What proof is needed of assignments?

(1/2) > >>

Joey:
I am involved in a suit as the debtor where the Lawyer for the debt collector/jdb has submitted as proof of assignment/sale merely a piece of paper that has the buyer and seller's name at the top and a list of names and account numbers. And they submitted copies of credit card statements.  The seller supposedly bought the debt from the credit card company.  And they have not submitted other documents requested.  We requested all assignments and letters to me.  They said of the letters to me and assignments between the seller and the credit card company "not available at this time.  If documentation becomes available, it will be produced.".  They have filed for a summary judgement and court date is early next week.

I would like to know what is needed in court to prove they have the right to sue me and if there is caselaw to help me.  Is what they submitted enough in a judge's eye? Or any other suggestions. I have read about the chain of title on the other board.

Thanks!

fraudfighter:
Quote from: "Joey"

I am involved in a suit as the debtor where the Lawyer for the debt collector/jdb has submitted as proof of assignment/sale merely a piece of paper that has the buyer and seller's name at the top and a list of names and account numbers. And they submitted copies of credit card statements.  The seller supposedly bought the debt from the credit card company.  And they have not submitted other documents requested.  We requested all assignments and letters to me.  They said of the letters to me and assignments between the seller and the credit card company "not available at this time.  If documentation becomes available, it will be produced.".  They have filed for a summary judgement and court date is early next week.

I would like to know what is needed in court to prove they have the right to sue me and if there is caselaw to help me.  Is what they submitted enough in a judge's eye? Or any other suggestions. I have read about the chain of title on the other board.

Thanks!


For summary judgment, conclusive proof is needed.
Go to the Florida Case Law section and start reading all the Summary Judgment case law.

Is the seller the orginal creditor on this assignment document?

If there is no proof of chain of assignment from OC to plaintiff, then the inference must be taken by the court that a bona fide assignment does not exist and summary judgment is precluded for the JDB. Point that out using summary judgment law references to authorize the argument.
Look at the last summary judgment posting first.

Joey:
The seller was another debt buyer (Assignee A) who supposedly got the assignment from Bank A the original credit card company.  The attorney says the plaintif (Assignee B) is the assignee of the seller (Assignee A) who is the assignee of Bank A.  The intereesting thing is that another Bank, Bank B, bought Bank A and the credit card statements plaintiff submitted changed to reflect the name of the new Bank B.  Not sure if that means something too in the chain of assignment.  

I read the assignment post.  I am confused.  Is this assignment called an "equitable assignment " or a "legal assignment" or neither?  

In the assignment post there is language under REQUISITES OF A VALID ASSIGNMENT that seems to say that what plaintiff submitted (as I describe in first post) can be interpreted as an assignment even though there is no contract attached, merely a piece of paper called an appendix.
Am I reading that correctly? If so, then you can not defend that this is not really an assignment from Assignee A to Assignee B, right?  Your argument must be about the rest of the chain of assignment or lack thereof?

fraudfighter:
Quote from: "Joey"

The seller was another debt buyer (Assignee A) who supposedly got the assignment from Bank A the original credit card company.  The attorney says the plaintif (Assignee B) is the assignee of the seller (Assignee A) who is the assignee of Bank A.  The intereesting thing is that another Bank, Bank B, bought Bank A and the credit card statements plaintiff submitted changed to reflect the name of the new Bank B.  Not sure if that means something too in the chain of assignment.  

I read the assignment post.  I am confused.  Is this assignment called an "equitable assignment " or a "legal assignment" or neither?  

In the assignment post there is language under REQUISITES OF A VALID ASSIGNMENT that seems to say that what plaintiff submitted (as I describe in first post) can be interpreted as an assignment even though there is no contract attached, merely a piece of paper called an appendix.
Am I reading that correctly? If so, then you can not defend that this is not really an assignment from Assignee A to Assignee B, right?  Your argument must be about the rest of the chain of assignment or lack thereof?


If you search this site, you'll find a case law holding that points out that attorney arguments are not facts or evidence before the court, especially for summary judgment. They must conclusively show with evidence a complete chain of assignment and privity with you. Point out all points of insufficiency in their evidence to show it is not conclusive.

fraudfighter:
Quote from: "Joey"

The seller was another debt buyer (Assignee A) who supposedly got the assignment from Bank A the original credit card company.  The attorney says the plaintif (Assignee B) is the assignee of the seller (Assignee A) who is the assignee of Bank A.  The intereesting thing is that another Bank, Bank B, bought Bank A and the credit card statements plaintiff submitted changed to reflect the name of the new Bank B.  Not sure if that means something too in the chain of assignment.  

I read the assignment post.  I am confused.  Is this assignment called an "equitable assignment " or a "legal assignment" or neither?  

In the assignment post there is language under REQUISITES OF A VALID ASSIGNMENT that seems to say that what plaintiff submitted (as I describe in first post) can be interpreted as an assignment even though there is no contract attached, merely a piece of paper called an appendix.
Am I reading that correctly? If so, then you can not defend that this is not really an assignment from Assignee A to Assignee B, right?  Your argument must be about the rest of the chain of assignment or lack thereof?


Junk debt assignment is done by legal assignment.
Equitable assignment only applies to future contractual rights.

A piece of paper called an appendix?
Does it show on the face of the writing that it is an original creditor document or a copy of same contemporaneous with the enactment of the agreement?
Does it show on its face any evidence of your acknowledgement to an agreement or a debt?
Does it contain your signature on its face?
Is it a document that you have ever seen before or received from the original creditor?


Is there an affdavit from an original creditor witness with personal knowledge of the alleged facts and document that swears to the authenticity of the document?
If not, it fails to meet the Business Records Exception to the Hearsay Rule which is F.S. 90.803(6)(a), and is thus violative of the Florida Evidence Code, making it inadmissible hearsay and not available for summary judgment consideration by the court.

Also, if it is not an original creditor document, it violates the original document rule of the Florida Evidence Code, F.S. 90.952. Raise the issue of its lack of authenticity as an original document and thus it is violative of the Original Document Rule of the Florida Evidence Code and thus not suitable for summary judgment consideration by the court.


What affirmative defenses did you raise in your answer to the complaint?
Is yours a small claims case, a county civil case or a circuit civil case?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page