TRY ME!
Fair Debt Collection Practices
Summary
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) imposes a six-year limitation on debt collection and clarifies that entities purchasing defaulted mortgages are not creditors under 15 U.S.C. 1692(a)(4). Assignments by third parties without evidence of purchase or control of the promissory note are invalid. Courts have jurisdiction to overturn orders and sanction attorneys for non-disclosure of their status as debt collectors. The U.S. Supreme Court in Henson v. Santander emphasized strict adherence to FDCPA language, identifying entities as debt collectors if their primary aim is debt collection. Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a) requires necessary parties for complete relief in cases involving multiple violations and fraud.Full Conversation
Alton King
Hi Alton! I'd be happy to help with your legal issue. Could you provide some more details about your situation?
Please revise as a part of a motion I am writing : The controlling case law in this case is the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act because the debt collector purchased a defaulted, charged off debt account that was not secured by the promissory note and mortgage at issue. In this case a third party to King’s promissory note passes no rights to enforce the contract pursuant to Massachusetts Uniform Commercial Code.
Here is a revised version of your motion:
"The controlling case law in this matter is the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, as the debt collector purchased a defaulted, charged-off debt account that was not secured by the promissory note and mortgage in question. In this instance, a third party to King’s promissory note has no rights to enforce the contract pursuant to the Massachusetts Uniform Commercial Code."
Does this cover your needs, or is there any other information you need help with?
"The controlling case law in this matter is the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, as the debt collector purchased a defaulted, charged-off debt account that was not secured by the promissory note and mortgage in question. In this instance, a third party to King’s promissory note has no rights to enforce the contract pursuant to the Massachusetts Uniform Commercial Code."
Does this cover your needs, or is there any other information you need help with?
Please revise: This is a violation of the King’s constitutional right to procedural due process. The debt collectors knew or should have known that they never became a holder with the right to enforce the promissory note. The said note pursuant to UCC *-*(a) says the note is accelerated when the demand is made. Plaintiff made a demand for this note even though they were not a party to the note on January *, *. CLI filed liquidating bankruptcy on January *, * without selling, assigning, or transferring the mortgage contract or the promissory note establishing a time-barred status on January *, *, under Massachusetts Statute of Limitation on unsecured debt, which became unenforceable after six years of non-payment on the note.
Sure, here’s a revised version of your motion:
"This is a violation of King's constitutional right to procedural due process. The debt collectors knew or should have known that they never became a holder with the right to enforce the promissory note. According to UCC *-*(a), the note is accelerated when the demand is made. The plaintiff, not being a party to the note, made a demand on January *, *. CLI filed for liquidating bankruptcy on January *, *, without selling, assigning, or transferring the mortgage contract or the promissory note, thus establishing a time-barred status on January *, *, under the Massachusetts Statute of Limitations on unsecured debt, which became unenforceable after six years of non-payment."
Is there anything else you need help with?
"This is a violation of King's constitutional right to procedural due process. The debt collectors knew or should have known that they never became a holder with the right to enforce the promissory note. According to UCC *-*(a), the note is accelerated when the demand is made. The plaintiff, not being a party to the note, made a demand on January *, *. CLI filed for liquidating bankruptcy on January *, *, without selling, assigning, or transferring the mortgage contract or the promissory note, thus establishing a time-barred status on January *, *, under the Massachusetts Statute of Limitations on unsecured debt, which became unenforceable after six years of non-payment."
Is there anything else you need help with?
Please revise: The Fair Debt Collection Act, FDCA has the same limitation of six years and it further states any entity that purchases defaulted mortgages, which is unsecured debt, is not a creditor pursuant to * U.S.C. *(a)*. A clarification of the FDCA makes it clear that the assignment by MERS, a third party to only the mortgage, transferring a debt to BNYMT to collect payments for the Registered Holders of Alternative Loan *-J7, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Trust, which does not have any evidence of the purchase, assignment, or control of the promissory note, is an invalid transfer. Therefore, an assignment of mortgage does not pass rights to enforce said note pursuant to UCC *-*(a) and *-*(d).
Sure, here's the revised version of your motion:
"The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) has a six-year limitation. It further states that any entity purchasing defaulted mortgages, which are unsecured debt, is not a creditor pursuant to * U.S.C. *(a)(*). A clarification of the FDCPA indicates that the assignment by MERS, a third party only to the mortgage, transferring a debt to BNYMT to collect payments for the Registered Holders of Alternative Loan *-J7, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Trust, without evidence of the purchase, assignment, or control of the promissory note, is an invalid transfer. Therefore, an assignment of mortgage does not pass rights to enforce said note pursuant to UCC *-*(a) and *-*(d)."
Is there anything else you need help with?
"The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) has a six-year limitation. It further states that any entity purchasing defaulted mortgages, which are unsecured debt, is not a creditor pursuant to * U.S.C. *(a)(*). A clarification of the FDCPA indicates that the assignment by MERS, a third party only to the mortgage, transferring a debt to BNYMT to collect payments for the Registered Holders of Alternative Loan *-J7, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Trust, without evidence of the purchase, assignment, or control of the promissory note, is an invalid transfer. Therefore, an assignment of mortgage does not pass rights to enforce said note pursuant to UCC *-*(a) and *-*(d)."
