Texas court of appeals affirms summary judgment - WYATT v. CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCING
This is a very interesting case for all the morons on the web claiming that creditors are subject to the FDCPA, that creditors have to validate and that consumers can oppose the sale (assignment) of their accounts to scummy outfits like Capital One.
Wyatt cites the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1692 et seq. (West 2009), to support his assertion that he was entitled to withhold payments because COAF did not verify its assignment via certain statutorily mandated procedures. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act does not apply here, however, because COAF does not qualify as a “debt collector” under the Act. See Neff v. Capital Acquisitions & Mgmt. Co., 352 F.3d 1118, 1121 (7th Cir. 2003) (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act applies only to “debt collectors” as defined by Act); 15 U.S.C.A. § 1692a(6) (defining “debt collector” for purposes of Act).
It doesn’t matter how many times I post that creditors aren’t subject to the FDCPA, there’s an endless supply of IDIOTS polluting the internet with “sample letters” as sent by Wyatt (included in the court’s opinion.)
The court did a very good job summarizing what exactly happened:
WYATT v. CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCING
While the court of course AFFIRMED the summary judgment against Wyatt (as per the law), it did NOTHING about Capital One’s truly outrageous practices.
1) Capital One filed a contempt motion for the violation of an order NEVER served.
On June 20, 2002, COAF sued Wyatt in McLennan County to regain possession of the Kia. The court issued a writ of sequestration that, for reasons not revealed in the record, was returned unserved. COAF then filed a motion for contempt against Wyatt, apparently for refusing to comply with the writ of sequestration even though it was never served on him.
I’m also aware of several consumers who sued Capital One for similar practices.
Unfortunately, I don’t have the filings and they’ll most likely settle with a confidentially agreement.
Any attorney engaging in this type of misconduct ought to be DISBARRED.
2) The INTEREST charged by Capital One
Finally, COAF submitted affidavits establishing that Wyatt owed it $18,633.33 for its losses on the sale of Wyatt’s car. Wyatt did not controvert that amount, so COAF was entitled to recover it on summary judgment. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 185. COAF was also entitled to recover its attorney’s fees because it sued on a written contract. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001(8) (West 2008).
Why did Wyatt NOT challenge the interest?
At least he could have made an EFFORT and pointed out that Capital One pays NO interest on the money it CREATES when it makes loans. He probably would NOT have prevailed in court, but it sure would be nice to have the judges DISCUSS those FACTS so that people realize that it is TRUE and that I’m NOT spreading ludicrous conspiracy theories. I’d like to see appeals court discussions of these issues.
Of course EVERYBODY should have the RIGHT to determine who a debt can be assigned to.
Texas law and all our laws have to be changed to take the powers away from corrupt bankers and corporations. Nobody with half a clue would want a loan with a scummy outfit like Capital One.
Unfortunately, the ONLY way to get CHANGES is to stop paying our debts.
If everybody who qualifies for bankruptcy stopped paying their unsecured debts and “under water” home and auto loans to the big commercial banks, they’d be in serious trouble and WE would get the laws we deserve.
The tree of liberty is wilting.
Posted by Christine on 02/02/2010 at 01:26 PM
Credit - Collection - Economic News • (0) Comments • Permalink
