It did not possess "equitable title" to the debt, only legal title to the debt. Federal law requires us to inform you that this is an attempt to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose. This communication is from a debt collector. Sometimes, making the right arguments and citing better legal authority can turn a loser into a winner.Ĭomplicating the picture here was the fact that Unifund CCR Partners was suing based on the right to collect only. Unifund CCR Partners purchased this account from Citibank (South Dakota) National Association. But like all areas of law, the theory in the complaint can make all the difference. Midland since the claim speaks to the deficiency of evidence rather than some kind of affirmative misrepresentation. It would mislead the "unsophisticated consumer" into believing that the debt is legally enforceable. If you do not then they may take a default judgment against you. They are counting on the fact that you will not respond or show up to court. Unifund CCR Partners then files lawsuits against consumers in an attempt to collect the debt. If the allegations are true, the court analogized the claim as being similar to filing a time-barred claim. Unifund CCR Partners purchased a defaulted debt from an original creditor.
UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS TRIAL
On October 6, 2008, the trial court entered default against Defendant, and a default judgment was entered for the principal sum of 14,174.37.
HOKE Opinion of the Court Plaintiff filed suit on April 24, 2008, seeking to collect on a debt from Defendant on a purchased credit account. Unifund CCR Partners, the consumer plaintiffs defeated Unifund's motion to dismiss by convincing a court that Unifund's arguable inability to prove custody of a debt as required under state law violated theįair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") as follows: Factual and Procedural Background UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS V.
0 kommentar(er)
