Print

[Fred93]

Fred93 has updated his blog ths morning, with a discussion of the status of several of prosper's lawsuits against delinquent borrowers.
http://fred93blog.blogspot.com/2008/10/prospercom-lawsuits-are-not-going-well.html

Bottom line:  Of the 18 cases filed in Los Angeles and Orange County,
Prosper won: 1 case
In process: 8 cases
In process, but lookin' bad: 3 cases
Prosper lost: 6 cases

Oh, and Fred93's blog has a new home:  http://fred93blog.blogspot.com/

Note that in order to leave a comment, you will need to be logged in to a google account. 

[xraider]

Fred, thank you very much for the update.  The scary thing about your post is the cases that were dismissed with no proof of service.  It's very easy to ask the court to serve via publication.  You present an affidavit saying that you've diligently tried to serve but you can't find the person, providing specifics.  You then get leave of court to publish notice of the summons and complaint in a general circulation newspaper.  If there's no response, you then take a default from there.  The fact that Prosper didn't bother to do that speaks volumes.

[msava]

Fred93 has updated his blog ths morning, with a discussion of the status of several of prosper's lawsuits against delinquent borrowers.

Bottom line:  Of the 18 cases filed in Los Angeles and Orange County,
Prosper won: 1 case
In process: 8 cases
In process, but lookin' bad: 3 cases
Prosper lost: 6 cases

Oh, and Fred93's blog has a new home:  http://fred93blog.blogspot.com/

Note that in order to leave a comment, you will need to be logged in to a google account. 

Thank you Fred. You are definitely providing a service to lenders. If only Prosper was as forthcoming with information?

[DCS]

Thank you Fred, very good info.

This case has me scratching my head more than the rest:

Orange County Court
30-2008-00065226-CL-CL-NJC PROSPER MARKETPLACE, INC. vs Mario Villanueva
Case filed 4/24/08.
Prosper filed proof of service of summons on 7/29/08.
Prosper requested dismissal of the case on 8/12/08.
Case dismissed 8/12/08. Prosper lost.

Here, Prosper did successfully serve summons, so it can't be ID theft.

But then less than a month later, Prosper requested dismissal and "Prosper lost."  I wonder why?

[Mark12547]

Here, Prosper did successfully serve summons, so it can't be ID theft.

Maybe I am slow this morning from not having my first cup of caffeine, but why can't it be ID Theft? A successful summons service just means the summons was delivered to a person with the correct name, or at least a close name, not that it was delivered to the specific borrower.

For example, if someone uses my name to borrow, then changes the address on file to my address and the borrower skips town, the summons would be served to me, but I may be able to demonstrate that, even though the summons was delivered to me, additional information doesn't match (e.g., never lived at original borrowing address, or different SSN, or never owned the account the loan money was initially deposited in).

[DCS]

You're right, Mark, it certainly could still be ID theft.

I think I'm off to Starbucks now for a badly needed red eye, lol.

[112233]

If only Prosper was as forthcoming with information?

but it's the quiet period

(or is it the STFU lenders period?)

[ira01]

A few thoughts on all of this:

First, Fred, thank you for all your hard work compiling this information.  It is something I've been meaning to take a look at for a while, but haven't had time. 

I think these results are absolutely outrageous, in several respects.  First, it is ridiculous that Prosper still hasn't served (or at least hasn't filed proof of service) in so many cases.  There are extensive computer databases readily available for tracking people down (especially since Prosper has a wealth of information about borrowers, including full names, social security numbers, dates of birth, copies of drivers' licenses, etc.).  If dilligent efforts at personal service fail, you can use substitute service (leaving a copy at the person's home, place of business, or place where they usually receive mail (except a USPS PO Box) with an adult and mailing a copy there as well.  If that fails, as xraider noted you can seek court permission to serve by publication. 

Second, what is up with all of the dismissals?  While it is possible some of these reflect settlements, Prosper absolutely should be telling us if that is the case.  Certainly it is equally plausible that some of these dismissals were due to ID-theft, in which case Prosper is legally obligated to repurchase the loans from the lenders. 

Third, Prosper's lawyers certainly seem to make an inordinate number of paperwork errors resulting in documents being rejected by the clerk.  While some clerks have idiosyncratic policies, the number of rejections seem extremely high to me, especially since Hunt & Henriques is supposed to be an excellent collections firm, and the types of documents that are being rejected (especially requests for defaults/default judgments) are the bread and butter of collections cases (where debtors often fail to respond to the complaint).  They should have this process down to a science. 

