Rev. Jones Summary Judgment Unethical Credit Collection Practices
Copy of Summary Judgment Below, feel free to use as a template.
I am posting this letter because I feel there is something wrong about how the credit collection laws are being administered, here in Highlands County. Like everything else down here, it seems like the court system is also practicing unfair practices in the administration of justice and civil law settlements. During my day in court for my civil lawsuit, I never saw so many default judgments or people losing because they didn’t show up to court, for these people to garnish their checks and bank accounts at well and unknowingly to them. Probably like me, they were not served properly. I believe they made over $100,000 that day and the court gets a lot of fees for this $300 or $400 in one case taking 5 minutes to process.
Midland Funding is claiming I owe them money based on unpaid debts to other creditors. The law requires all creditors to hire a third party to collect these debts. A credit collector must be a third party. After being unsuccessful in their attempts, realizing they cannot drain water from a rock, they closed these accounts with zero balances. They accepted the losses.
Then Midland Funding claims they purchased these debts credit collectors pay about 2% or $100 per $5,000 and then added on crazy interest compounded and basically say “now you pay us, what you owe us.” In my case they never established the transfer of these debts to them from my creditors with me, which is a requirement within 5 days. Then they want act like a third party debt collector, while being the holders of these alleged debts or holding creditor status. Then they want to present their witnesses by phone, something all parties are required to agree to and I didn’t concur nor was I asked. They served me improperly and the alleged debts are to someone else’s address I never legally used for anything. And they didn’t answer my request for case dismissal or give me my discover to use to prepare for trial. The bottom line is that this is corruption at its best and people need to be aware of these unethical practices.
Rev. Paul
In the County Court of tenth Judicial Circuit,
in AND for Highlands County Florida
Case No. 14-166 SPS
Midland Funding LLC
Plaintiff
vs.
Frank Jones
Defendant
Defendant Motion for Summary Judgment
AND Memorandum of law in support thereof
1: Introduction: I Frank Paul Jones who is competent and a resident of the State of Floridabrings this motion of summary judgment against the pending claim that he owes Midland Funding LLC the amount of $4255.25. First of all, the Midland Funding does not plan to produce any witnesses
Under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.530(d)(1). I never agreed to the plaintiff being allowed to present their telephone witness at my trial. Under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.530(d)(1), it is clear that all parties must agree to such an arrangement. I do not concur with your decision to allow this and was never asked while in court. And therefore, I request that the court finds this witness to be inadmissible at my trial.
Case law interpretation of this rule held that, under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.530(d)(1), a trial court’s only has the discretion to allow testimony to be taken over the phone if all of the parties consent. See Cole v. Cole, 86 So. 3d 1175 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). If the judge allowed a party to testify by phone over the objection of another party, the trial court committed error. See Cole, 86 So. 3d at 1176 (citing S.A. v. Dep’t of Children and Family Servs., 961 So. 2d 1066, 1067 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)). Your Honorable Judge Anthony Ritenour, although many judges thought that they had some discretion to allow a party to testify by phone under the Rules of Judicial Administration, there was simply no such discretion. See M.S. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 6 So. 3d 102, 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).
Secondly, under RULE 1.280 GENERAL PROVISIONS GOVERNING DISCOVERY, I requested a discovery by requesting that certain questions be answered at pretrial. They are all on record and a copy of them are in your possession. None of my questions were answered at pretrial to include my request to dismiss this case against me on the grounds of the 4 questions or issues raised. At pretrial, I gave the court and Midland Funding LLC, my information and concerns and therefore showed them my hand. The court accepted my information to then be forwarded it to Midland Funding LLC, but I never receive my discovery and therefore have no idea what to expect upon my trial date. This clearly puts me at a disadvantage. These are also grounds for dismissal. If my request for summary judgment is denied, I request that I receive the discovery for this case from Midland Funding immediately, so I can prepare for trial. And please for the record have them answer my pretrial questions, because it is important information pertaining to this case.
Thirdly, As I showed you all of my credit card accounts were closed, with a zero balances and one late payment recorded on each of them. Therefore this high debt amount of $4255.25 is above the original debt by far and a debt collector cannot charge more than the original debt. The interest they are claiming does not exist. I made this clear to the court and it went unanswered. The account in question is billed to Frank P Jones 2940 N. Buckingham Rd, Avon Park, Fl. 33825, which is also the address that as served until being redirected to the proper address. This is not my bill, because I never lived at that address or ever used it to receive mail.
Fourth, Being the accounts were closed by the original creditor, the second party being HSBC, no longer exist in this business transaction and therefore Midland Funding no longer qualifies as a third party. This is exactly what the law was designed to prevent under 2013 Florida Statues
559.55Definitions
(6)“Debt collector” means any person who uses any instrumentality of commerce within this state, whether initiated from within or outside this state, in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another. The term “debt collector” includes any creditor who, in the process of collecting her or his own debts, uses any name other than her or his own which would indicate that a third person is collecting or attempting to collect such debts.
The exception to this rule would the that my debt be assigned to Midland Funding LLC. However under the . FLORIDA CONSUMER COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT “FCCPA,” Midland Funding was required to inform me of such assignment. 559.715 Assignment of consumer debts. The problem here is that I never received such notification from Midland Funding LLC. Midland Funding never properly established their ownership of said debt.
WHEREFORE, I the Rev. Frank Paul Jones of 917 S. AVE, Avon Park, Fl., prays that this court grant me the relief sought herein. (1) I request this case be dismissed without prejudice. I request that the court require that MidlandFunding LLC, be required to validate all alleged debts owed by to them. And if they cannot prove I owe these debt, I request that court require them to close all of these accounts and notify of their actions.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished by hand delivery to:
Name: ____________________________________________________________________
Date:______________
Name: Frank Paul Jones
___________________________________________________________
Signature:
917 South A Avenue
Avon Park, FL. 33825-4114
Telephone Home: ###-####
Cell: 863-###-####
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF HIGHLANDS
Sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me on 6 June 2014 by Frank Paul Jones.
___________________________________________________________________
DEPUTY CLERK
___________ Personally known
___________ Produced Florida State Drivers License
DBAJesusChrist.org 