Skip to content

Motion To Compel Answer To Interrogatories

September 6, 2010

DISCLAIMER: THE CONTENT IN THIS BLOG IS FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE MISCONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE! Anthony Martinez is a Discovery Expert.  Neither Anthony Martinez nor his firm AMA engage in the practice of law and only work in conjunction with licensed practicing attorneys.  AMA will provide public information only and will not provide any kind of advice, explanation, opinion, or recommendation to a consumer about possible legal rights, remedies, defenses, options, selection of forms or strategies.

If attorneys step outside the box of foreclosure for a second and begin treating cases like normal contract cases attorneys may see better results.  Attorneys should be looking for other types of cases that harp on the same issues being found in foreclosure defense cases.  Here’s a great example of a Judge in the 7th Judicial that ORDERED and stated:

“The Court finds that Plaintiff in this case is entitled to know how Defendant came into possession of the debt, including what amount was paid for the account, who the account was purchased from, when it was purchased and what collection efforts they took in order to collect that debt. If the debt at issue in this case was sold to another entity, Plaintiff is entitled to know who Defendant sold it to, when the account was sold and how it was transferred. If Defendant, Collection Company of America, has knowledge of other information beyond that as to the corporate custody of this account, it is required to provide that information to the extent that it has knowledge.”

This is the same issue people are having with the Pooling and Servicing Agreements, Underwriter Agreements and other documents that foreclosure mills are fending off as “not relevant” 3rd party agreements.

______________

17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 784a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1709JOH2

 Consumer law — Debt collection — Action for violation of Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act — Discovery — Defendant collection agency is ordered to respond to interrogatory regarding circumstances of its coming into possession of debt, to provide information needed to interpret log of calls pertaining to debt, and to provide any documents reflecting transfer of debt to or by agency and any documents received from or sent to credit reporting agencies.

REBECCA P. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, vs. SPRINT PCS, COLLECTION COMPANY OF AMERICA and FEDERAL CREDIT CORPORATION, Defendants. Circuit Court, 7th Judicial Circuit in and for Volusia County. Case No. 2009-14114 CIDL, Div. 01. Civil Division. July 1, 2010. Terence R. Perkins, Judge. Counsel: Jared Michael Lee, Morgan & Morgan, P.A., Tampa; and William P. Howard, for Plaintiffs. Dale T. Golden and Sangeeta Spengler, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TOCOMPEL AGAINST DEFENDANT COLLECTION
 COMPANY OF AMERICA

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard this 28th day of June, 2010, upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Response to Request for Production From Defendant Collection Company of America. This case involves an alleged violation of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. After hearing arguments of counsel, reviewing the Court file and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is thereuponORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is Granted.Defendant shall answer interrogatory #3 to the extent of its corporate knowledge. Interrogatory #3 makes the following request:

3. Identify the “corporate custody” of Plaintiff’s debt and the date each entity was involved. [This should include the proper corporate name of each individual or entity that participated in the collection of this debt, beginning with the original creditor, including the Defendant, and any subsequent collectors] With respect to each entity state the following:

a) The amount each entity, collected or attempted to collect from the Plaintiff.

b) The manner each such entity came into possession of the debt. [i.e. assignment, transfer, purchase, partnership]

c) The financial relationship between the Defendant and each such entities concerning Plaintiff’s debt. [i.e. How many cents on the dollar was the debt purchased for, what was the percentage spilt is there if the debt is settled, whether debt is charged off]

The Court finds that Plaintiff in this case is entitled to know how Defendant came into possession of the debt, including what amount was paid for the account, who the account was purchased from, when it was purchased and what collection efforts they took in order to collect that debt. If the debt at issue in this case was sold to another entity, Plaintiff is entitled to know who Defendant sold it to, when the account was sold and how it was transferred. If Defendant, Collection Company of America, has knowledge of other information beyond that as to the corporate custody of this account, it is required to provide that information to the extent that it has knowledge.Defendant shall supplement its answer to Interrogatory #4, which makes the following request:

4. List how many out-going phone calls were made by the Defendant concerning Plaintiff’s debt, (This number should include all calls whether a conversations took place or a message was left) and for each call state the following:

I) The name(s), [including any alias or “caller name”] of the individual(s) that attempted to call the Plaintiff.

II) The professional relationship to the Defendant. [i.e. manager, collector, contractor, lawyer]

III) The content of the call(s). (This must include what was said to the Plaintiff and what the Plaintiff said.)

IV) The telephone number to which such call were made.

In addition to the call log that has already been provided to Plaintiff, Defendant shall provide a decoder to interpret the codes used on the call log, the names of the individuals identified on the call log and each individual’s position within the company.In relation to the Requests for Production, Defendant shall provide the following information to supplement the documents that have been produced at this time:

1) Any documents reflecting or involved in the purchase or transfer of the debt to Defendant. Specifically, Plaintiff is entitled to the contracts or agreements that reflect the sale or transfer of the debt and is entitled to know all of the terms of such agreements including the nature of the transfer and the consideration for such transfer.

2) Any documents reflecting or involved in the sale or transfer of the debt by Defendant to another entity. Specifically, Plaintiff is entitled to the contracts or agreements that reflect the sale or transfer of the debt and is entitled to know all of the terms of such agreements including the nature of the transfer and the consideration for such transfer.

3) Any and all documents sent to or received by any of the three consumer reporting agencies relating to or concerning Plaintiff and/or alleged debt or account at issue in this lawsuit (including but not limited to Equifax, Experian, and Transunion).

Defendant shall produce the above listed answers and documents within 19 days from the date of this order.

* * *

AMA NOTE: The foreclosure crisis is not just about people losing their homes to foreclosure.  It’s about homeowners who invested in their futures but were lied to from the very beginning about the contract they were entering into.  It doesn’t matter if you are foreclosed on or not.  If you’re a homeowner, you’re affected by the lie.  Anyone currently in foreclosure or not in foreclosure still making a monthly mortgage payment should contact an attorney about your options.  If you are in foreclosure you should fight to keep your home.  If you’re not in foreclosure you should know that there is over a 95% chance that you’ve been paying a servicer every month an amount of money that was never and is not being applied to the loan you obligated yourself to.  With that in mind you should know your options.

About these ads
One Comment leave one →
  1. January 24, 2011 1:31 am

    Same old case, I got the judgment vacated now a motion to compel answers when I already answered. The courts must not be as crowded as they say or they wouldn’t waste my time or their time. Reason: attorney is miffed about the judgment being vacated so he wants to get even. This is ridiculous, he’s asked if I don’t answer the judgment be reinstated. I could easily hate this creep in fact I already do.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 879 other followers

%d bloggers like this: