Coordinators

Other Contributors

About Us

www.clpblog.org

The contributors to the Consumer Law & Policy blog are lawyers and law professors who practice, teach, or write about consumer law and policy. The blog is hosted by Public Citizen Litigation Group, but the views expressed here are solely those of the individual contributors (and don't necessarily reflect the views of institutions with which they are affiliated). To view the blog's policies, please click here.

« Times Articles on APR and Libel Claims for Critical Reviews | Main | Javelin Marketing Seeks to Suppress Criticism of Its "Insurance Leads" Sales »

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Comments

Larry Rubin

I am the attorney for the defendant debtor in the above case, which was Commonwealth Financial Systems v. Larry Smith, 2011 Pa.Super. 30 (2011). The original objection to the admission was based upon the inability of the creditor to show regularity in the use of the original creditor's usage of their computer system, similar to the case of American Express v. Vinhnee (9th Cir. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel). The creditor debt buyer, Commonwealth's witness could say nothing about the original creditor, and only asserted that its system and theirs was "SAS-70" qualified, whatever that means. The witness, Danny Venditti (or Vendetti, VP at Commonwealth) testified that Commonwealth would not have bought it if it was not valid, or SAS-70 qualified, therefore bootstrapping his way into authenticity. The trial court had a good nose for "BS" remarking that the "limits of Venditti's knowledge are vast..." and disallowed the exhibits. Commonwealth argued that it should enjoy a presumption of regularity and admissibility because of the "rule of incorporation." This rule, it stated, says that if a debt buyer, or record receiver incorporates the purchased records into its business records, these purchased records become the "business records of the debt buyer," and are thus entitled to come into evidence under the business record exception to the hearsay rule. The Superior Court of PA did not buy this argument, stating that the Supreme Court has rejected the rule of incorporation in the State of PA. The Superior Court also rejected Commonwealth's arguments that "this is the way it is done in the industry," admonishing Commonwealth that it, and not Commonwealth, will decide how things are done in the Pennsylvania legal system. The Superior Court ended by telling Commonwealth that it was a "nice try, but no dice" (loosely paraphrasing). Any comments may be directed to me at l(remove this space)rubin (at) pennlawyer.com.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Subscribe to CL&P

RSS/Atom Feed

To receive a daily email of Consumer Law & Policy content, enter your email address here:

Search CL&P Blog

Recent Posts

November 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30