Is there anything else you need help with?
Please revise: There is not any question that this court has jurisdiction to overturn the previous order and it has the jurisdiction to sanctions the attorneys for not disclosing that they were debt collectors, not creditors, pursuant to * U.S.C. *(e). Also, they did not inform the court that their client had bought defaulted charged off mortgage debt which was not secured by the promissory note which is another violation of FDCA * U.S.C. * § e. It is clear that the attorneys of the debt collecting law firms intended to deceive the court.
Sure, here's the revised version of your motion:
"There is no question that this court has jurisdiction to overturn the previous order and to sanction the attorneys for not disclosing that they were debt collectors, not creditors, pursuant to * U.S.C. *(e). Furthermore, they did not inform the court that their client had bought defaulted, charged-off mortgage debt which was not secured by the promissory note, constituting another violation of FDCA * U.S.C. *(e). It is evident that the attorneys of the debt collecting law firms intended to deceive the court."
Is there anything else you need help with?
"There is no question that this court has jurisdiction to overturn the previous order and to sanction the attorneys for not disclosing that they were debt collectors, not creditors, pursuant to * U.S.C. *(e). Furthermore, they did not inform the court that their client had bought defaulted, charged-off mortgage debt which was not secured by the promissory note, constituting another violation of FDCA * U.S.C. *(e). It is evident that the attorneys of the debt collecting law firms intended to deceive the court."
Is there anything else you need help with?
Please revise: In a court precedent case law take judicial notice from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals who relied upon the United States Supreme Court finding in Henson v Santander which said the controlling law is the FDCA and should be construed as stated and no one should change the language. It held that “an entity is a debt collector if it's “important aim” and the reason for its existence is obtaining payments on debt that it acquires.”
The reason that Bank of New York Mellon as trustee was purportedly assigned the debt was an attempt by parties, including the servicer, SPS, to fraudulently collect on unsecured debt.
Sure, here's the revised version of your motion:
"In a precedent case, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals relied on the U.S. Supreme Court finding in Henson v. Santander, which stated that the controlling law is the FDCA and should be construed strictly as written. It held that 'an entity is a debt collector if its primary aim and reason for existence are obtaining payments on acquired debt.' The purported assignment of the debt to Bank of New York Mellon as trustee was an attempt by parties, including the servicer SPS, to fraudulently collect on unsecured debt."
Is there anything else you need help with?
"In a precedent case, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals relied on the U.S. Supreme Court finding in Henson v. Santander, which stated that the controlling law is the FDCA and should be construed strictly as written. It held that 'an entity is a debt collector if its primary aim and reason for existence are obtaining payments on acquired debt.' The purported assignment of the debt to Bank of New York Mellon as trustee was an attempt by parties, including the servicer SPS, to fraudulently collect on unsecured debt."
Is there anything else you need help with?
Please revise: NOW COMES, Alton King Jr., to ask leave of the court and re-enjoin Bank of New York Mellon as Trustee, (BNYMT) to also enjoin debt collector loan servicer, Select Portfolio Servicing, to enjoin debt collecting law firm, Nelson, Mullins, Scarborough, & Riley, Dolan Connly P.C., and their participating attorneys due to the multiple violations and newly discovered evidence of fraud upon the court. Under Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure *(a), these parties are necessary for providing complete relief in this case.
Sure, here's the revised version of your motion:
"NOW COMES, Alton King Jr., to ask leave of the court and re-enjoin Bank of New York Mellon as Trustee (BNYMT), debt collector loan servicer Select Portfolio Servicing, and debt collecting law firm Nelson, Mullins, Scarborough, & Riley, Dolan Connly P.C., along with their participating attorneys, due to multiple violations and newly discovered evidence of fraud upon the court. Under Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure *(a), these parties are necessary for providing complete relief in this case."
Is there anything else you need help with?
"NOW COMES, Alton King Jr., to ask leave of the court and re-enjoin Bank of New York Mellon as Trustee (BNYMT), debt collector loan servicer Select Portfolio Servicing, and debt collecting law firm Nelson, Mullins, Scarborough, & Riley, Dolan Connly P.C., along with their participating attorneys, due to multiple violations and newly discovered evidence of fraud upon the court. Under Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure *(a), these parties are necessary for providing complete relief in this case."
Is there anything else you need help with?
Thank you for now.
You're welcome, Alton! If you need any more help or have other questions in the future, feel free to reach out. Take care and good luck with your motion!
AI, a quick ? a third party to my promissory note has no rights to enforce the contract pursuant to which Massachusetts Uniform Commercial Code.
Hi Alton! It sounds like you're dealing with a complex issue involving the enforcement of a promissory note. Specifically, third parties might not have the right to enforce the contract under the Massachusetts Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
- Under UCC *-*(a) and (d), a transfer of a negotiable instrument must be supported by possession of the instrument and endorsement.
- A third party must demonstrate they are a holder in due course to have enforcement rights.
Do you need further clarification on these UCC provisions or assistance with another part of your motion?
- Under UCC *-*(a) and (d), a transfer of a negotiable instrument must be supported by possession of the instrument and endorsement.
- A third party must demonstrate they are a holder in due course to have enforcement rights.
Do you need further clarification on these UCC provisions or assistance with another part of your motion?
Start a new chat