One of our primary goals is to help you cut your research time and place everything you need in one place. Here are some good Opinions, Consent Judgments and State Attorney General Rulings against Midland that focus on a lack of proof of ownership or assignment of the debtor's debt.
Here we can see Midland loses with an Affidavit that is based upon electronic records but no specific proof of an assignment and the defendant never showed up to court-Court still ruled against Midland and described the necessity of proof debt ownership specific to the debtor.)
This two page opinion shows that MCM could not have completed any independent verification of the accuracy of the credit card statements.
Attacking credibility of Midland relying upon computer records to falsely prove ownership of the debt. Most if not all of Midland/MCM Affidavits rely on computer records. See our Affidavit section.
The Court asks who is giving the Legal Specialist authority to speak for MCM and Midland at the same time. Here, the Court attacks the use of the Legal Specialist for giving herself authority to give herself authority-See Page 7-8) Best line in the Opinion "This file would be the antithesis of a record of routine business activity maintained in the ordinary course."
Trial Judgment against Midland Affirmed as Midland's "Legal Specialist" witness could not provide proper foundation to bring in proof of the Original Creditor's credit card statements. Though it is irrelevant to the issue of debt ownership, Midland uses proof of credit statements as proof the debtor used the credit card so therefore Midland owns the debt. Hang tough here because a lot of Judges believe this too.
Midland waives the right to Arbitrate the claim against Debtor by litigating its collection claim.
Midland fails to lay the proper foundation to prove an assignment of the debt and loses Motion to Compel Arbitration argument in the 7th Circuit.
Midland loses another Arbitration enforcement case on appeal.
Another one where Midland litigates a collection case then asks for arbitration. Arbitration is waived because of the litigation.
Midland loses Motion to Compel Arbitration in Eastern Michigan Federal Court. Court cited assignment case law, doubts raised by AAA, CFPB and OCC consent orders and the fact that Midland's law firm submitted the wrong sales agreement and paperwork. "The Court cannot be certain at this point whether, in light of these issues, there would be a sufficient foundation to permit the admission of the business records Defendants seek to rely upon."
Consent Order from 2015 against Midland and parent Encore for violations based on False Affidavits, False Collection Lawsuits and Failing to Validate debts properly. Consent Order is signed by Midland and Court's will respect this if your case involves one of the violation in the Order.
Texas goes after Midland Funding. Good review of how Midland operates and its use of the Affidavit attached to its lawsuits.
Minnesota AG punishes Midland Funding for falsely targeting people for debts they did not owe.
You have to know the 6th Circuit's Harvey Rule when suing Midland for not providing the proper paperwork.
Attacking Midland's sworn Affidavit that states that the debtor use been "sued upon" weeks before they have. 6th Circuit's Tyler Rule as to when does the debt collector violate the law with a lawsuit. "Third, there is no good reason to protect debt collectors who have filed complaints but not yet served process. As the purpose of the FDCPA “is to regulate the actions of debt collectors,” Naas, 130 F.3d at 893, the focus should be on the debt collector's actions, not on the awareness of the debtor. Filing suit is good evidence of an attempt to collect, and the complaint is good evidence of the details of that attempt."
Good case where a debt collector loses on appeal for only making "bare assertions" of a specific debt being included in debt pool from Citibank to Unifund.
Midland sues a person that did not owe the debt and fails to prove a bona fide error defense for its actions in suing the wrong person.
Bona fide error defense does not apply when the mistake is one of law-US Supreme Court Holding.
Good discussion on trustworthiness of documents and 803(6) evidence with case law for research included.
Good discussion on use of the a generic card holder agreement that Midland provides in its cases. You can also see typical motion practice of Midland and its fluid positions made up on the fly.
Midland's Affidavits, Bill of Sale proof and other supporting testimony rely on the use and review of electronic records they never reveal in court. Good case on Midland's use of computer evidence and trustworthiness.
Midland loses appeal because their Legal Specialists lack personal knowledge of documents they rely upon.
Court relies upon a Midland case to support ruling against another debt collector because of failure to prove 803(6) personal knowledge.
Good discussion on the relationship of MCM and Midland as Midland loses on its theory that it is a passive entity and not subject to regulation.
Review an Idaho case Stimpson v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. et al (4:17-cv-00431), Idaho District Court, Filed: 10/16/2017 for a great analysis on the authority of the Affiant and the 803(6) business records exception.
In an Assignment case, Court rules against LVNV Funding for using Affidavits that refer to documents not attached to the Affidavit.
The Michigan Court Rules.
See below for motions, responses briefs and anything else I will continue to add. See the transcript of a judge who claims to have read my brief but her words clearly show otherwise. I tagged everything to make it easier for her but her mind was made up. This is something I have to work around and I have to appeal the judge and take the long game. Again, see the stuff from Mike Bassett above.
Copyright © 2018 Brian P. Parker PC - All Rights Reserved.
Use or review of the information on this website does not create any Attorney/Client Relationship and we offer only information, not advice. Accessing this page, and any interior pages, is a request for information. The information contained on this web site is based on my 25 years practicing law in Michigan and Florida and is for educational purposes only. Nothing on any of the pages of this website, or on any pages linked to these pages, shall be construed as an agreement to represent the user or reader and is not legal advice, nor shall anything on these pages by itself operate to create an attorney/client relationship. The words, "Practice Tip" are for my use only and how I practice. An attorney/client relationship cannot be created before the firm has accepted the representation and confirmed the representation in writing.
Disclaimer: The Tips, Forms, Briefs, Opinions, ideas and support for cases in general and within this web site are for educational purposes only. Use of the words "you" or "your" are not to be construed as directing you to action by me. I always mean "I" as in "This is what I would do" and never mean, no matter what context "This is what you should do." For specific legal advice that applies to your individual situation, you must be more than a viewer or user of this website to be a client of our law firm. I wish you the best and hope my ideas and experience generate your own.