• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

FDCPA & JRL lawsuit - Debtor won - SOL violation

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.



cosine

Senior Member
It sounds like the error by JRL is incorrect information from CACV and JRL's failure to verify that information. Would JRL now have a case against CACV for CACV's error, or does the fact they could have questioned this and failed to put most or all of the blame on JRL? Will Denby be fired or have a salary reduction?
 

You Are Guilty

Senior Member
Saw that when it came down. a) It's the 9th Circus, so I wouldn't expect too many others to follow suit and b) the FDCPA violations I have no issue with, but the purported "proof" of the $250k in damages is complete baloney.

Unfortunately, I don't think the USSC is going to get involved to fix it though.
 

cosine

Senior Member
Saw that when it came down. a) It's the 9th Circus, so I wouldn't expect too many others to follow suit and b) the FDCPA violations I have no issue with, but the purported "proof" of the $250k in damages is complete baloney.

Unfortunately, I don't think the USSC is going to get involved to fix it though.

The $250k was not direct damages per se, just the "emotional distress". I do suspect the jury was willing to go that high because the actual violation was no more than $1000. I think both need to be changed, but that requires a change of law. The actual penalty for doing the wrong thing (for whatever the law is relevant to) needs to be an amount to convince the guilty party to not do that anymore in the future. $1000 is not the kind of loss to cause a debt collector to fix their procedures so they don't try to sue on a debt that is past SOL. I'm not sure what it would take.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
It sounds like the error by JRL is incorrect information from CACV and JRL's failure to verify that information. Would JRL now have a case against CACV for CACV's error, or does the fact they could have questioned this and failed to put most or all of the blame on JRL? Will Denby be fired or have a salary reduction?

The incorrect information was corrected on Aug 6. In October JRL continued to aggressively pursue the debt. Since the information had been corrected months prior and JRL continued action with the correct knowledge, I don't see how JRL would have an action against CACV.

$1000 is not the kind of loss to cause a debt collector to fix their procedures so they don't try to sue on a debt that is past SOL



I disagree with your argument that a CA should be penalized for filing suit for a claim that may appear to be beyond the SOL. First, the SOL is an affirmative defense. Obviously that means the defendant must invoke that defense in order for it to be considered. Additionally, there is more to a SOL defense than just the passage of time. So, that would mean the OP would be required to invoke the claim of an expired SOL. Then the plaintiff would be allowed to rebut that claim if they have any evidence the time may have been tolled. At that point, it becomes a question for the court as to whether the time has expired or not.
 

bigun

Senior Member
In 2009, NC passed Senate bill 974 that provided protection against lawsuits that are beyond the SOL and actually defined what is needed before a lawsuit is filed.
The bill also deals with mortgage issues so I just copyed and pasted the section dealing with debt collection.

SL2009-0573

4) When the collection agency is a debt buyer or is acting on behalf of a debt buyer, bringing suit or initiating an arbitration proceeding against the debtor or otherwise attempting to collect on a debt when the collection agency knows, or reasonably should know, that such collection is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

(5) When the collection agency is a debt buyer or acting on behalf of a debt buyer, bringing suit or initiating an arbitration proceeding against the debtor, or otherwise attempting to collect on the debt without (i) valid documentation that the debt buyer is the owner of the specific debt instrument or account at issue and (ii) reasonable verification of the amount of the debt allegedly owed by the debtor. For purposes of this subdivision, reasonable verification shall include documentation of the name of the original creditor, the name and address of the debtor as appearing on the original creditor's records, the original consumer account number, a copy of the contract or other document evidencing the consumer debt, and an itemized accounting of the amount claimed to be owed, including all fees and charges.

