Flawed Credit Card Lawsuits
Flawed Credit Card Lawsuits
Debt collectors are not the only ones filing faulty paperwork in an attempt to collect on alleged debts. As was reported in a recent New York Times article, original creditors are also filing faulty paperwork and overstating amounts owed in their credit card lawsuits. However, the article shows that Judges are starting to get wise to this:
The same problems that plagued the foreclosure process — and prompted a multibillion-dollar settlement with big banks — are now emerging in the debt collection practices of credit card companies.
As they work through a glut of bad loans, companies like American Express, Citigroup and Discover Financial are going to court to recoup their money. But many of the lawsuits rely on erroneous documents, incomplete records and generic testimony from witnesses, according to judges who oversee the cases.
Lenders, the judges said, are churning out lawsuits without regard for accuracy, and improperly collecting debts from consumers. The concerns echo a recent abuse in the foreclosure system, a practice known as robo-signing in which banks produced similar documents for different homeowners and did not review them.
‘I would say that roughly 90 percent of the credit card lawsuits are flawed and can’t prove the person owes the debt,’ said Noach Dear, a civil court judge in Brooklyn, who said he presided over as many as 100 such cases a day.
The problem is that the creditor is usually granted a default judgment because the borrower does not show up for court. This typically results in the borrower being responsible for whatever amount the lender alleged was owed in their complaint. The amount alleged to be owed is not always accurate! The same NYT article states that “The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is investigating JPMorgan Chase after a former employee said that nearly 23,000 delinquent accounts had incorrect balances, according to people with knowledge of the investigation.” So, as we have stated in the past, it may be a good idea to defend that credit card lawsuit!
The Law Firm of Vaughn, Weber & Prakope, PLLC can assist you with debt settlement and debt collection issues. Call (516) 858-2620 to arrange a FREE consultation with an attorney!
Debt Collectors Falling Short
Debt Collectors Falling Short
Debt collectors are third parties that buy debts from lenders. More specifically, debt collectors buy the right to sue for a debt. The problem is, they don’t always have all the evidence they need to actually win the lawsuit.
If you are being sued by a debt collector, or have other legal questions, feel free to call the Law Firm of Vaughn, Weber & Prakope, PLLC at 516-858-2620 to schedule a free consultation.
The Law Firm of Vaughn, Weber & Prakope, PLLC Can Help You Protect Your Business’ Identity
A company’s reputation may be its greatest asset. But a business can only acquire a reputation for quality by identifying the goods it produces, distinguishing them from those of competitors. Trademarks inform the public that a particular manufacturer is responsible for a particular product. The trademark of a business with a good reputation creates the expectation that a product will live up to the company’s exceptional standards.
By fraudulently using another business’ trademark – or even by using a trademark that is confusingly similar to the trademark of another business – a newer business may unfairly benefit from the reputation that an established business has built up over the years. Additionally, if the imposter product is of poor quality, it may harm the older company’s reputation. The public may begin to associate the older company with the poor quality of the newer company’s product. Fortunately, such use is illegal. It violates the rights of the original trademark holder, and can be stopped.
Businesses must defend their trademarks vigilantly. Otherwise they might lose them. For example, the words “Aspirin” and “Escalator” once referred to the products of specific companies. But the use of these product names became so common that they lost their distinctiveness. They were diluted to such an extent that they became generic terms, no longer associated with any particular manufacturer. Now, they are no longer trademarks. The lesson to be learned from this is simple: Businesses that don’t protect their trademarks risk losing their name, and their reputation.
If you own a company and need help registering a trademark, or believe that another company has infringed on your trademark, the Law Firm of Vaughn, Weber & Prakope, PLLC can help. Call our office at (516) 858-2620 today to schedule a free consultation.
Notice to Admit
What is a Notice to Admit?
New York’s CPLR contains several discovery devices. “Discovery” is the period before trial in which parties attempt to determine which facts they agree upon, and which facts are in dispute. The various discovery devices allow the parties to do this.
In order to understand what exactly the Notice to Admit does, it may help to compare it with the Interrogatory, which is more familiar to most people. With Interrogatories, parties send a list of questions to their opponents. Opponents then provide answers to those questions. The answers help the parties clarify their differences with regard to matters of fact. With the Notice to Admit, rather than sending questions, parties simply send a list of facts that they believe to be true. The Notice to Admit requests that the opponent confirm or deny the truth of each of the listed facts.
With regard to documents or photographs, the Notice may simply ask the opponent to affirm or deny the genuineness of documents, or the accuracy of photographs or videos. But the notice may also inquire about facts that are not contained in documents, photographs, or videos. If this is the case, the party sending the Notice to Admit must have some reasonable belief that the listed fact is true. Additionally, parties may not include facts likely to be a matter of substantial dispute at trial. For instance, if a party is sued for breach of contract, a Notice to Admit cannot include an assertion that the defendant breached the contract terms, since this is the basis of the lawsuit. This fact would have to be established at trial.
As long as the fact is not one of substantial dispute, parties must deny the facts contained in a Notice to Admit within twenty days. A party’s silence will be deemed an admission. This means that parties with no objection to a list of facts contained in a Notice to Admit need not reply.
Litigation Attorneys in Nassau County
If you have questions about this or other legal issues, call the Law Firm of Vaughn, Weber & Prakope, PLLC at 516-858-2620 to schedule a free consultation.
*Contributions to this article have been made by Jason Mays, J.D.
Keep in Touch