MaraCat | Arkansas news, politics, opinion, restaurants, music, movies and art

Member since Jul 30, 2016

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.


  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »


Recent Comments

Re: “Arkansas skewered on debt collector legislation

Max, the bill you link to doesn't modify anything under Title 17 -- the requirements for licensing to collect debt purchased AFTER default hasn't changed.. Any person or group, even if they bought the debt, who you are alleged to owe money to is a creditor. So if Big Bank #1 sells my card that I'm current on to Big Bank #2, yeah, they can still collect money from me, even if I later stop paying. My option if I didn't like Big Bank #2 would be to pay off the card and stop using it, or do a transfer to a new one.

But check out Title 17, Section 24 of the Arkansas Code on Justia.

As a result of Simpson v. Cavalry, in 2014 the ASSC determined that junk debt buyers didn't fall under the definition of original creditor and that legal action is, by definition, an attempt to collect a debt. In 2012 I won a motion to dismiss a suit from the same law firm that likely was trying to use the same type of "sewer service" probably used against Simpson to get a default judgment against her -- they tried to serve me at an address that I hadn't lived at in 7 years, long before I ever got the card in question. But I was randomly checking online for people's public legal records and saw the lawsuit, and had them served with the motion before they ever served me. After responses and briefs and oral arguments, I waited for the judge's decision.

I won, they filed a flurry of motions, for reconsideration, etc, expecting me not to be able to respond in time especially since I was representing myself. They were wrong, and the judge affirmed his decision. They appealed, and I objected, but prefaced what I served them in response with a cover sheet asking if they REALLY wanted to create case law that would cost them most of their business. They apparently didn't, because they didn't order the transcripts of the original oral arguments in time, nullifying their appeal opportunity.

Are you CERTAIN that the law above actually nullifies Simpson v. Calvary, especially since it was passed in 2013???

Posted by MaraCat on 07/30/2016 at 1:31 PM


© 2018 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation