Lebedin Kofman LLPBy
Accounts Receivable often retains the debt collection law firm of Maidenbaum and Associates to both sue consumers in order obtain judgments and to enforce on very old Chase judgments that have been bought by Accounts Receivable after a judgment has already been obtained. Many of these judgments that Chase had originally sued on date back to the late 90’s and early 2000’s when Chase was still suing consumers. When dealing with these matters it is important to learn when the original judgment was first obtained, as the Statute of Limitations for judgment enforcement which is 10 years followed by another 10 years if it is properly renewed may have run. Very often these judgments are not properly renewed and can be dismissed for that reason alone. It is also important to check whether Maidenbaum and Associates or any other law firm ever sent the consumer a notice of attorney substitution replacing the original law firm or Chase itself which had their in-house attorneys file many of these lawsuits. This notice is often filed with the court but not served on the consumer as the NYCPLR requires.
There are a number of other deficiencies that can be used against these Accounts Receivable lawsuits and judgments including a lack of standing. It is often difficult for a company like Accounts Receivable to prove that they are the rightful owner of the debt or that it was properly acquired from the original creditor. They can also have serious difficulty proving that the debt itself is valid and enforceable for the reasons mentioned above as well as the fact that the debt itself may have been voided as part of the consent judgment against Chase some years ago.