refer accounts for legal action where the consumer has not responded to our direct mail efforts or our calls and it appears the consumer is able, but unwilling, to pay their obligations. When we decide to pursue legal action, we place the account into our internal legal channel or refer them to our network of retained law firms. If placed to our internal legal channel, attorneys in that channel will evaluate the accounts and make the final determination whether to pursue legal action. If referred to our network of retained law firms, we rely on our law firms’ expertise with respect to applicable debt collection laws to evaluate the accounts placed in that channel in order to make the decision about whether or not to pursue collection litigation. Prior to engaging an external law firm (and throughout our engagement of any external law firm), we monitor and evaluate the firm’s compliance with consumer credit laws and regulations, operations, financial condition, and experience, among other key criteria. The law firms we hire may also attempt to communicate with the consumers in an attempt to collect their debts prior to initiating litigation. We pay these law firms a contingent fee based on amounts they collect on our behalf. [emphasis added]
However, I haven’t found a Midland lawsuit in Arizona since 2013. What’s going on?
“Prior to engaging an external law firm (and throughout our engagement of any external law firm), we monitor and evaluate the firm’s compliance with consumer credit laws and regulations, operations, financial condition, and experience, among other key criteria.”
That’s VERY interesting, need to find out through discovery how hey evaluated the Bursey & Assciates “compliance.”
Risks Related to Our Business and Industry
Financial and economic conditions affect the ability of consumers to pay their obligations, which could harm our financial results.
Economic conditions globally and locally directly affect unemployment, credit availability, and real estate values. Adverse conditions, economic changes, and financial disruptions place financial pressure on the consumer, which may reduce our ability to collect on our consumer receivable portfolios and may adversely affect the value of our consumer receivable portfolios. Further, increased financial pressures on the financially distressed consumer may result in additional regulatory requirements or restrictions on our operations and increased litigation filed against us. These conditions could increase our costs and harm our business, financial condition, and operating results. [emphasis added]
I have the PERFECT case to get legislators to FINALLY enhance the FDCPA and bring it up to current standards.
I’ll never forget Elizabeth Warren’s outrage over debt collection abuse before she became a senator and with some luck, we might have a chance of getting FDCPA enhancements after next year’s election. There are SO many conflicting and truly bizarre decisions, it’s about time that the FDCPA is amended and the $1,000 statutory damages from the 70s adjusted for inflation.
The problem is NOT what Midland and the Bursey attorneys have done to me, but that they don’t think it’s wrong. For SIX years they’ve been litigating against me, denying ANY wrong doing!
I have not yet looked into the PEOPLE running Encore / Midland, but they really ought to be in prison.
If consumers get caught stealing at Wal-Mart a few times, they’ll go to jail!
Why are these thugs at Encore / Midland NOT prosecuted for CRIMINAL fraud?
There have been so many lawsuits and regulatory actions over their robo signing and submitting inadmissible evidence in collection suits — yet they did not quit these heinous illegal practices.
Paying a few million in fines to regulators is NOTHING for them. It’s a cost of doing business just like UPS and Fed Ex pay parking tickets.
Encore income from the 2018 K-10 filed with the SEC:
The Selected Operating Data was derived from our books and records (in thousands, except per share data):
Income from continuing operations before income taxes: 156,488
The new WordPress so sucks — NO quotes, hardly any formatting options. So this is from NCLC:
Evans v. Portfolio Recovery Assoc., 889 F.3d 337 (7th Cir. 2018). Four consumers separately disputed amount of their debts with debt buyer who reported each debt to consumer reporting agencies without noting that the amount was disputed. The Seventh Circuit first held that the consumers’ alleged violation of § 1692e(8) was sufficient to show an injury-in-fact for Article III standing purposes because of the risk of financial harm caused by an inaccurate credit rating. Upholding summary judgment for the consumers on the merits of their § 1692e(8) claims, the court affirmed that the consumers disputed the debt by including the statement “the amount reported is not accurate” in their letters. The court also concluded that failure to inform a consumer reporting agency about a debt is always material. The Seventh Circuit rejected the debt buyer’s bona fide error defense because its failure to understand that the letter raised a dispute was a mistake of law.
