Re: First Resolution and Missouri,-Need Help!
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Credit Forum Index ]
Posted by JKelly
(151.197.123.138) on July 07, 2004 at 23:46:46:
In Reply to: First Resolution and Missouri,-Need Help! posted by jayble on July 07, 2004 at 21:19:13:
You're right it was me. You got more than I did. I was sued in small claims court with only the affidavit.
I'll repeat what Whty Chat said about First Resolution. I had already filed bk when I found this web site and Why Chat, but he said I probably did not have to file bk. I thought the account was within SOL, but actually it was not. Something I learned here. WHY CHAT SAID:
The First Resolution that OWNS the account 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 raided this 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 as 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 subgterfuge that defeats the State statues. I PRINTED OUT THIS ANSWER. So, there you have it. A possible defense based on the fact that they are not allowed to sue in Mo. The burden of proof is on them. I think they are looking for a default, or a scared defendant. You can make them prove that the debt is yours, that all of the charges are yours and correct and that all of the interest is correct and allowed by Mo state law. REMEMBER, the burden of proof is on them. I don't think First Resolution CAs are very bright. My summons says.......
in short, that the plaintiff (First Resolution)
incurred a loss in the amount of $5,801.24. Of course, I did not know it then, but I now know that CAs just don't pay that kind of money for an account. They pay pennies on the dollar, so either they are really stupid or they are lying. This debt was quite old when they bought it and actually out of SOL when they sued. I say that now because I had paid Citibank a couple of partial payments, but the account had not been in good standing for several months prior to the April date that they noted. So, I was passed the SOL and could have used the SOL defense.
ANYWAY, IS YOUR ACCOUNT WITHIN THE SOL? Check that carefully. Mine was close, and if I had known then what I know now!
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup
|
