TRY ME!
Reopening Bankruptcy Adversary Proceeding
Summary
In bankruptcy cases, debt collectors must adhere to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). If a debt collector is misclassified as a creditor, it can lead to jurisdictional issues. Debt collectors must provide authenticated evidence of claims. Under FDCPA Regulation F and Massachusetts law, certain debts may be time-barred. Disputed property claims should be handled as adversarial proceedings. Key cases like Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson and Stern v. Marshall highlight the importance of proper claim investigation and jurisdiction. If reopening a case, ensure all claims and concerns are addressed per Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.Full Conversation
on October *, *. Insupport thereof, Plaintiff states as follows:
2King seeks to reopen the adversary proceeding, which was closed on October *, *, dueto the court&#*;s oversight in failing to address all claims presented. Upon reopening, he requeststhat the court address previously submitted concerns, as per Rule * of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."
Your introduction seems mostly appropriate, but it may be beneficial to split it into clearer sections for readability. Consider adding:
- "Upon reopening, he requests that the court address previously submitted concerns, as per Rule * of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."
before "NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Alton King Jr.," for better clarity.
Do you have any other specific concerns or sections you need help with?
- "Upon reopening, he requests that the court address previously submitted concerns, as per Rule * of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."
before "NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Alton King Jr.," for better clarity.
Do you have any other specific concerns or sections you need help with?
Can you draft the first section To the Honorable Elizabeth D. Katz:
Debtor/Applicant Alton King Jr. hereby moves the Court to reopen this case to reconsider
the previous decision and enter a discharge under * U.S.C. § *.
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Alton King Jr., and requests this Honorable Court to reconsider
and reopen the Adversary Proceeding pursuant to FRBP Rule *(c), Rule *(b)(*), and Rule
*(b)(*) due to lack of jurisdiction, failure to file proof of claim by the bar date and the
submission of an invalid transfer of a time-barred claim. In Chapter * cases a proof of claim
must be filed no later than 70 days after the case is filed which was on October *, *. In
support thereof, Plaintiff states as follows:
:
Sure, here's a draft of the first section:
---
To the Honorable Elizabeth D. Katz:
Debtor/Applicant Alton King Jr. hereby moves the Court to reopen this case to reconsider the previous decision and enter a discharge under * U.S.C. § *.
Upon reopening, he requests that the court address previously submitted concerns, as per Rule * of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Alton King Jr., and requests this Honorable Court to reconsider and reopen the Adversary Proceeding pursuant to FRBP Rule *(c), Rule *(b)(*), and Rule *(b)(*) due to lack of jurisdiction, failure to file proof of claim by the bar date, and the submission of an invalid transfer of a time-barred claim. In Chapter * cases, a proof of claim must be filed no later than 70 days after the case is filed, which was on October *, *. In support thereof, Plaintiff states as follows:
King seeks to reopen the adversary proceeding, which was closed on October *, *, due to the court's oversight in failing to address all claims presented. On November *, *, I requested the court to take judicial notice and address the following concerns:
---
Is there any other specific section or detail you need help with?
---
To the Honorable Elizabeth D. Katz:
Debtor/Applicant Alton King Jr. hereby moves the Court to reopen this case to reconsider the previous decision and enter a discharge under * U.S.C. § *.
Upon reopening, he requests that the court address previously submitted concerns, as per Rule * of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Alton King Jr., and requests this Honorable Court to reconsider and reopen the Adversary Proceeding pursuant to FRBP Rule *(c), Rule *(b)(*), and Rule *(b)(*) due to lack of jurisdiction, failure to file proof of claim by the bar date, and the submission of an invalid transfer of a time-barred claim. In Chapter * cases, a proof of claim must be filed no later than 70 days after the case is filed, which was on October *, *. In support thereof, Plaintiff states as follows:
King seeks to reopen the adversary proceeding, which was closed on October *, *, due to the court's oversight in failing to address all claims presented. On November *, *, I requested the court to take judicial notice and address the following concerns:
---
Is there any other specific section or detail you need help with?
*
King seeks to reopen the adversary proceeding, which was closed on October *, *, due
to the court&#*;s oversight in failing to address all claims presented. Upon reopening, he requests
that the court address previously submitted concerns, as per Rule * of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure."
