Anyone on Ashley Gaerke's loan (possibly in the name of Oakland Gaerke)?

[ira01]

From Prosper's answer, which I'll upload if anyone cares:

Loans in a total amount of $25,000.00 were extended to the Plaintiff by individual bidders using Prosper’s website (“Lenders”) and the funds were disbursed to the Plaintiff by Prosper through direct deposit to the joint checking account of Defendant, Ashley Gaerke, and the Plaintiff. Prosper acted as the Plaintiff’s authorized agent to procure loans in the total amount of $25,000.00 from various Lenders on behalf of the Plaintiff. By way of further answer, it is denied that Prosper loaned any money directly to the Plaintiff or Defendant, Ashley Gaerke.

 

(bolding mine)

I can upload the answer if anyone cares. 

HOLY FREAKING CRAP, BATMAN!!

Prosper just either completely lied to the court or has been lying to us via the LRA!

Although I want to see the entire Prosper Answer (not just a tiny snippet), based on that snippet, I think that Prosper and its attorney should be sanctioned for filing this blatently false Answer.  What the hell were they thinking? 

[Mtnchick]

Correct me if I'm wrong:

1. P-----s is NOT adhering to the ID theft/fraud guarantee and
2. They are saying in BK court that since they "sold" the loans to us, they don't own them so they are in fact, washing their hands of the borrower in BK court? ETA - I'd like to see who placed the money in the defendant's account - the lenders or P-----r. 

Oh dear lord, someone move this to The Lobby.

Is anyone arranging the deck chairs?

[Xenon481]

Correct me if I'm wrong:

1. P-----s is NOT adhering to the ID theft/fraud guarantee and
2. They are saying in BK court that since they "sold" the loans to us, they don't own them so they are in fact, washing their hands of the borrower in BK court? ETA - I'd like to see who placed the money in the defendant's account - the lenders or P-----r. 

Oh dear lord, someone move this to The Lobby.

Is anyone arranging the deck chairs?

Prosper is NOT saying #2.  They are telling the court that they never made the loan in the first place and that the lenders (us) are the original lenders.  Even though Prosper has been telling us the exact opposite this whole time.

[Mtnchick]

Correct me if I'm wrong:

1. P-----s is NOT adhering to the ID theft/fraud guarantee and
2. They are saying in BK court that since they "sold" the loans to us, they don't own them so they are in fact, washing their hands of the borrower in BK court? ETA - I'd like to see who placed the money in the defendant's account - the lenders or P-----r. 

Oh dear lord, someone move this to The Lobby.

Is anyone arranging the deck chairs?

Prosper is NOT saying #2.  They are telling the court that they never made the loan in the first place and that the lenders (us) are the original lenders.  Even though Prosper has been telling us the exact opposite this whole time.

That's what I meant but said it wrong - they are saying it's not a P------r loan. Even though THEY are the ones who deposited the money into their account!!! Absolutely freaking amazing. 

[ira01]

Correct me if I'm wrong:

1. P-----s is NOT adhering to the ID theft/fraud guarantee and
2. They are saying in BK court that since they "sold" the loans to us, they don't own them so they are in fact, washing their hands of the borrower in BK court? ETA - I'd like to see who placed the money in the defendant's account - the lenders or P-----r. 

Oh dear lord, someone move this to The Lobby.

Prosper is NOT saying #2.  They are telling the court that they never made the loan in the first place and that the lenders (us) are the original lenders.  Even though Prosper has been telling us the exact opposite this whole time.

That does seem to be what Prosper is saying in the small snippet of the Answer posted by xraider.  And that is certainly a shocking position to take, which is blatently false on many levels.  Among other things, how does that square with the fact that it is Prosper, not the "lenders," which had the required state lending licenses? 

Although Prosper certainly doesn't deserve any benefit of the doubt any more, it is at least possible that the Answer was drafted by an attorney who didn't understand how Prosper works (although obviously he/she thought otherwise), and Prosper (foolishly) failed to review the Answer before it was filed with the BK Court. 