The bottom line is (as Fred states) that the NAT results so far do not appear to be encouraging.  Prosper MUST provide lenders (or at least those lenders opting-in to the NAT) substantial information about the progress of these cases.  It should have created a page on its website listing all of the NAT loans, and the current status of each.

[ira01]

Third, Prosper's lawyers certainly seem to make an inordinate number of paperwork errors resulting in documents being rejected by the clerk.  While some clerks have idiosyncratic policies, the number of rejections seem extremely high to me, especially since Hunt & Henriques is supposed to be an excellent collections firm, and the types of documents that are being rejected (especially requests for defaults/default judgments) are the bread and butter of collections cases (where debtors often fail to respond to the complaint).  They should have this process down to a science. 

I spent two hours today observing a small claims court sesssion.  There were a ton of cases by finance companies suing individuals over debts, all of which were either defaults or settlements (since none were contested I wasn't sure what, exactly, they were about, but probably either rent-to-own or store financing for customers buying stuff).  There were about 10 defaults, by 3 different companies, and EVERY ONE was granted.  If these places could get the paperwork correct, I'm not sure why Prosper seems to be having so many problems.

[bamalucky]

Those places use their own money & have a vested interest in getting it right

[big-al]

Reviewing an old rateladder blog interview w/Doug Fuller...

Q: Do you have experience with suing people?
A: Oh yes. Between First Select and Credigy, I have been responsible for making the decision to sue more than 150,000 people. There are a lot of lawyers that can’t claim that number of suits in a lifetime.

Q: Well why don’t we just sue everybody?
A: The phrase “blood from a turnip” comes to mind. One of the ways that you can go broke in a big way is by suing people that will never be able to pay you at all. Simple math, it costs a lot of money to sue people.

Q: Okay, so you need to decide who to sue, then what?
A: Put quite simply, my philosophy is this – if you won’t pay, but can (or will in the future) be able to pay, I’m going to sue you. If I sue you I’m going to win.

Q: That sounds kind of arrogant, can you back it up?
A: Courts in seven states have recognized me as an expert at consumer debt litigation. At Credigy, if a case got really nasty, I would go testify live. I refuse to lose.

Q: Really? What’s your win/lose record?
A: In my last 18 months at Credigy, I testified live at 42 trials. My record was 41-1. By the way, I fired the law firm where we lost.

Q: What’s the toughest aspect of this type of lawsuit?
A: By and large, judges are comfortable if you can show them a signature on a piece of paper. The vast majority of judges grew up long before the internet and the passage of the “e-signature” bill during the Clinton administration. Sometimes you’ve got to spend a lot of time educating them.

Q: How do you do this?
A: I have been qualified as an “expert witness” in seven states on the subject of the electronic records of consumer lending transactions. There was a judge in Texas that had me on the stand for more than three hours – the majority of the time, the judge was quizzing me. Other than I missed the last flight home, I thought it was time well spent – he never questioned any of our requests for default judgment after that.

Q: Doug, thank you. With all of your plans, I’m going to stop the questions and let you get to work on improving Collections at Prosper.
A: Thank you.

It would be interesting to see what statistics about his performance he would choose to cite when describing his success at Prosper.

[beerbud1]

So How do you think that will play out on his resume.

.Successfully prosecuted 1 case out of 66 possible. 

[Mtnchick]

It would be interesting to see what statistics about his performance he would choose to cite when describing his success at Prosper.

If DoFu had a brain in his head he'd be out looking for work elsewhere instead of spending time here reading these forums. It's ALMOST humorous to read his rantings about suing people after the dog and pony show that has resulted from PMI "suing" people and nothing happening. I say "almost" because it's our money. If it were PMI's money only it would be completely humorous.

[beerbud1]

Doug Fuller you're an embarrassment, pure and simple. You obviously are in over your head. You don't know what your doing and never did.

Your not man enough to admit it . You don't give us updates. When I met you I wasn't impressed. You ran off to get your free meal like a coward.


Fixed

[onthefence]

Doug Fuller your an embarrassment, pure and simple. You obviously are in over your head. You don't know what your doing and never did.

Your not man enough to admit it . You don't give us updates. When I met you I wasn't impressed. You ran off to get your free meal like a coward.

Yo' guys.  Being a little rough on Doug Fuller.  Yes.  Results so far are not promising.  But don't make it personal.