"On November *, *, I requested the court to take judicial notice and address the following
concerns
It seems you are looking for help in drafting a motion to reopen an adversary proceeding. Here's a more organized introduction section for clarity:
---
To the Honorable Elizabeth D. Katz:
Debtor/Applicant Alton King Jr. hereby moves the Court to reopen this case to reconsider the previous decision and enter a discharge under * U.S.C. § *.
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Alton King Jr., and requests this Honorable Court to reconsider and reopen the Adversary Proceeding pursuant to FRBP Rule *(c), Rule *(b)(*), and Rule *(b)(*) due to lack of jurisdiction, failure to file proof of claim by the bar date, and the submission of an invalid transfer of a time-barred claim. In Chapter * cases, a proof of claim must be filed no later than 70 days after the case is filed, which was on October *, *. In support thereof, Plaintiff states as follows:
---
Do you have any specific sections or additional details you need help with?
---
To the Honorable Elizabeth D. Katz:
Debtor/Applicant Alton King Jr. hereby moves the Court to reopen this case to reconsider the previous decision and enter a discharge under * U.S.C. § *.
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Alton King Jr., and requests this Honorable Court to reconsider and reopen the Adversary Proceeding pursuant to FRBP Rule *(c), Rule *(b)(*), and Rule *(b)(*) due to lack of jurisdiction, failure to file proof of claim by the bar date, and the submission of an invalid transfer of a time-barred claim. In Chapter * cases, a proof of claim must be filed no later than 70 days after the case is filed, which was on October *, *. In support thereof, Plaintiff states as follows:
---
Do you have any specific sections or additional details you need help with?
Can you provide a subtitle and polish this please?
This court erred when it conceded that the debt collector was a creditor.
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, (FDCPA), clearly states; a party who purchases
the debt in default are debt collectors, not creditors, and are subject to the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Debt collectors did not validate that they suffered an injury, nor did they provide any
authenticated evidence of the assignment of the mortgage or the endorsement of the
promissory note.
\
Subtitle: Misclassification of Debt Collector as Creditor
This court erred when it conceded that the debt collector was a creditor. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) clearly states that parties who purchase debt in default are debt collectors, not creditors, and are subject to the FDCPA.
- Debt collectors did not prove injury or provide authenticated evidence of mortgage assignment or promissory note endorsement.
- Debt collectors violated the FDCPA by falsely claiming the right to enforce a promissory note.
- BNYMT and its attorneys did not disclose their status as debt collectors, violating the FDCPA.
- Under FDCPA Regulation F and Massachusetts law, the note would be time-barred from January *, *.
- Disputed property claims must be prosecuted as adversarial proceedings under * USC * and heard by the District or Bankruptcy Court under * USC *(a) and *(e)(*).
Do you have any other sections or details you need assistance with?
This court erred when it conceded that the debt collector was a creditor. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) clearly states that parties who purchase debt in default are debt collectors, not creditors, and are subject to the FDCPA.
- Debt collectors did not prove injury or provide authenticated evidence of mortgage assignment or promissory note endorsement.
- Debt collectors violated the FDCPA by falsely claiming the right to enforce a promissory note.
- BNYMT and its attorneys did not disclose their status as debt collectors, violating the FDCPA.
- Under FDCPA Regulation F and Massachusetts law, the note would be time-barred from January *, *.
- Disputed property claims must be prosecuted as adversarial proceedings under * USC * and heard by the District or Bankruptcy Court under * USC *(a) and *(e)(*).
Do you have any other sections or details you need assistance with?
Debt collectors in this case violated the FDCPA by alleging that they were entitled to
enforce a promissory note that they were not a party too.
Debt collector, BNYMT, and its attorneys never disclosed that they were debt collectors
which was a violation of FDCPA.
Pursuant to regulation F of the FDCPA and under Massachusetts statutes law the note
would have been Time-barred, six years from the last payment on the debt, January *,
*, as the original refinance lender CLI, declared liquidating bankruptcy January *,
*, without selling, assigning or transferring the obligation.