[Urbi_et_Orbi]

If accurate, that's a whole new level of sinister from Prosper.

[bookwyrm]

Correct me if I'm wrong:

1. P-----s is NOT adhering to the ID theft/fraud guarantee and
2. They are saying in BK court that since they "sold" the loans to us, they don't own them so they are in fact, washing their hands of the borrower in BK court? ETA - I'd like to see who placed the money in the defendant's account - the lenders or P-----r. 

Oh dear lord, someone move this to The Lobby.

Is anyone arranging the deck chairs?

Prosper is NOT saying #2.  They are telling the court that they never made the loan in the first place and that the lenders (us) are the original lenders.  Even though Prosper has been telling us the exact opposite this whole time.

That's what I meant but said it wrong - they are saying it's not a P------r loan. Even though THEY are the ones who deposited the money into their account!!! Absolutely freaking amazing. 

I think it interesting that they effectively disclaimed all responsibility as the lenders' agents as well.

If accurate, that's a whole new level of sinister from Prosper.

I'm still not sure, would that be sinister, or just stupid?  How do you tell the difference?

[Urbi_et_Orbi]

At some point, one has to confront the fact that such an extraordinary pattern of issues seems to go beyond just being incompetent.  In the event of garden-variety stupidity, you would expect that said stupidity would yield a more random distribution pattern as it relates to the beneficiaries of the moronic behavior.

[xraider]

Answer is attached.  I posted the only thing I found remotely interesting.  Ira, maybe you'll have another take?

[bullshitawards]

My take, Prosper is basically saying, "We don't know shit."

[yankeefan]

From what we've seen posted here so far, re identity theft, we have the husband claiming the wife done him wrong, but we don't see the evidence, if any, and the court hasn't ruled yet.  Prosper claims that they put the money in his account, and that he lost the evidence.

I wouldn't expect Prosper to buy the loan back yet- with only allegations of ID theft.  ALong with others, I do have serious questions about their "we're only the agents" claims.

of course, IANAL.

If his claims are proven, then yeah, they owe lenders some money.

[bamalucky]

PMI will buy it back "now" if they lose because it's public info & we will be watching.

But for every thing we find,i suspect PMI hides 100 more things from us successfully.

[Urbi_et_Orbi]

In the eight affirmative defense, Prosper is claiming deceit, fraud and misrepresentation... = ID theft?

[ira01]

Answer is attached.  I posted the only thing I found remotely interesting.  Ira, maybe you'll have another take?

Thanks, xraider.  Nope, that was a bunch of nothing besides the part you previously posted.  Prosper filed its Answer on May 30, and presumably they were served a couple weeks before that, so Prosper has known about this for at least about two months.  Xraider, I noticed this Answer was to the Amended Complaint -- did Prosper file an Answer to the original Complaint (or did the Plaintiff file a POS showing that (and when) Prosper was served with the original Complaint)?  That would probably push the time Prosper knew about this back several more months. 

[ira01]

From what we've seen posted here so far, re identity theft, we have the husband claiming the wife done him wrong, but we don't see the evidence, if any, and the court hasn't ruled yet.  Prosper claims that they put the money in his account, and that he lost the evidence.

I wouldn't expect Prosper to buy the loan back yet- with only allegations of ID theft.  ALong with others, I do have serious questions about their "we're only the agents" claims.

Prosper admitted it was a joint account between the husband and wife, so the fact that Prosper deposited the money there has no bearing on whether he was the actual Prosper borrower (as opposed to his wife, using his identity).  Prosper did deny his allegations that he had no contact with anyone from Prosper.  I wonder if they have any evidence to support this.  It would certainly be pretty bold (and stupid) for the husband to have alleged that if it were not true.  I wouldn't be surprised if all Prosper can come up with is something like "it is our business practice to always contact borrowers of $25K by phone, and so we must have spoken with hubby this time pursuant to that practice."  I guess we'll find out eventually.