What Why Chat said about First Resolution..

Posted by JKelly (141.151.91.180) on May 27, 2004 at 12:45:41:

In Reply to: What's the diffeence btw sold and assigned? Also.. posted by GettinHip2it on May 27, 2004 at 11:43:44:

The First Resolution that OWNS the accunt is a Canadian Corp. the First Resolution that has filed the suit is the Corporation that is licensed as a collection agency in Wash. State. (as a foreign Corp)
I raised the issue several months ago with someone who was being sued in MO. because in that State, their laws of civil procedure require that only a "party at interest" can bring suit.
I suggested he raise this an an affirmative defense. this defense is potentially effective in those States that require only licensed collection agencies be allowed to have any action filed on their behalf, since, (in my opinion) the filing by a collection agency licensed as a foreign corp. in Wash. that is not the legal entity that actually owns the account, is a subterfuge that defeats the state statues.

THEY WERE WHY CAHT'S WORDS, COPIED EXACTLY.
I I recall, you are in New YOrk which does not require license or bond..BUT there was something about Bullalo and NYC......so maybe you should double check with an attorney if they even had the legal right to sue your husband.
These people sued me JUST before the SOL would have passed, and actually I could have argued it. AND the only proof they offered was an affidavit that I owned the debt. AND THEY LIED ON THE SUMMONS. They claimed that they paid almost 6K for my debt, well, I now know that that is highly unlikely. So, guess they thought they would get a default because I had compleely ignored their phone calls and letters. But, when they sued I was in my attorney's office in a New York second. Well, anyway, good luck with this. If they paid the amount for my debt that they quoted, they really are stupid.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup