• Report: #512930

Complaint Review: Asset Acceptance - LLC Debt Collection

  • Submitted: Wed, October 21, 2009
  • Updated: Mon, November 02, 2009

  • Reported By: Jlbvip — midway Georgia U.S.A.
Asset Acceptance - LLC Debt Collection
P.O. Box 2036 Warren, Michigan United States of America

Asset Acceptance - LLC Debt Collection Filed Suit in State of Georgia, Then Objected to Proof of Signature for Alleged Credit Card Warren, Michigan

*Consumer Comment: Advice/Issues

What's this?
What's this?
What's this?
Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

My Husband was served by a local Sheriff by an attorney representing Asset Acceptance LLC. This is for a Chase Bank credit card that they allege he had. In the 8 years we have been married, we never had any credit cards (if we can't pay cash, we don't get it - sorry, just how we are. Frugal, I guess). We never recieved a bill and when he talked to a rep at Acceptance and asked what address this was attached to, she replied "....... " the EX WIFE's address she acquired two years after we were married.  

My Husband promptly filed a rebuttal with the Clerk of Courts stating that this must be a case of identity theft and requested that Asset Acceptance provide proof of signature on the original application.

He just received documents in the mail today from the attorney (filed with the court) that;

1. The Plantiff objects to Defendant's request for Production of Documents to the extent that it seeks disclosure of information or materials protected from disclosure by the attorney/client privilege, work product privilege or any other doctrine of privilege.

Read as: We are hiding behind attorney/client privilege, so therefore we are not going to provide the information you seek.

2. Plaintiff objects to Defendant's Request for Production of Documents to the extent that it is onerous, unduly burdensome and requests information which is immaterial and/or irrelevant to the causes of action pled or defenses raised and/or are not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Read as: You are being a pain in the a** by asking us to prove that you actually opened this account. Furthermore, your actual signature on the application is not important, because we are bottom feeders and are going to try and scare you with "legal looking" paperwork to get you to pay this bill that you never had. We're p***ed off that you would actually make us find the original application, knowing that credit card companies only keep the original applications on file for 25 months. So, we're going to try and make you spend additional money to get an attorney and fight us in court to pay a bill you never had.

The documents their attorney provided shows an internet application with the date 06/02/20, which could be construed as June 20, 2002. They furthermore provided a document showing where Chase Bank changed their name from Banc One to First USA Chase Bank (what does that have to do with anything?), one showing where they sold the account to Asset Acceptance and a credit card bill from June of 2007, with no purchases or signatures, but an inflated past due balance of $800. But I reiterate, my Husband's signature is no where on any of these documents!

He is trying to figure out where to go from here. The original card issuer (Chase Bank) is based in Delaware, where the statute of limitations is 3 years. There is nothing showing when this was opened (other than the cryptic 06/02/20 at the top of the internet application). 

He is going to file another document (complete denial) with the clerk of courts and file an identity theft fraud complaint with the FTC. My question is, is it too late to do this? Thoughts, answers, etc appreciated. We really do not want to have to retain an attorney to fight them, but will if necessary because this can't be legal!!!!



This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 10/21/2009 04:25 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Asset-Acceptance-LLC-Debt-Collection/Warren-Michigan-48090-2036/Asset-Acceptance-LLC-Debt-Collection-Filed-Suit-in-State-of-Georgia-Then-Objected-to-512930. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.

Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Asset Acceptance - LLC Debt Collection

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Search Tips
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
0Author 1Consumer 0Employee/Owner
Updates & Rebuttals

#1 Consumer Comment


AUTHOR: Tim - (U.S.A.)

If, as you state, your husband never actually had this card, then it is likely that he was the victim of identity theft.

But you have to separate the issues of the litigation against you and the prosecution of an identity theft matter.

It doesn't sound as though these attorneys have done anything wrong. You may have a solid defense to their case - that your husband never actually applied for or used that card - but they still have a "colorable" case nonetheless.

I understand where you are coming from with the application signature issue. However, nowadays people can apply for a card online, and the signature requirement is met when the card is activated. This is usually done by providing someone at a call center with your SSN and some other personal information that is, more or less, available to anyone who cares to look for it.

In other words, it's not too hard for an identity thief to open a credit card in your name nowadays, and no actual "signature" is required.

But your opposing attorney is under no obligation to accept your husband's defense as fact, or to even investigate it. If an account was opened in your husband's name, and a balance was accrued, they can pursue this case.

As for the objections to your requests for production, the ones you listed are simply standard objections that are included in every such response. It sounds like they did provide you with the documents they do have. The objections simply preserve the right to raise issues down the road.

You stated that your husband plans on filing a document containing a flat-out denial. It may be too late for this. I would hope that he denied liability in the first document. If he did not, you will likely need the court's permission to file an amended or supplemental answer.

This is a tricky situation, and I would not advise going without a lawyer. However, sometimes the cost of a lawyer outweighs its benefit. Consider the possibility of losing, the effect it will have on your credit, etc. before deciding whether or not to hire an attorney.

Best of luck!

Respond to this report!
What's this?
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?