(6) When the collection agency is a debt buyer or acting on behalf of a debt buyer, bringing suit or initiating an arbitration proceeding against the debtor to collect on a debt without first giving the debtor written notice of the intent to file a legal action at least 30 days in advance of filing. The written notice shall include the name, address, and telephone number of the debt buyer, the name of the original creditor and the debtor's original account number, a copy of the contract or other document evidencing the consumer debt, and an itemized accounting of all amounts claimed to be owed.

and:

58‑70‑150. Complaint of a debt buyer plaintiff must be accompanied by certain materials.

In addition to the requirements of G.S. 58‑70‑145, in any cause of action initiated by a debt buyer, as that term is defined in G.S. 58‑70‑15, all of the following materials shall be attached to the complaint or claim:

(1) A copy of the contract or other writing evidencing the original debt, which must contain a signature of the defendant. If a claim is based on credit card debt and no such signed writing evidencing the original debt ever existed, then copies of documents generated when the credit card was actually used must be attached.

(2) A copy of the assignment or other writing establishing that the plaintiff is the owner of the debt. If the debt has been assigned more than once, then each assignment or other writing evidencing transfer of ownership must be attached to establish an unbroken chain of ownership. Each assignment or other writing evidencing transfer of ownership must contain the original account number of the debt purchased and must clearly show the debtor's name associated with that account number.

"§ 58‑70‑155. Prerequisites to entering a default or summary judgment against a debtor under this Part.

(a) Prior to entry of a default judgment or summary judgment against a debtor in a complaint initiated by a debt buyer, the plaintiff shall file evidence with the court to establish the amount and nature of the debt.

(b) The only evidence sufficient to establish the amount and nature of the debt shall be properly authenticated business records that satisfy the requirements of Rule 803(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence. The authenticated business records shall include at least all of the following items:

(1) The original account number.

(2) The original creditor.

(3) The amount of the original debt.

(4) An itemization of charges and fees claimed to be owed.

(5) The original charge‑off balance, or, if the balance has not been charged off, an explanation of how the balance was calculated.

(6) An itemization of post charge‑off additions, where applicable.

(7) The date of last payment.

(8) The amount of interest claimed and the basis for the interest charged."

SECTION 9. G.S. 75‑56 reads as rewritten:

"§ 75‑56. Application.

(a) The specific and general provisions of this Article shall exclusively constitute the unfair or deceptive acts or practices proscribed by G.S. 75‑1.1 in the area of commerce regulated by this Article.

(b) Any debt collector who fails to comply with any provision of this Article with respect to any person is liable to such person in a private action in an amount equal to the sum of (i) any actual damage sustained by such person as a result of such failure and (ii) civil penalties the court may allow, but not less than five hundred dollars ($500.00) nor greater than four thousand dollars ($4,000) for each violation.

(c) The remedies provided by this section shall be cumulative and in addition to remedies otherwise available. Any punitive damages assessed against a debt collector shall not be reduced by the amount of the civil penalty assessed against such debt collector pursuant to subsection (d) of this section.

(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of G.S. 75‑15.2 and G.S. 75‑16, in private actions or actions instituted by the Attorney General, civil penalties in excess of two thousand dollars ($2,000)four thousand dollars ($4,000) shall not be imposed, nor shall damages be trebled for any violation under this Article. imposed.

(e) The clear proceeds of civil penalties imposed in actions instituted by the Attorney General shall be remitted to the Civil Penalty and Forfeiture Fund in accordance with G.S. 115C‑457.2."
 

TigerD

Senior Member
This is part of a trend that is going to completely change credit. In the very near future, many collection agencies will close and debts will not go to collection, but people will be sued immediately.

30 days late -- here's your summons.

Of course, interest rates and fees will have to climb and most of the middle class and lower will no longer qualify for credit.

DC
 

justalayman

Senior Member
I'll have to chase some cases but California has ruled quite the opposite concerning filing beyond the SOL. Can't remember if the cases I read made it to the circuit level for review or not though.

and to North Carolina's law; there is an inherent problem with it:

58‑70‑150. Complaint of a debt buyer plaintiff must be accompanied by certain materials.

