Today I received another response from the banks, this one to counter my response to their Motion to Dismiss. What I find unbelievable is, that they are arguing over points that directly contradict written documentation that they sent to us as their client.
Specifically, in several of their letters, they stated ““Under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and certain state laws, Bank of America N.A is considered a debt collector.” Now they are arguing that “simply sending a letter stating that one is a “debt collector” does not change one’s status to that of a “debt collector.””
Time to prepare another response to their response 🙂
You can see the rest of their motion here.
hey bud. I know what your goin thru and it is just as you said, an adventure! My case is a Assault tort case in Vermont Federal Court. I myself just received a “Motion to Strike” as a result of a sur-reply. I had to look up what it was also. i haven’t yet responded to their motion but I’m gonna have to dive back in and see what kind of case law i can find. I didn’t know anything about a sur-reply myself. i’m reading over your insights as to what the whole sur-reply matter is about and getting some guidance from it before i file a responce. I’ll be keeping-up with what’s going on with your case. I love how you decided to get a website/blog covering the situation. I was Amazed to stumble apon it. IT”S people like us that have the spirit to start our own business and become Entrepreneurs!!