After filing my answer to the summons& complaint (for credit card debt) venue Michigan. I received a notice for a hearing. It is next month. The collection agency is suing me (not the credit card co.) Just the other day I received a copy of a summons sent from the collection agency to the credit card company requesting their contract/ pay history etc. So I then filed a motion to dismiss based on the false affidavit, sent a cc to the Coll agency. I received a response from the agency they are requesting denial to my motion to dismiss, as the reason they subponea the records is that they have 'electronic records and had to subpoena the records for the hearing. My questions is how can I expect the judge to rule on my motion and their reason for denial of my motion. Based on their answer of 'electronic files'. Why would you need to subpoena YOUR OWN RECORDS?
Thank You

All the CA have is a PDF file containing your name, address, SSN, Creditor name, amount owed. That's about it.

Now they are trying to get the docs necessary to validate the acount from the OC, don't let them control what is a proper validation ask them to provide a written credit contract with your signature and canceled checks(Proof of account), Statements from the OC (Amount owed), a user agreement with the OC (Late an overlimit fees) and I think something very important in this case... a purchase contract or solid proof of purchase, they need to prove that they really own the account now and you have a legal obligation to pay them.

The CA is always extremely reluctant to show this last item even thoug they always have it, since it contains the price they have paid for the account, some times is as little as 1% of the amount claimed. It does not look good in court when they ask somebody for maybe 10,000 dollars over an acount that costed them $100 it shows the true nature of their business.

Carl.-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheCleaner

It does not look good in court when they ask somebody for maybe 10,000 dollars over an acount that costed them $100 it shows the true nature of their business.

Carl.-

---

The true nature of their business is to hold those responsible for the debts they incurred, that remain unpaid.

I amazes me the number of people who actually feel that it is perfectly OK to borrow money, agree to the terms of paying it back, and then, just decide that there is no longer any need to be responsible, to those who loaned them the money.

VERY few people end up in court over a debt that they had no responsibility for, yet they look for any little loop hole that will let them off the hook for the very thing they accepted responsibility for.

What if they owed YOU the money?

Wouldn't the nature of YOUR business, be to collect it?

Your example of the purchase of a $10,000 debt for $100 is ridiculous.

You work in the collections industry... Right ?

I have seen Junk debt buyer's purchases on 10 and 12 years old debts for 1 penny on the dollar, if the debt still young inside SOL , never worked and with docs it might get to 40, 50 cents on the dollar at the most, usually they pay about 15 average for those portfolios on CD.

Carl.-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheCleaner

You work in the collections industry... Right ?

I have seen Junk debt buyer's purchases on 10 and 12 years old debts for 1 penny on the dollar, if the debt still young inside SOL , never worked and with docs it might get to 40, 50 cents on the dollar at the most, usually they pay about 15 average for those portfolios on CD.

Carl.-

---

Yes, I work in the collection industry.

I also accept responsibility for my debts, and I pay them.

Me too, if I can pay on time, It does not mean that I'm going to play along with the system against my best interest. Once you are late 6 or 7 months your credit is screw anyway paying or not, so what's the point?

The way this whole thing is been set up, paying a collection is not only unnecessary but also the credit doesn't improve in return for the payment, unless the consumer make special arrangements for deletion with the CA wich goes against the user agreement that the CA have with the CRAs, I don't really understand how you guys stay in business.

What we need if you want people to really take responsibility is a change in the laws and they way credit scores are calculated, something to make the act of paying a CA worth the money.

People own me money and I know... I knew when I decided to take the risk of extending credit or provide services that it is very little I can do if they have trouble to pay me, it is part of my business and the risk is acceptable I would be doing something else if it wasn't

Carl.-

We stay in business because of people with attitudes like yours.

People who believe that if they run into a little bad luck here and there, that it relieves them of the responsibility to re-pay the debts they owe, under the terms they accepted as well.

[QUOTE]TheCleaner: Once you are late 6 or 7 months your credit is screw anyway paying or not, so what's the point?

The point is you USED the MONEY you borrowed. You have the responsibility to pay it back.

Is it the fault of the lender, that you fell 7 months behind?

I don't think so.

Creditors provide just as much positive information to your credit bureau, as they do negative information.

The great part is, YOU get to decide if YOUR credit bureau is going to show positive information, or negative information.

They are there to simply reflect how responsible you are in taking care of your debts, period.

Well, that's the moral argument, good for the people who thinks that way. From my personal point of view and from the bank's point of view is not so personal, is only business,average profit and looses and calculated risks.

Seems that we deeply disagree on this point and we are not likely to see it in the same way, so if it is Ok with you I'd like to leave it like this.

Carl.-

We definitely disagree.

And I'm OK with that too.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.