A disputed claim dealing with one’s property rights should have been prosecuted as an
adversarial proceeding under * USC * and must be heard by the District Court or
the Bankruptcy Court under * USC 1334a and *(e) (*).
Case Law
The Supreme Court precedent clearly stated in Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson:
“The trustee normally bears the burden of investigating claims… The audience in
Subtitle: Misclassification of Debt Collector as Creditor
This court erred when it conceded that the debt collector was a creditor. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) clearly states that parties who purchase debt in default are debt collectors, not creditors, and are subject to the FDCPA.
- Debt collectors did not prove injury or provide authenticated evidence of mortgage assignment or promissory note endorsement.
- Debt collectors violated the FDCPA by falsely claiming the right to enforce a promissory note.
- BNYMT and its attorneys did not disclose their status as debt collectors, violating the FDCPA.
- Under FDCPA Regulation F and Massachusetts law, the note would be time-barred from January *, *.
- Disputed property claims must be prosecuted as adversarial proceedings under * USC * and heard by the District or Bankruptcy Court under * USC *(a) and *(e)(*).
Case Law:
- Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson: The trustee bears the burden of investigating claims. If the claim lacks authenticating evidence, it should be disallowed.
- Stern v. Marshall: Filing a claim subjects the creditor to the bankruptcy court’s equitable power, and lack of authenticating evidence should lead to disallowance of the claim.
Do you have other specific sections or details you need assistance with?
This court erred when it conceded that the debt collector was a creditor. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) clearly states that parties who purchase debt in default are debt collectors, not creditors, and are subject to the FDCPA.
- Debt collectors did not prove injury or provide authenticated evidence of mortgage assignment or promissory note endorsement.
- Debt collectors violated the FDCPA by falsely claiming the right to enforce a promissory note.
- BNYMT and its attorneys did not disclose their status as debt collectors, violating the FDCPA.
- Under FDCPA Regulation F and Massachusetts law, the note would be time-barred from January *, *.
- Disputed property claims must be prosecuted as adversarial proceedings under * USC * and heard by the District or Bankruptcy Court under * USC *(a) and *(e)(*).
Case Law:
- Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson: The trustee bears the burden of investigating claims. If the claim lacks authenticating evidence, it should be disallowed.
- Stern v. Marshall: Filing a claim subjects the creditor to the bankruptcy court’s equitable power, and lack of authenticating evidence should lead to disallowance of the claim.
Do you have other specific sections or details you need assistance with?
*
Chapter * bankruptcy cases includes a trustee, * U. S. C. §*(a), who must examine proofs
of claim and, where appropriate, pose an objection, §§*(a)(*), *(b)(*) (including any
timeliness objection, §§*(b)(*), *). And that trustee is likely to understand that, as the
Code
says, a proof of claim is a statement by the creditor that he or she has a right to payment
subject
to disallowance (including disallowance based upon, and following, the trustee’s objection for
untimeliness). §§*(*)(A), *(b), *(a)(*), *(b)(*).” Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson,
* U.S. * (*). The lack of authenticating evidence presented by the debt collector should
activate the disallowance of this claim
Subtitle: Misclassification of Debt Collector as Creditor
This court erred when it conceded that the debt collector was a creditor. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) clearly states that parties who purchase debt in default are debt collectors, not creditors, and are subject to the FDCPA.
- Debt collectors did not prove injury or provide authenticated evidence of mortgage assignment or promissory note endorsement.
- Debt collectors violated the FDCPA by falsely claiming the right to enforce a promissory note.
- BNYMT and its attorneys did not disclose their status as debt collectors, violating the FDCPA.
- Under FDCPA Regulation F and Massachusetts law, the note would be time-barred from January *, *.
- Disputed property claims must be prosecuted as adversarial proceedings under * USC * and heard by the District or Bankruptcy Court under * USC *(a) and *(e)(*).
Case Law:
- Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, * U.S. * (*): The trustee must examine proofs of claim and object where appropriate, including timeliness objections.
- Stern v. Marshall: Filing a claim against the estatetriggers the allowance and disallowance process, subjecting the claimant to the bankruptcy court's equitable power.
Do you need assistance with any other sections or details?
This court erred when it conceded that the debt collector was a creditor. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) clearly states that parties who purchase debt in default are debt collectors, not creditors, and are subject to the FDCPA.
- Debt collectors did not prove injury or provide authenticated evidence of mortgage assignment or promissory note endorsement.
- Debt collectors violated the FDCPA by falsely claiming the right to enforce a promissory note.
- BNYMT and its attorneys did not disclose their status as debt collectors, violating the FDCPA.
- Under FDCPA Regulation F and Massachusetts law, the note would be time-barred from January *, *.
- Disputed property claims must be prosecuted as adversarial proceedings under * USC * and heard by the District or Bankruptcy Court under * USC *(a) and *(e)(*).
Case Law:
- Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, * U.S. * (*): The trustee must examine proofs of claim and object where appropriate, including timeliness objections.
- Stern v. Marshall: Filing a claim against the estatetriggers the allowance and disallowance process, subjecting the claimant to the bankruptcy court's equitable power.
Do you need assistance with any other sections or details?
In Stern v. Marshall, the court held that “in Langenkamp v. Culp, * U.S. *, * S.Ct.
*, * L.Ed.2d * (*) (per curiam), the Court emphasized that when the individual files a
claim against the estate, that individual has “trigger[ed] the process of ‘allowance and
disallowance of claims,’ thereby subjecting himself to the bankruptcy court’s equitable power. If
the creditor is met, in turn, with a preference action from the trustee, that action becomes part
of the claims-allowance process which is triable only in equity. In other words, the creditor’s
claim and the ensuing preference action by the trustee become integral to the restructuring
Subtitle: Misclassification of Debt Collector as Creditor
This court erred when it conceded that the debt collector was a creditor. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) clearly states that parties who purchase debt in default are debt collectors, not creditors, and are subject to the FDCPA.
- Debt collectors did not validate their injury or provide authenticated evidence of the mortgage assignment or promissory note endorsement.
- Debt collectors falsely claimed the right to enforce a promissory note they were not a party to.
- Debt collector, BNYMT, and its attorneys did not disclose their status as debt collectors, violating the FDCPA.
- Under FDCPA Regulation F and Massachusetts law, the note would be time-barred from January *, *.
- Disputed property claims must be prosecuted as adversarial proceedings under * USC * and heard by the District or Bankruptcy Court under * USC *(a) and *(e)(*).
Opinion: */*/*
The Supreme Court precedent in Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson states: “The trustee normally bears the burden of investigating claims…”Subtitle: Misclassification of Debt Collector as Creditor
This court erred when it conceded that the debt collector was a creditor. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) clearly states that parties who purchase debt in default are debt collectors, not creditors, and are subject to the FDCPA.
- Debt collectors did not validate their injury or provide authenticated evidence of the mortgage assignment or promissory note endorsement.
- Debt collectors falsely claimed the right to enforce a promissory note they were not a party to.
- Debt collector, BNYMT, and its attorneys did not disclose their status as debt collectors, violating the FDCPA.
- Under FDCPA Regulation F and Massachusetts law, the note would be time-barred from January *, *.
- Disputed property claims must be prosecuted as adversarial proceedings under * USC * and heard by the District or Bankruptcy Court under * USC *(a) and *(e)(*).
Opinion: */*/*
The Supreme Court precedent in Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson states: “The trustee normally bears the burden of investigating claims…”
This court erred when it conceded that the debt collector was a creditor. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) clearly states that parties who purchase debt in default are debt collectors, not creditors, and are subject to the FDCPA.
- Debt collectors did not validate their injury or provide authenticated evidence of the mortgage assignment or promissory note endorsement.
- Debt collectors falsely claimed the right to enforce a promissory note they were not a party to.
- Debt collector, BNYMT, and its attorneys did not disclose their status as debt collectors, violating the FDCPA.
- Under FDCPA Regulation F and Massachusetts law, the note would be time-barred from January *, *.
- Disputed property claims must be prosecuted as adversarial proceedings under * USC * and heard by the District or Bankruptcy Court under * USC *(a) and *(e)(*).
Barbato v. Greystone Alliance, LLC
Opinion: */*/*
The Supreme Court precedent in Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson states: “The trustee normally bears the burden of investigating claims…”Subtitle: Misclassification of Debt Collector as Creditor
This court erred when it conceded that the debt collector was a creditor. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) clearly states that parties who purchase debt in default are debt collectors, not creditors, and are subject to the FDCPA.
- Debt collectors did not validate their injury or provide authenticated evidence of the mortgage assignment or promissory note endorsement.
- Debt collectors falsely claimed the right to enforce a promissory note they were not a party to.
- Debt collector, BNYMT, and its attorneys did not disclose their status as debt collectors, violating the FDCPA.
- Under FDCPA Regulation F and Massachusetts law, the note would be time-barred from January *, *.
- Disputed property claims must be prosecuted as adversarial proceedings under * USC * and heard by the District or Bankruptcy Court under * USC *(a) and *(e)(*).
Barbato v. Greystone Alliance, LLC
Opinion: */*/*
The Supreme Court precedent in Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson states: “The trustee normally bears the burden of investigating claims…”
of
the debtor-creditor relationship through the bankruptcy court’s equity jurisdiction.” Again, the
lack of authenticating evidence presented by the deck later should activate the disallowance of
this claim. Both cases the court’s lack of jurisdiction.
In the 3rd Cir. Court of Appeal stated in Barbato v Greystone Alliance, LLC No *-* Opinion
*/*/* stated the following:
*
Sure, here's a polished version with a subtitle:
- Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson: The trustee normally bears the burden of investigating claims. Proofs of claim must be examined, and objections posed where appropriate, including timeliness objections.
- Stern v. Marshall: Filing a claim against the estate triggers the process of 'allowance and disallowance of claims,' subjecting the individual to the bankruptcy court’s equitable power. The lack of authenticating evidence should activate the disallowance of this claim.
- Barbato v. Greystone Alliance, LLC: Clarifies that a debt buyer who purchases defaulted debts for the purpose of collection is considered a debt collector under * U.S.C. § 1692a(*). This ensures entities engaging in such activities are subject to the FDCPA’s requirements.
Conclusion Misclassification of Debt Collector as Creditor
This court erred when it conceded that the debt collector was a creditor. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) clearly states that parties who purchase debt in default are debt collectors, not creditors, and are subject to the FDCPA.
- Debt collectors did not validate that they suffered an injury, nor did they provide any authenticated evidence of the assignment of the mortgage or the endorsement of the promissory note.
- Debt collectors in this case violated the FDCPA by alleging that they were entitled to enforce a promissory note that they were not a party to.
- Debt collector BNYMT and its attorneys never disclosed that they were debt collectors, which was a violation of the FDCPA.
- Pursuant to regulation F of the FDCPA and under Massachusetts statute law, the note would have been time-barred six years from the last payment on the debt, January *, *, as the original refinance lender CLI declared liquidating bankruptcy on January *, *, without selling, assigning, or transferring the obligation.
- A disputed claim dealing with one’s property rights should have been prosecuted as an adversarialproceeding under * USC * and must be heard by the District Court or the Bankruptcy Court under * USC *(a) and *(e)(*).
Case LawThis court erred when it conceded that the debt collector was a creditor. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) clearly states that parties who purchase debt in default are debt collectors, not creditors, and are subject to the FDCPA.
- Debt collectors did not validate that they suffered an injury, nor did they provide any authenticated evidence of the assignment of the mortgage or the endorsement of the promissory note.
- Debt collectors in this case violated the FDCPA by alleging that they were entitled to enforce a promissory note that they were not a party to.
- Debt collector BNYMT and its attorneys never disclosed that they were debt collectors, which was a violation of the FDCPA.
- Pursuant to regulation F of the FDCPA and under Massachusetts statute law, the note would have been time-barred six years from the last payment on the debt, January *, *, as the original refinance lender CLI declared liquidating bankruptcy on January *, *, without selling, assigning, or transferring the obligation.
- A disputed claim dealing with one’s property rights should have been prosecuted as an adversarialproceeding under * USC * and must be heard by the District Court or the Bankruptcy Court under * USC *(a) and *(e)(*).
- Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson: The trustee normally bears the burden of investigating claims. Proofs of claim must be examined, and objections posed where appropriate, including timeliness objections.
