Some cases that were helpfull

In In re Leverett, 378 B.R. 793, 800 (Bkrcy., E.D.Tex. 2007), the court held that a bankruptcy proof of claim submitted by an assignee must include a "signed copy of the assignment and sufficient information to identify the original credit card account." There must be a chain oftitle from a creditor listed on the debtor's schedules to the claimant.

Debt buyers regularly submit affidavits which purport to be made on personal knowledge but in fact are based on reading a computer screen

1. Luke v. Unifund CCR Partners, No. 2-06-444-CV, 2007 Tex.App. LEXIS' 7096 (2nd Dist. Ft. Worth Aug. 31, 2007).


Fake statements
1. Hartman v. Great Seneca Fin. Corp., Nos. 08-3773/3804, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14110 (6th Cir., June 30, 2009).
B. Generic or inapplicable contracts
1. MBNA America Bank, NA. v. Nelson, 13777/06,2007 NY Slip Op 51200U; 2007 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4317 (N.Y.Civ. Ct. May 24, 2007). The court required proof of the actual terms of the agreement with the particular debtor (*7-9)

. . . In papers filed with the court, the agency charged that as much as 80 percent ofthe money CAMCO collects comes from consumers who never owed the original debt in the first place. Many consumers pay the money to get CAMCO to stop threatening and harassing them, their families, their friends, and their coworkers.
According to the FTC, CAMCO buys old debt lists that frequently contain no documentation about the original debt and in many cases no Social Security Number for the original debtor. CAMCO makes efforts to find people with the same name in the same geographic area and tries to collect the debt from them -whether or not they are the actual debtor. In papers filed with the court, the FTC alleges that CAMCO agents told consumers -even consumers who never owed the money that they were legally obligated to pay. They told consumers that if they did not pay, CAMCO could have them arrested and j ailed, seize their property, garnish their wages, and ruin their credit. All ofthose threats were false, according to the FTC. . .. (http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/12/camco.htm)

a. We had one case where a debt buyer contacted a person with a common Hispanic name, who provided the debt buyer with the last 4 digits of his SSN to show that he was not the correct person. The debt buyer sued him anyway, attaching an affidavit asserting that the person sued owed $x. Gutierrez v. LVNV Funding, LLC, EP-08CV-225-DB, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54479, *2-3 (W.D.Tex. March 16,2009):

STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS ARE HABITUALLY IGNORED BY DEBT BUYERS, COLLECTION ATTORNEYS

1. Castro v. Collecto, Inc., EP-08-CA-215-FM, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20324 (W.D.Tex. March 4, 2009) (Federal Communications Act provision for cell phone debts).