Print

[arebelspy]

I'd bet that we never find out, and it remains speculation (on this particular case, at least).

Ugh.

[Cushie]

One other thought - could the lawsuit have been filed in the wrong venue?  Ie, wrong county?

[Senator]

It is time for PMI to blog about the lawsuits. 

[NewHorizon]

A call to the courthouse won't do any good.  All the clerk will know is that the case was dismissed. In California, a request for dismissal is a one page form, that does not include the reasons for the request.  You check a box and you're done.

So is there no information ANYwhere about the reason for dismissal (aside from getting it directly from the  plaintiff or defendant)?

ETA: I'm kinda glad service hasn't yet happened on most of the rest.  This dismissal may show that Prosper needs to regroup and/or re-think before proceeding with those.

[mhs505]

They couldn't prove Holly Brown actually took the Loan?

That's how people have been beating the internet PDL's - no signature card = no proof of loan.

Which is PRECISELY what DF was worried about, probably among other things.  However, that concern was summarily dismissed by the lawyers here when I reported it here after PD08.  (note -- that is not a criticism, just a fact that some didn't believe that could be an issue.  I dont' know if it is now, but since someone said maybe that is what happened, I am pointing out that no one previously believed it would be an issue.)

[Urbi_et_Orbi]

No worries, DoFu will only sue when he KNOWS he is going to win.

 

[xraider]

MHS, in California, e signatures are accepted.  This leads me to the inescapable conclusion that EITHER there is identity theft here (making the loan subject to the repurchase guarantee) OR that Prosper doesn't want to spend the resources to prove its case.  Either way, it's not the lenders' problem. 

Further, if Prosper can't prevail in court on  its loans, it has no business facilitating them.

[SGriff]

It is time for PMI to blog about the lawsuits. 

It's time for you lenders to bring a class action against PMI for fraud.

This is going to happen over and over again - any defendant who shows up to the PMI suit will be able to look at the judge and say "I never signed for this loan and never requested this loan. I don't know why they deposited money in my account."

The sick part is, that will hold up in court as a defense - and according to a local trial lawyer I spoke to, PMI can't even recover the principal in this case, because they can't prove that the defendant had anything to do with the money finding its way to their bank account in the first place, and therefore PMI has no right to demand the return of that money.

Again, folks, Online PDL's are crashing and burning everywhere because of this loophole.

[NewHorizon]

Quote from Mr. Fuller, October 2007:

There are so many new aspects to how Prosper works that there will have to be a “custom development” to create the pleadings for a Prosper lawsuit.

Back to the drawing board.   

[xraider]

SGriff, IF Prosper can document that the money found its way to the defendant (not so hard to do.... Prosper has the routing number of where the money went; start by hitting the bank with a subpoena to get the information provided to the bank when the account was opened and, at the same time, obtain information on the person's other accounts there), there are all kinds of things Prosper can sue for to get it back without proving that the defendant actually applied for the loan.  Like I said, it's a matter of resources.  A subpoena should cost no more than a couple of hundred dollars.

[cowdog]

It is time for PMI to blog about the lawsuits. 

It's time for you lenders to bring a class action against PMI for fraud.

This is going to happen over and over again - any defendant who shows up to the PMI suit will be able to look at the judge and say "I never signed for this loan and never requested this loan. I don't know why they deposited money in my account."

The sick part is, that will hold up in court as a defense - and according to a local trial lawyer I spoke to, PMI can't even recover the principal in this case, because they can't prove that the defendant had anything to do with the money finding its way to their bank account in the first place, and therefore PMI has no right to demand the return of that money.

Again, folks, Online PDL's are crashing and burning everywhere because of this loophole.

Oh, I doubt this.... unlawful enrichment could then be pursued, or a host of other charges.

[xode]

MHS, in California, e signatures are accepted.  This leads me to the inescapable conclusion that EITHER there is identity theft here (making the loan subject to the repurchase guarantee) OR that Prosper doesn't want to spend the resources to prove its case.  Either way, it's not the lenders' problem. 

Further, if Prosper can't prevail in court on  its loans, it has no business facilitating them.

How about the court itself is acting fraudulently and in bad faith.  Perhaps Prosper did all of the things that would reasonably be required of it and the court looked for and found some whacked out and absurd red herring that it believed would be a good excuse to dismiss the case.  Personally, I can think of a couple right now: borrower didn't properly sign for the loan (even though Prosper has every borrower fill out a physical postcard to verify their address and identity); only banks can make loans in the United States and since Prosper is not a bank its loans are invalid (even though person to person lending is recognized in all 50 states).

Funny how it is that there is absolutely no information from the court itself as to why it just summarily dismissed the case and that there is no way to hold this court accountable and force it to justify that dismissal.

[xraider]

xode, Prosper itself asked that the suit be dismissed.

[112233]

xode, Prosper itself asked that the suit be dismissed.

how do you know? is that implicit in "dismissal without prejudice" ?

[Xenon481]

(even though Prosper has every borrower fill out a physical postcard to verify their address and identity)

This is not true.  Since I made a listing, I received one of these postcards.  There is nothing to fill out and send back, there is merely a code on it that you have to put into a form on the website.