- Stern v. Marshall: Filing a claim against the estate triggers the process of 'allowance and disallowance of claims,' subjecting the individual to the bankruptcy court’s equitable power. The lack of authenticating evidence should activate the disallowance of this claim.
- Barbato v. Greystone Alliance, LLC: Clarifies that a debt buyer who purchases defaulted debts for the purpose of collection is considered a debt collector under * U.S.C. § 1692a(*). This ensures entities engaging in such activities are subject to the FDCPA’s requirements.
I, Alton King Jr., seek to reopen the adversary proceedings based on the court's oversight in failing to address all claims, indicating a lack of jurisdiction and fraud on the court. Upon reopening, I request the court
In Barbato v. Greystone Alliance, LLC case clarifies that a debt buyer who purchases defaulted
debts for the purpose of collection is considered a debt collector under * U.S.C. § 1692a (*).
This interpretation aligns with the FDCPA’s goal of protecting consumers from abusive debt
collection practices and ensures that entities engaging in such activities are subject to the Act’s
requirements.
Conclusion:
I, Alton King Jr., seeks to reopen the adversary proceedings based on the court&#*;s oversight
in failing to address all claims presented which clearly indicate the lack of jurisdiction and fraud
on the court. Upon reopening, I request that the court provide responses to the previously
submitted questions along with the additional concerns, as per Rule * of the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure.
Subtitle: Misclassification of Debt Collector as Creditor
This court erred when it conceded that the debt collector was a creditor. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) clearly states that parties who purchase debt in default are debt collectors, not creditors, and are subject to the FDCPA.
- Debt collectors did not validate suffering an injury nor provide authenticated evidence of mortgage assignment or promissory note endorsement.
- They falsely claimed the right to enforce a promissory note.
- BNYMT and its attorneys did not disclose their status as debt collectors, violating the FDCPA.
- Under FDCPA Regulation F and Massachusetts law, the note would be time-barred from January *, *.
- Disputed property claims must be prosecuted as adversarial proceedings under * USC * and heard by the District or Bankruptcy Court under * USC *(a) and *(e)(*).
Case Law:
- Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson: Trustees bear the burden of investigating claims and disallowing unsupported claims.
- Stern v. Marshall: Filing a claim triggers the process of allowance and disallowance of claims, subjecting it to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdictionSubtitle: Misclassification of Debt Collector as Creditor
This court erred when it conceded that the debt collector was a creditor. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) clearly states that parties who purchase debt in default are debt collectors, not creditors, and are subject to the FDCPA.
- Debt collectors did not validate suffering an injury nor provide authenticated evidence of mortgage assignment or promissory note endorsement.
- They falsely claimed the right to enforce a promissory note.
- BNYMT and its attorneys did not disclose their status as debt collectors, violating the FDCPA.
- Under FDCPA Regulation F and Massachusetts law, the note would be time-barred from January *, *.
- Disputed property claims must be prosecuted as adversarial proceedings under * USC * and heard by the District or Bankruptcy Court under * USC *(a) and *(e)(*).
Case Law:
- Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson: Trustees bear the burden of investigating claims and disallowing unsupported claims.
- Stern v. Marshall: Filing a claim triggers the process of allowance and disallowance of claims, subjecting it to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction
This court erred when it conceded that the debt collector was a creditor. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) clearly states that parties who purchase debt in default are debt collectors, not creditors, and are subject to the FDCPA.
- Debt collectors did not validate suffering an injury nor provide authenticated evidence of mortgage assignment or promissory note endorsement.
- They falsely claimed the right to enforce a promissory note.
- BNYMT and its attorneys did not disclose their status as debt collectors, violating the FDCPA.
- Under FDCPA Regulation F and Massachusetts law, the note would be time-barred from January *, *.
- Disputed property claims must be prosecuted as adversarial proceedings under * USC * and heard by the District or Bankruptcy Court under * USC *(a) and *(e)(*).
Case Law:
- Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson: Trustees bear the burden of investigating claims and disallowing unsupported claims.
