I was sued by Legal Recovery Law Office, s Inc., aka LRL, they claim to represent Capital One Bank. Prior to being sued, I received a dunning letter from LRL regarding a debt that I owed. I responded to the dunning letter and requested validation. LRL failed to provide or produce validation of debt, the proceeded to sue me. I answered the summons and requested discovery as well as they. The case began July 5, case went through case management and eventually ended up in trial. As a result of the trial held January 25, I prevailed. Why? Because LRL on belhalf of Capital one failed to produce all documents verifying my debt. Below is word for word of the Proceedings: Ruling
"This is a limited civil debt collection case that has been pending since July 5. At today's trial, plaintiff Capital One Bank proceeded by way of a declaration submitted by Wandi Chamberlain and referenced exhibits submitted pursuant to CCP 98. Ms.% (Sarah) appeared personally and testified".
"The documents submitted at trial by Capital One Bank establish, to the satisfaction of the Court, that defendant entered into a an agreement for a line of credit (i.E., credit card agreement) with Capital One Bank. Upon questioning by the Court, Ms.% (Sarah) freely admitted that she filled out an application and did hold such a credit card. The documents also show indebtedness by defendent to Captial One Bank in the principal amount of $2,587.12".
"The key question at trial, which was existed since even before the inception of this case, is whether Ms.% (Sarah) identity was stolen, and/or whether the charges listed on this account for the 2009 timeframe belong to her. At least as far back as April 4, defendent was corresponding with plaintiff's counsel anAltd requesting validation of the disputed amounts. (See letter to Legal Recovery Law Offices attached as an exhibit to defendent's answer.)"
"Moreover, after this case was filed, defendant requested through deiscovery that all her statements be produced so that she could determine wheter to contest the charges or not. Although Capital One Bank questions whether any discovery orders were entered, the minutes from January 25 reflect that the Bank was told to produce all documents verifying defendant's debt. Further, this Court distinctly remembers that the verification issue has been discussed at multiple Case Management Conferences.
"For the most part, the credit card statements introduced by Capital One Bank at trial show only progressive late fees and accumlating interest. With the exception of one or two charges from the Orlando, Florida area in 2008 (which are disputed by defendant), these documents do not explain the basis for any charges. Contrary to the declaration of Ms. Chabmerlain (paragraph 11), the statements submitted by Captial One Bank do not reflect the transactins giving rise to the debt."
"Although the Bank at trial took the position that it is too late for defendant to dispute any of the charges to her account, no legal authority wa sprovided on this issue. The Bank's trial breif is a boilerplate statement of law that omits any discussion of the critical debt verificaiton or debt validation issues. Accordingly, any issue as to the timeliness of asserting this defense has been waived (See Varjabedian v. City of Maderal (1977) 20 Cal. 3rd 285,295, fn. 11: American Drug Stores, Inc. V. Stroh (1992) 10 Cal. App. 4th 1446,1453.)"
"Accordingly, judgment will be entered on behal of Ms. % (Sarah) on the complaint..."
0 comments