[Lecasbas]

I've been to Michigan Collection Law Blog and read their interpretation of Isom v Javitch Block & Rathbone but have been unable to find the downloadable pdf file so that I can read the case in its entirety.

Can anyone help?

[roybean]

Gionis v. Javitch Block and Rathbone

[Lecasbas]

Thanks. This is an interesting read and I may be able to use it in my case but the Isom v Javitch I found at the Michigan site may be a better reference. Here's my case:

A few months ago a CA sent me a dunning letter and did a pull on my CR. I sent it a pp letter using Enigma's recommended format. I also incorporated my validation requests.

That CA did not respond and apparently sold the debt. Now an attorney for a new CA has sent me a dunning letter. This is one of the interesting facts here - that the CA itself did not send its dunning letter before retaining a lawyer. Not illegal nor committing violations...just interesting because this has not been the normal contact method in the past.

Anyway...since the first CA chose not to respond to my DV/PP letter this leads me to speculate that it did not possess the necessary documention to validate. This CA did not threaten court action so it did not violate the FDCPA by threaten to take an action which it could not.

The attorney for the new CA did, however. It basically said that it could sue me at any time.

My thoughts are, yes, it can sue me but without proper documentation it cannot win. If this attorney knows that it cannot win then this is an idle threat.

One of the assumptions I am going to make is that when the the attorney says that it can sue me, it intends to take the court action through to the very end. The LSC would believe this and, generally, the courts treat the debtor as if it is a LSC.

So, the previous CA probably did not have the evidence to bring a lawsuit to fruition. The current attorney for the current CA probably does not either.

I have done a search on my courts online for this attorney and it is very active. Unless I can convince it in a DV letter that I know how to take its money if it does sue, I believe the attorney will file suit.

I am not interested in going to court even though I believe I could will. I will, however, defend myself and attempt to cause the attorney the same amount of discomfort it may bring upon me if it chooses to carry through with its idle threat.

The Isom v Javitch case, according to Michigan collection law blog, clearly makes an attorney responsible for the accuracy and validity the evidence of its client.

This is the reason I would like to find and read this case.

[spinn]

They will probably claim they do not need the evidence before they file suit, just the belief they can obtain it before trial. How can anyone ever prove what they believe?

Since they are fishing for defaults.....they could care less if they have the evidence at the time they file suit. They will be able to run over most pro se's, even without evidence so they are not risking much.

I often wonder how a JDB who knows they can not obtain evidence can even send a dunning letter.

[Lecasbas]

Original post by: spinn

They will probably claim they do not need the evidence before they file suit, just the belief they can obtain it before trial. How can anyone ever prove what they believe?

And, there is support for your reasoning:

The second line of cases involved Harvey v Great Seneca Financial in which the Plaintiff alleged that the filing of a suit to collect a consumer debt without the means of proving that debt was a violation of the FDCPA. The court in Harvey dismissed the action stating that Plaintiffs do not need to prove their cases at the time that the lawsuit is filed. However, in Harvey, the Plaintiff did not allege that the affidavit attached was false.

(copied from Michigan Collection Law Blog)

I also read this case which I downloaded from IC. Harvey's argument parrallels mine. The fact that she lost is not helpful.

Since they are fishing for defaults.....they could care less if they have the evidence at the time they file suit. They will be able to run over most pro se's, even without evidence so they are not risking much.

I agree.

My case is different in that I have already sent a DV and the previous CA passed the debt on. Unless the previous CA did not pass on this info to the current CA, the current CA knows it will not get an automatic default.

If the current CA does file suit then I will include the previous CA in my Counterclaims and have them served. I will strive to find out who knew what when.

I guess it is only fair that the CA does not need to have the evidence to prove its case at the time of filing. After all, I cannot prove my allegations either. This is what Discovery is all about.

My argument is that anyone can file a lawsuit without the evidence necessary to prove their case but the evidence brought forward should be held accountable to the person presenting it.

Isom v Javitch seems to support my claim. I'm still looking for this case to no avail.

[roybean]

I can't find anything with 'Isom' in it. I will look more later on this evening.

[Lecasbas]

I appreciate your efforts.

I can't fathom the Michigan site blogging about this case unless it actually exists yet there seems to be no animal.

Are there any other cases or some sort of corroborating documentation which holds evidence accountable to the person submitting it?

[hannah]

You need to beware of this particular law blog as they are COLLECTION ATTORNEYS!! Don't believe what you read there as they are FOR THE CREDITOR (READ FOR THE JDB) NOT FOR THE CONSUMER AND THEY LIE!!

There is no decision in the Isom v JBR as there never was a case with "Isom" as the plaintiff against JBR. Now there was a case of Ison v JBR but it was settled and a dismissal stip was filed. Attached is a copy of the complaint.

If there was a case of Isom v JBR it is not in federal court as it is not on Pacer. It could be a state court case but is not in West or Lexis. Since the law blog entry is dated 5/4/08 I will assume (always dangerous) that the case would have been before that and usually cases are up on LN or West within two weeks.

[hannah]

I did some more checking and did find an Ison v JBR in OHIO federal court. Attached. See the section on vicarious liability.

[Lecasbas]

Thank you hannah.

I knew and have known the site seemed to favor CA's but I have gotten some good info in the past.

No different than CA's visiting I.C. for the same reason.

Well, since Isom v doesn't exist as an opinion then I guess I'll stop looking.

[hannah]

Originally Posted by Lecasbas

Thank you hannah.

I knew and have known the site seemed to favor CA's but I have gotten some good info in the past.

No different than CA's visiting I.C. for the same reason.

Well, since Isom v doesn't exist as an opinion then I guess I'll stop looking.

ISOM doesn't exist but Ison does -- not in Michigan but in Ohio. You must be careful using it however as it may not be law in your federal circuit. (Aren't you in Wis or Iowa?) If not in your circuit can only be persuasive and not binding.

[Lecasbas]

I'm from Iowa and I don't know if I have ever found any binding arguments to support any cause of action I've had. I ususally just assume the case will be only persuasive for me.

I've explained my situation...what do you think about CA's passing on a debt when they are querried for validation? If this merry-go-round continues I believe I will have to sue the whole lot of them to stop the sharade starting with the 1st one who didn't respond to my DV letter.

Court action would no doubt settle the matter one way or another but I'd rather come up with a DV letter that not only would cause any CA to not sue but to accept the debt as uncollectable due to insufficient documentation and a pro ser who won't roll over.

Harvey v Great Seneca Financial is a good read because the argument by Harvey follows my way of thinking but she lost. I don't think it would do me well to reference this case.