The Arizona legislature changed the statute of limitations for credit cards from 3 to 6 years in 2011. The new law became effective on 7/20/11. [DSOF 4] Therefore, the 3-year statute of limitations applies to the alleged debt as it was not subject to a written agreement [DSOF 5] and all my credit card accounts were “open” accounts:
ARS 12-543 Oral debt; stated or open account; relief on ground of fraud or mistake; three year limitation There shall be commenced and prosecuted within three years after the cause of action accrues, and not afterward, the following actions:
For debt where the indebtedness is not evidenced by a contract in writing.
Upon stated or open accounts other than such mutual and current accounts as concern the trade of merchandise between merchant and merchant, their factors or agents, but no item of a stated or open account shall be barred so long as any item thereof has been incurred within three years immediately prior to the bringing of an action thereon. [emphasis added]
I have not used any credit card that I later defaulted on after June 2008 [Affidavit ¶2, DSOF 6]. Midland filed the complaint on June 11, 2012. [DSOF 7]
Pursuant to ARS 12-505, an action barred by pre-existing law is not revived by amendment of the law:
ARS 12-505. Effect of statute changing limitation
An action barred by pre-existing law is not revived by amendment of such law enlarging the time in which such action may be commenced.
This action is time barred:
Midland failed to produce a written contract and it can not produce a written agreement as I did not have written contracts with any of my credit card issuers. [Affidavit ¶3, DSOF 5]
Midland can not possible document charges less than 3 years prior to 7/20/11, the effective date of the new 6 year statute of limitations [Affidavit ¶2, DSOF 6]
Time barred actions are not revived by amendment of the law.
Midland filed suit on 6/11/12, when the action was already time barred.
Attached hereto is DSS Financial v. Deborah Walrod as Exhibit A. On 1/15/09 The Maricopa County Superior Court concluded on appeal that the action for a First USA credit card was time barred as the last charge occurred over 3 years prior to the filing of the lawsuit.
In LVNV Funding v Leslie Thompson, Exhibit B, the Maricopa County Superior Court ruled on 2/15/08 that a claim for a Sears charge card was time barred because the last charge occurred over 3 years prior to the filing of the lawsuit.
Even if Midland could provide admissible evidence to document its claim, this action would be time barred.
The court dismissed Midland’s claim because the SOL had expired.
In the reader’s case, I would argue that the 3-year statute of limitations for open accounts applies, provided that the debt buyer failed to provide a written contract. A credit line is not a credit card as defined by ARS A.R.S. § 13-2101,
PS: I would also always challenge the authenticity of debt buyer documentation such as bills of sale, account docs, etc. as I prevailed against debt buyer Acarta because they could not establish standing (the AZ court of appeals remanded after superior court had granted the Acarta motion for summary judgment.)
I think we should have worldwide mass tongue removals of pathological liars.
Leave them their lives, don’t even remove them from office or function. Just remove their tongue.
The archetype “The Devil” or “Baal” is called the Lord of Lies for a reason. All power of intimidation comes from Lying. Weapons are only secondary, The Lie is primary.
Although there are other forms or tools used for Lying, truly the most effective way of lying (and causing the greatest psychological damage) is speech. Remove that power, and it is like clipping wings.
Also most of the power of a Lie comes from its quick, ad hoc, response (or failing that, its dragged out empty circular rhetoric). It catches people unawares and off guard.
The written word does not nearly have so much power. This is due to the time-delay because of the reading and the processing of the words in our brains. It is a personal process, and will allow our own thoughts greater control over what is being assimilated.
So the removal of tongues from the Liars will greatly help others see through the bullshit.
There’s a thought. But I think the keyboard also needs to be taken away.
It is true that the written word does not have that much power because you have time to consider a response, if it’s possible to respond.
And that’s the reason why I never want to argue with lawyers in court — where I don’t have any time at all to think about how to prove that they’re lying. And often there are so many lies, you just don’t have time to address them all.
An excellent article on “basic income”, also discussed in Germany as “Grundeinkommen”:
We know it works great in Alaska and of course the “world’s greatest countries” such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. They actually give some of the money from natural resources to their citizens.
In the US (except for Alaska), our assets including OUR resources such as oil and minerals are being funneled to the CORPORATIONS.
In case you’re wondering why I’m posting on this subject at a website about credit litigation …
If we had a basic income of $1,000/month, MANY people could take time to fight predatory lending practices, lying lawyers and court rules and policies designed to make it IMPOSSIBLE for a consumer to actually “win.” Having worked with home buyers and clients who needed to improve their credit rating for almost 25 years, I know that most people just don’t have the TIME to fight abusive creditors, debt buyers and their henchmen.
Back in the 70s I was sure that the 20-hour week was only 20 years away. But something happened just around the time Reagan was elected and instead of working fewer hours, we worked MORE hours to be able to survive.
And it doesn’t matter who was president since, the working people got to work harder and longer with few benefits while the rich got richer.
Obama threw us a bone with Obama Care. For me it’s a blessing because I actually got free health insurance now. Midland Funding’s henchmen argue that I don’t have any damages for emotional distress because I couldn’t afford to see a doctor.
Debt buyers claim that unless you are rich, you cannot be damaged!
I made the decision to drop out of this corrupt system many years ago and I moved to the desert in 2001. I have friends and clients who support me and I was able to put up a fight. If we had a basic income, I would have been able to publicize my litigation against Capital One (they sued me 3 times and finally gave up) and debt buyers Acarta and Midland and I would have had the time to contact regulators and legislators. MANY people could afford to FIGHT BACK against these vultures if they weren’t struggling to get by.
I doubt we’ll see basic income any time soon as the corporations know exactly how far they can push the people and they make sure that most people will have a place to live and food on the table — crappy GMO food that makes people sick and that of course results in even greater profits for the pharmaceuticals.
Most people are so busy working and watching TV, they don’t have the slightest clue what’s going on. For a lot more info basic income and many reference links please read:
As I’m preparing for extensive battles with Midland Funding, MCM and their attorneys Bursey & Associates and there’s the possibility of another appeal in the Acarta suit, I finally made the time to set up the new litigation forum.
Today I researched the electronic filing rules in Arizona federal court because I had to file a motion for an extension of time to serve the Bursey employees. It’s been several years since I filed in federal court and the system sure changed. So I started by posting the regs for proposed orders and courtesy copies to the judge.
I’ll be posting case law and my research and I hope the information will help many others prevail against creditors and debt buyers in court.
I’m sorry many subscribers recently received notices of the “account suspended”. I have no idea WHY these mailings went out after my webhost briefly suspended ALL my sites because one old archived blog was hacked.
The GOOD news: These notices reminded me that I need to migrate the CreditSuit blog to the WordPress software as the Expression Engine software completely crashed and even their paid support could not get it working again. I’m currently looking for someone to import all the old blogs and comments into WordPress.
In the meantime, I am starting this NEW WordPress blog about my own litigation against creditors and debt buyers and my clients’ battles with credit bureaus and creditors.
As you may know, I also have several credit related blogs at Liars & Cheats Exposed.
My case against debt buyer Acarta in the Arizona court of appeals and last week I received notice that the appeals court ruled in my favor on several issues:
In February I prevailed against debt buyer Midland Funding as the court granted my cross motion for summary judgment because the SOL was expired.
However, the court had previously dismissed my counterclaims and denied my motion for leave to amend my answer and counterclaims, so I appealed this decision.
I am hoping that I will find the time to submit a formal complaint to the AZ judiciary committee and the AG because it is one of the worst states to be in with respect to debt collection compliance enforcement. The judges are totally corrupt and the regulators do NOTHING.