Credit Card Debt Lawsuits Have Two Types of Plaintiffs
In a credit card debt lawsuit, collection attorneys represent either an original creditor, a credit card company, or a junk debt buyer, a company that has purchased a credit card account with many others from a credit card company,. Answering their credit card debt summons and demanding documentation of alleged debt owed is the key to defeating both types of plaintiffs.
Original creditors tend not to sue report most experts, while junk debt buyers serve many "weak" debtors and tend not to follow through if their credit card summons is answered.
Junk debt buyers use sophisticated software to screen for those most likely to pay, according to the Credit Card Debt Survival Guide. Then through a network of local collection attorneys they sometimes blanket those consumers with credit card debt summonses hoping that each consumer will not answer the summons and a default judgment in favor of the junk debt buyer will result. If a consumer does answer demanding original documentation of the debt not available to the junk debt buyer, the junk debt buyer does not pursue the lawsuit. In an article on a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ruling in the Wisconsin Law Journal stated the{Palisades Acquisition LLC, a large junk debt buyer} business model only contemplates obtaining default judgment against debtors, but not actually trying cases. When [the debtor defendant] appeared for trial, Palisades dismissed the case.
Credit card companies, the original creditors, are not set up to meet the needs of a collection attorney's lawsuit against a delinquent account holder. Their computerized operations contain no paper records. Everything is digitized. There are no employees with personal knowledge of an individual consumer's account who are able to swear in an affidavit to the accuracy of printouts of that account's information. Credit card companies have difficulty meeting the challenge of accounting for how they arrived at the exact amount owed per generally approved accounting practices and producing a record of charges and payments to back up that calculation.
The more collection attorneys get involved in the original creditor documentation process, the more time they spend. States' reasonable fee limitations limit how much they can hope to be paid for their time. They also do not get paid unless the case is won and the judgment results in money being collected. When there is money, the original creditor pays them 30 percent of what was collected. So, it is usually not worth the collection attorney's time to pursue a credit card debt lawsuit if the consumer answers it competently.
If a consumer cannot pay their credit card debt and they are unfortunate enough to receive a summons for that debt, they can educate themselves about how to answer that summons in a book like the Credit Card Debt Survival Guide. Then they can take advantage of the system debt collection attorneys use to make money by not following through with any cases that need more work than a summons.
Original creditors tend not to sue report most experts, while junk debt buyers serve many "weak" debtors and tend not to follow through if their credit card summons is answered.
Junk debt buyers use sophisticated software to screen for those most likely to pay, according to the Credit Card Debt Survival Guide. Then through a network of local collection attorneys they sometimes blanket those consumers with credit card debt summonses hoping that each consumer will not answer the summons and a default judgment in favor of the junk debt buyer will result. If a consumer does answer demanding original documentation of the debt not available to the junk debt buyer, the junk debt buyer does not pursue the lawsuit. In an article on a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ruling in the Wisconsin Law Journal stated the{Palisades Acquisition LLC, a large junk debt buyer} business model only contemplates obtaining default judgment against debtors, but not actually trying cases. When [the debtor defendant] appeared for trial, Palisades dismissed the case.
Credit card companies, the original creditors, are not set up to meet the needs of a collection attorney's lawsuit against a delinquent account holder. Their computerized operations contain no paper records. Everything is digitized. There are no employees with personal knowledge of an individual consumer's account who are able to swear in an affidavit to the accuracy of printouts of that account's information. Credit card companies have difficulty meeting the challenge of accounting for how they arrived at the exact amount owed per generally approved accounting practices and producing a record of charges and payments to back up that calculation.
The more collection attorneys get involved in the original creditor documentation process, the more time they spend. States' reasonable fee limitations limit how much they can hope to be paid for their time. They also do not get paid unless the case is won and the judgment results in money being collected. When there is money, the original creditor pays them 30 percent of what was collected. So, it is usually not worth the collection attorney's time to pursue a credit card debt lawsuit if the consumer answers it competently.
If a consumer cannot pay their credit card debt and they are unfortunate enough to receive a summons for that debt, they can educate themselves about how to answer that summons in a book like the Credit Card Debt Survival Guide. Then they can take advantage of the system debt collection attorneys use to make money by not following through with any cases that need more work than a summons.
Source...