In addition to the requirements of G.S. 58‑70‑145, in any cause of action initiated by a debt buyer, as that term is defined in G.S. 58‑70‑15, all of the following materials shall be attached to the complaint or claim:

(1) A copy of the contract or other writing evidencing the original debt, which must contain a signature of the defendant. If a claim is based on credit card debt and no such signed writing evidencing the original debt ever existed, then copies of documents generated when the credit card was actually used must be attached.

(2) A copy of the assignment or other writing establishing that the plaintiff is the owner of the debt. If the debt has been assigned more than once, then each assignment or other writing evidencing transfer of ownership must be attached to establish an unbroken chain of ownership. Each assignment or other writing evidencing transfer of ownership must contain the original account number of the debt purchased and must clearly show the debtor's name associated with that account number.

it is a very real possibility a credit card could be obtained and used with never having actually signed anything. I presume that is the intent of the requirement of the documents generated when the card was actually used would come into play.
 
Last edited:

Chien

Senior Member
I'll have to chase some cases but California has ruled quite the opposite concerning filing beyond the SOL.

In California, the SOL is an absolute defense rather than an affirmative defense. Naturally, it will be treated differently.

I think DC is right on. At least that's what I'd suggest to clients, in addition to getting the converse of the indemnification to which the CA was subject. I'm in the "9th Circus", YAG.
 

You Are Guilty

Senior Member
I rather hope that is the eventual outcome. Would serve those chowderheads right that in their effort to "help" this one plaintiff, they screw over the rest of the debtors in the Circuit.

Plus, it looks like there will soon be a lot more work for the lawyers in the 9th, which is also a good thing ;)
 

justalayman

Senior Member
In California, the SOL is an absolute defense rather than an affirmative defense. Naturally, it will be treated differently.
.
could you take a minute and explain the difference between an affirmative defense and an absolute defense, especially in terms of California and their sol laws?
 

davidmcbeth3

Senior Member
could you take a minute and explain the difference between an affirmative defense and an absolute defense, especially in terms of California and their sol laws?


An affirmative defense is one which recognizes the facts of the complaint but that is a defense that negates the cause of action (or one or more of the relief being sought) even considering the facts in the complaint are correct.

Examples: failure to mitigate damages & statue of limitations

I'll only answer this one.
 

Chien

Senior Member
God, I’m getting sucked back into posting on FA and it’s only my fault. Meth is probably less addictive, so I’ll fight the urge.

Hi, justalayman; long time no see. I’ve always liked to way you seem to look, question and learn. Now, you’re immensely helpful in so many places. And the juxtaposition with mcbeth is perfect.

An affirmative defense must be asserted or is waived. In CA, the SOL is an absolute bar. If I file a Complaint alleging that you breached a contract in 2001 (4-year SOL and no circumstances justifying extension/re-setting), the Court should dismiss that sua sponte. At the very least, the burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate a right to proceed. I, the defendant, don’t have to assert it as an affirmative defense, if the plaintiff has alleged in its/his/her pleading, and I have good grounds for a demurrer that I can hope will be granted without leave to amend. Of course, it helps me if you’ve filed a verified Complaint but, even if you haven’t and I haven’t asserted it as an affirmative defense, it isn’t waived. Per one online definition: “In law, an absolute defense is a factual circumstance or argument that, if proven, will end the litigation in favor of the defendant.” – i.e. not waived if not asserted in the Answer.

mcbeth, you seem to be posting right and left. Was I really impressed by your advice in the Civil Lit. forum that valid CA service of process could be made on a 12-year old? Uh – no. I know that people defend postings here as “just advice/opinion” but, if you’re climbing the ladder to “Senior Member”, couldn’t you take 5 minutes to research? Less than that would have been needed to know you were wrong and I see that others have flamed you since I saw Proserpina’s and YAG’s responses this AM. “Old Law”? As in never? That follow-up just added insult to injury.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
Top