- Stern v. Marshall: Filing a claim triggers the process of allowance and disallowance of claims, subjecting it to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdictionSubtitle: Misclassification of Debt Collector as Creditor
This court erred when it conceded that the debt collector was a creditor. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) clearly states that parties who purchase debt in default are debt collectors, not creditors, and are subject to the FDCPA.
- Debt collectors did not validate suffering an injury nor provide authenticated evidence of mortgage assignment or promissory note endorsement.
- They falsely claimed the right to enforce a promissory note.
- BNYMT and its attorneys did not disclose their status as debt collectors, violating the FDCPA.
- Under FDCPA Regulation F and Massachusetts law, the note would be time-barred from January *, *.
- Disputed property claims must be prosecuted as adversarial proceedings under * USC * and heard by the District or Bankruptcy Court under * USC *(a) and *(e)(*).
Case Law:
- Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson: Trustees bear the burden of investigating claims and disallowing unsupported claims.
- Stern v. Marshall: Filing a claim triggers the process of allowance and disallowance of claims, subjecting it to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction
This is a mistake I think in conclusion you gave the Subtitle: Misclassification of Debt Collector as Creditor do you want to do that?
It seems there might be a misunderstanding regarding the subtitle placement. Here's a polished version with the subtitle included where it seems appropriate:
Misclassification of Debt Collector as Creditor
This court erred when it conceded that the debt collector was a creditor. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) clearly states that parties who purchase debt in default are debt collectors, not creditors, and are subject to the FDCPA.
- Debt collectors did not validate suffering an injury nor provide authenticated evidence of mortgage assignment or promissory note endorsement.
- They falsely claimed the right to enforce a promissory note.
- BNYMT and its attorneys did not disclose their status as debt collectors, violating the FDCPA.
- Under FDCPA Regulation F and Massachusetts law, the note would be time-barred from January *, *.
- Disputed property claims must be prosecuted as adversarial proceedings under * USC * and heard by the District or Bankruptcy Court under * USC *(a) and *(e)(*).
This court erred when it conceded that the debt collector was a creditor. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) clearly states that parties who purchase debt in default are debt collectors, not creditors, and are subject to the FDCPA.
- Debt collectors did not validate suffering an injury nor provide authenticated evidence of mortgage assignment or promissory note endorsement.
- They falsely claimed the right to enforce a promissory note.
- BNYMT and its attorneys did not disclose their status as debt collectors, violating the FDCPA.
- Under FDCPA Regulation F and Massachusetts law, the note would be time-barred from January *, *.
- Disputed property claims must be prosecuted as adversarial proceedings under * USC * and heard by the District or Bankruptcy Court under * USC *(a) and *(e)(*).
Case Law:
- Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson: Trustees bear the burden of investigating claims and disallowing unsupported claims.
- Stern v. Marshall: Filing a claim triggers the process of allowance and disallowance of claims, subjecting it to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction.
- Barbato v. Greystone Alliance, LLC: Clarifies that a debt buyer who purchases defaulted debts for the purpose of collection is considered a debt collector under * U.S.C. § 1692a(*). This ensures entities engaging in such activities are subject to the FDCPA’s requirements.
- Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson: Trustees bear the burden of investigating claims and disallowing unsupported claims.
- Stern v. Marshall: Filing a claim triggers the process of allowance and disallowance of claims, subjecting it to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction.
- Barbato v. Greystone Alliance, LLC: Clarifies that a debt buyer who purchases defaulted debts for the purpose of collection is considered a debt collector under * U.S.C. § 1692a(*). This ensures entities engaging in such activities are subject to the FDCPA’s requirements.
Conclusion:
I, Alton King Jr., seek to reopen the adversary proceedings based on the court's oversight in failing to address all claims, indicating a lack of jurisdiction and fraud on the court. Upon reopening, I request the court to address the previously submitted concerns along with additional issues, as per Rule * of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Do you have any other sections or details you need assistance with?
I, Alton King Jr., seek to reopen the adversary proceedings based on the court's oversight in failing to address all claims, indicating a lack of jurisdiction and fraud on the court. Upon reopening, I request the court to address the previously submitted concerns along with additional issues, as per Rule * of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Do you have any other sections or details you need assistance with?
Start a new chat