Arizona court of appeals to rule on debt buyer Acarta law suit

Acarta claims to have purchased the alleged Chase credit card debt from debt buyer Turtle Creek Assets.

The issues:

Is Acarta manager Victor Gilgan a qualified witness with personal knowledge about the alleged debt?

Are Acarta's exhibits admissible?

Does Acarta have standing?

Can Acarta charge interest for the time PRIOR to its alleged purchase of the account while the original creditor Chase Bank chose to waive additional interest after it charged off the account?

Is it relevant that Chase Bank stopped litigation on its credit card accounts after whistleblower Linda Almonte sued Chase, claiming that she was fired because she refused to take part in fraud (the sale of Chase credit card chargeoffs to debt buyers with incorrect balances.)

If admissible, is the unsigned Card Member Agreement a "written agreement" and the account therefore subject to the 6 year statute of limitations instead of the 3 year statute of limitations in effect at the times relevant? (The SOL is now 6 years for credit cards in Arizona.)

Does Acarta's mislabeling of dates and amounts in the complaint constitute violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act?

The filings are posted at Debt buyer Acarta lawsuit in Arizona court of appeals

2 Responses to Arizona court of appeals to rule on debt buyer Acarta law suit
  1. maggieinarizona
    September 2, 2013 | 10:00 am

    I will be spending many hours catching up on these, as I have just stumbled onto this, but been searching for someone in the Mohave county area just like this. I am up to speed on the legalease, FDCPA statutes , and 3rd party debt collectors, court rules and procedures, etc, but only to a level of about 40% of what i should know, so am struggling alone, and could use a local advocate to brainstorm with. I will give back and pay forward all my efforts to educate others because its the right thing to do, and until now all the other people i knew who had a clue, and are fighting the corruption , are in every other state or county , but here.
    I hope Ms. Baker has a minute to spare , and look forward to a meet and greet.

    • Christine
      September 2, 2013 | 11:17 am

      Please call me Christine and I’m very glad you posted.

      I’m sorry I have not updated in so long as I’ve been so busy dealing with TWO debt buyer suits. Midland Funding sued me too, I got them dismissed for SOL and then filed an FDCPA lawsuit against Midland, MCM and their attorneys. They removed to federal court and last week I had the telephone case management conference call with the attorneys.

      You probably saw at the Acarta blog that the court of appeals remanded back to superior court and I’ve been so inundated with filings, I haven’t even updated that blog yet. Tomorrow I’ll be at a status hearing and I will try to get the Acarta motion for partial summary judgment, my response and my proposed amended counterclaims and motion for joinder posted at the Acarta blog. I’ve been working all weekend on my replies to the Acarta objections to the joinder of their attorneys and to my additional counterclaims.

      I will try to add the filings since the appeals court ruling ASAP and have just finally started to work on bringing back my old site (lost all the posts since 2004) at – be sure to read the Missouri appeals court opinion on Royal v. Perkins. It is my goal to get a similar ruling in Arizona.

      One of the Acarta attorneys is coming up from Phoenix to the hearing tomorrow for “settlement discussions” but since I’ll be asking for $50,000, it’s extremely unlikely that we will settle. I’m ready to take this to the AZ supreme court if necessary and here is an excerpt from my draft reply in support of my motion for joinder of the Acarta attorneys:

      Just a few days ago the Missouri court of appeals wrote in a very similar case with a debt buyer suing a consumer, Royal Financial Group, LLC v. Perkins, [Exhibit A]:

      In sum, Royal’s petition contains statements that were in the very least deceptive and misleading, if not actually false, as Royal failed to prove otherwise. Further, the petition itself, viewed from the perspective of an unsophisticated consumer, was a deceptive attempt to collect a debt that Royal could not collect legally. This is precisely the type of abusive practice that the FDCPA is meant to prohibit.

      It is a disgrace that there are no qualified attorneys willing to assist consumers in Mohave county and I will do whatever I can to assist other consumers willing to fight for their legal rights.

      You have no idea how sick and tired I am of having my claims and damages belittled by attorneys and judges. Last Thursday, when I received the email about the attorney’s appearance at the hearing tomorrow regarding settlement, I was thinking $25k. After working on this ALL Labor Day weekend, I realized that even $50k is just a drop in the bucket.

      I’ll be setting up a discussion and resource forum at later this week and I’ll start posting relevant case law. Of course I can’t give legal advice, but I’ll be glad to share my filings, mistakes I made and what I would do “as time permits”.

      I’ll also solicit donations for press releases and regulatory / legislative efforts and I hope to make a difference for the many thousands of Arizona consumers who are being sued for old debts.