Fighting Midland Funding & Bursey & Associates since 2013 in federal court pro se!

Missouri court of appeals rules that debt buyer violated FDCPA by filing lawsuit without sufficient documentation

Another GREAT appeals court ruling.  From the NCLC news:

Debt Buyer’s Unsubstantiated Collection Action Violates the FDCPA

by Jon Sheldon
NCLC eReports, August 2013, No. 9
Debt Collection

Royal Financial Group, LLC v. Perkins, 2013 WL 449343 (Mo. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2013), finds various aspects of a debt buyer’s collection lawsuit to be Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) violations. The only information the debt buyer had was the consumer’s name, an account number, the name Chase Manhattan Bank, and a dollar amount. The debt buyer also had a boilerplate credit card agreement with no indication of a link to the consumer.

I think this article requires a NCLC subscription and if you are involved in pro se FDCPA litigation, the NCLC FDCPA book is MUST HAVE and it comes with a subscription to the NCLC e-reports.

The appeals court’s ruling.

I will get the filings from this appeals court decision and I will post them in the soon to be opened pro se credit litigation forum.

The fact pattern mirrors the Midland Funding lawsuit against me (dismissed for expired SOL) and I’m now in federal court after I sued Midland and Bursey & Associates for FDCPA violations. Much more on that soon.

2 Responses to Missouri court of appeals rules that debt buyer violated FDCPA by filing lawsuit without sufficient documentation

  1. is a corrected veirosn from the one which was at issue earlier in Midland v. Brent. The ruling was primarily concerned with alleging personal knowledge which the one I have indeed does have that offending phrase. A person signed it in April of 2010 but the case filed against me in May of 2010 had no documentation proving standing to file and these affidavit never materialized until September 2010 when after months of stalling (why did they file suit only to stall it was obviously done to frustrate they get most of their ill-gotten awards when people don’t show up for court and so it pays to stall IF someone shows.) Having been purposely mislead and not notified as required by law in writing, a secret hearing was held in September wherein this affidavit materialized signed by someone who professed to know all the records pertaining to my alleged case. It was interesting to find that just a few months earlier she was fixing tacos at a Mexican Chain restaurant so I am not sure how she knew about my alleged account while working there. And her new job as a Legal Specialist was certainly an advancement from her previous no doubt minimum wage job. And it never materialized until the secret court date, no all those months I showed up in court nothing, just CONTINUED. Midland and the Judge had a sweet scam going actually.Being previously disillusioned by our court system I am now certain that few if any cases will be adjudicated fairly. What could have motivated the Judge to do an about-face, NOT MONEY surely. Judge Katz, in spite of the multitudes of protests with good arguments to back them up, decided to throw consumers to the wolves. Very very sad. Unbelievable.

  2. Are you saying that Midland got a judgment against you while you weren’t notified of the hearing? Did you notify the court?

    And, what did you do about the affidavit?

Leave a reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.