Document Sample
Defendant Powered By Docstoc
					Defendant’s response to summons 10CV2032, file 591342, classification code 30301

Midland Funding LLC, along with plaintiff’s attorney, Kohn Law Firm SC, 312 E.
Wisconsin Ave, Suite 501, Milwaukee WI 53202-4305 (plaintiff) VS Katerina
Bondarenko-Korish, 4557 Schneider Dr, Oregon WI 53575 (defendant)

Defendants answer to the allegations:

   1. Denied: With regards to statement number one of complaint: Collection agency
      cannot be both the Purchaser and Assignee of a debt, protection under the
      FDCPA. It is wrong of Plaintiff to claim this and is especially wrong of Plaintiff
      to use an Instrument of the Court to do so. Gearing v. Check Brokerage Corp, 233
      F.3d 469 (7th Cir. 2000)
   2. Agreed in Part, Denied in Part: Defendant did have a credit card before with
      Chase; however the rest is denied, as defendant cannot confirm the account
      number because of no longer having this card in defendant’s possession. Without
      providing original statements from original creditor this cannot be verified.
   3. Denied: This request calls for admission of matter defendant has denied and thus
      it is improper.
   4. Denied: This request calls for admission of matter defendant has denied and thus
      it is improper.
   5. Denied: This request calls for admission of matter defendant has denied and thus
      it is improper.
   6. Denied: No demands whatsoever have been made by Plaintiff to the defendant.
      Defendant’s only knowledge of the Plaintiff even existing came with the service
      of the above referenced summons on the defendant.
   7. Agreed in Part: That this is an attempt to collect a debt. There is question though
      as to the validity of the debt. Furthermore, even if debt itself could be properly
      validated, Defendant submits that Plaintiff is not entitled to collect such debt.

Affirmative Defenses:

   1. Plaintiff admits to purchasing the defaulted debt allegedly owned by the
      defendant, causing Plaintiff’s injury to its own self, therefore Plaintiff is barred
      from seeking relief for damages.
   2. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege whether or not the purported assignment, if
      indeed it even was an assignment rather than a purchase of the debt, was partial or
      complete. There is no evidence that the alleged Assignor even has knowledge of
      this action or that the alleged Assignor has conveyed all rights and control to the
      Plaintiff. This record does not disclose this information and it cannot be assumed
      without creating an unfair prejudice against the defendant.
   3. Defendant claims a Failure of Consideration, as there has never been any
      exchange of any money or item of value between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

   4. Defendant claims Lack of Privity, as Defendant has never entered into any
      contractual or debtor/creditor agreements with the Plaintiff. There has been
      absolutely no communication, other than the summons and this response, between
      the Plaintiff and Defendant.
   5. The Plaintiff has not proven the debt is valid or the amount of the debt is accurate.
      The Plaintiff must prove that the principal, interest, collection costs, and attorneys
      fees are all correct, agreed to in contract, and lawfully charged. Defendant insists
      that Plaintiff come up with the contract between the Defendant and said Plaintiff.
   6. Defendant claims Accord and Satisfaction as Defendant alleges that the original
      creditor accepted payment from a third party for the alleged debt, or a portion of
      the alleged debt, or that the original creditor received other compensation in the
      form of monies and/or credits.
   7. The Plaintiff would be unjustly enriched by the Court granting the relief sought in
      Plaintiff’s complaint.


   1. With regards to response number one above, with Plaintiff claiming both
      Purchaser and Assignee of the alleged debt, doing so is punishable by a $1000
      fine. Defendant leaves this for the Court to determine, as the debt is an alleged
      debt, but Plaintiff should not be acting in such a manner at any time.

Personal Statement to the Court: My husband and I did try to pay our credit card debts
for some time, even going through a credit counseling service for almost two years, but
we just couldn’t keep up. Collection agencies such as the Plaintiff buy up this debt, after
the original creditor has legally charged it off and been compensated, for a few pennies or
less on the dollar. They in turn try to make 10 to even 100 times what they purchased the
debt for, using harassment and intimidation or as in the case of the current Plaintiff trying
to pull a fast one by perpetuating falsehoods. Some people get into these financial
situations through poor decision making and for others it can simply be by happenstance
or just poor luck that they have been hurt by a bad financial situation. Companies such as
the Plaintiff seek to intensify the hurt even further, and many defendants are either too
afraid or do not know how to respond to them, even though the collection agencies do not
have a firm standing. Hopefully future legislation will bar collection agencies from even
attempting to take such underhanded actions as they have taken here in this case.

Wherefore the Defendant asks the Court for judgment; that being to dismiss
Plaintiff’s claim herein with prejudice.

Signed this 3rd Day of May, 2010.
                                           Katerina Bondarenko-Korish
Post Office Address:
4557 Schneider Dr.
Oregon, WI 53575


Shared By:
fanzhongqing fanzhongqing http://