• Report: #986101
Complaint Review:

Legal Recovery Law Offices, INC

  • Submitted: Sat, December 22, 2012
  • Updated: Sat, December 22, 2012

  • Reported By: Sarah — Arroyo Grande California United States of America
Legal Recovery Law Offices, INC
5030 Camino De La Siesta #340 San Diego, California United States of America


REBUTTAL BOX™ | Respond to this Report! | Consumer Comment

What's this?
Corporate Advocacy Program

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

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™

Set the record straight:
Arbitration Program

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

I was sued by Legal Recovery Law Office,s Inc., aka LRL, they claim to represent Capital One Bank. Prior to being sued, I received a dunning letter from LRL regarding a debt that I owed. I responded to the dunning letter and requested validation. LRL failed to provide or produce validation of debt, the proceeded to sue me. I answered the summons and requested discovery as well as they. The case began July 5, 2011, case went through case management and eventually ended up in trial. As a result of the trial held January 25, 2012, I prevailed. Why? because LRL on belhalf of Capital one failed to produce all documents verifying my debt. Below is word for word of the Proceedings: Ruling

"This is a limited civil debt collection case that has been pending since July 5, 2011. At today's trial, plaintiff Capital One Bank proceeded by way of a declaration submitted by Wandi Chamberlain and referenced exhibits submitted pursuant to CCP 98. Ms.__________(Sarah) appeared personally and testified".

"The documents submitted at trial by Capital One Bank establish, to the satisfaction of the Court, that defendant entered into a an agreement for a line of credit (i.e., credit card agreement) with Capital One Bank. Upon questioning by the Court, Ms._________(Sarah) freely admitted that she filled out an application and did hold such a credit card. The documents also show indebtedness by defendent to Captial One Bank in the principal amount of $2,587.12".

"The key question at trial, which was existed since even before the inception of this case, is whether Ms.__________ (Sarah) identity was stolen, and/or whether the charges listed on this account for the 2008-2009 timeframe belong to her. At least as far back as April 4, 2011, defendent was corresponding with plaintiff's counsel anAltd requesting validation of the disputed amounts. (See letter to Legal Recovery Law Offices attached as an exhibit to defendent's answer.)"

"Moreover, after this case was filed, defendant requested through deiscovery that all her statements be produced so that she could determine wheter to contest the charges or not. Although Capital One Bank questions whether any discovery orders were entered, the minutes from January 25, 2012 reflect that the Bank was told to produce all documents verifying defendant's debt. Further, this Court distinctly remembers that the verification issue has been discussed at multiple Case Management Conferences.

"For the most part, the credit card statements introduced by Capital One Bank at trial show only progressive late fees and accumlating interest. With the exception of one or two charges from the Orlando, Florida area in 2008 (which are disputed by defendant), these documents do not explain the basis for any charges. Contrary to the declaration of Ms. Chabmerlain (paragraph 11), the statements submitted by Captial One Bank do not reflect the transactins giving rise to the debt."

"Although the Bank at trial took the position that it is too late for defendant to dispute any of the charges to her account, no legal authority wa sprovided on this issue. the Bank's trial breif is a boilerplate statement of law that omits any discussion of the critical debt verificaiton or debt validation issues. Accordingly, any issue as to the timeliness of asserting this defense has been waived (See Varjabedian v. City of Maderal (1977) 20 Cal.3rd 285,295, fn. 11: American Drug Stores, Inc. v. Stroh (1992) 10 Cal. App.4th 1446, 1453.)"

"Accordingly, judgment will be entered on behal of Ms. ___________(Sarah) on the complaint....."

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 12/22/2012 08:39 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/legal-recovery-law-offices-inc/san-diego-california-92108/legal-recovery-law-offices-inc-lrl-law-offices-i-answered-summons-requested-validation-a-986101. 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. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Legal Recovery Law Offices, INC

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?