Print

[Fred93]

This information may be totally worthless.  I have no way of knowing at this point whether this is the same person, but ...  I googled "Brown, Holly" and "Beverly Hills" and I found a link which lists campaign contributions by a Holly Brown in Beverly Hills.

http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?zip=90211&last=Brown&first=Holly

It says she gave $4,300 to John Carter for Senate in Nevada, and it also says that she works for "Flynt Management Group LLC" as an "executive".

Flynt Management Group is Larry Flint, of Hustler fame.

[xraider]

you can look it up on PACER, https://pacer.login.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?court_id=00idx

In fact I'll do it....

So much for my suspicions on this one.

Since we're in the lobby, I won't post the details, but she claims no real property; she claims that all of her assets are exempt; she shows about $220K in business debt, including her Prosper loan.  The biggest creditor obtained a judgment against her.  She's the HR manager at a law firm I know well (?!) and has been for two years.

Looks like she has about $500/mo to pay off her creditors, yet she proposes to pay more than that.  Given her job, and where she works, I don't believe that her jewelry is worth the $200 she claims, but that's just me.

Her payoff plan is about 10% of the indebtedness over 3 years.  The meeting of creditors is scheduled for a week from today, and the c onfirmation hearing is set for July 16.  Deadline for objections to plan was yesterday.  No objections were filed.  Proof of claims due September 10, 2008.

There's a lot to verify on her listing.  Do we know which listing it is?  I wonder if anyone reported her listing to Prosper?

[Senator]

I got a response from Prosper support explaining what happened in this case.

Our collection law firm received notification from Ms. Brown’s attorney that she has filed a chapter 13 bankruptcy. Following standard procedures, the firm immediately dismissed the case.  As of this date, Prosper has not received official notice of the filing from the bankruptcy court.

OhMyGod, Bama was right.  The threat of lawsuits will force borrowers into bankruptcy.

[xraider]

This one had a judgment of 6 figures before our suit.

[cubbiesnextyr]

There's a lot to verify on her listing.  Do we know which listing it is?  I wonder if anyone reported her listing to Prosper?

This one has not been matched to a listing yet.  In fact, many of the loan ID#'s haven't been connected to their prosper listings yet.  If you are on a NAT loan that hasn't been matched to a listing ID yet, please PM me the loan # and listing #.

The list we have is compiled here (lots is missing).

http://www.prospers.org/wiki/NewAgencyTest

[Mtnchick]

This one had a judgment of 6 figures before our suit.

I wonder if that judgment was before or after she was given her P-----r loan.

[bamalucky]

OhMyGod, Bama was right. 

Not to brag,but that has been happening quite a lot lately.

although it's not very hard to pick a shitty loan on PMI

[ira01]

And they're trusting that claim?  I'd wait for proof of the filing, and STAY the action, instead of dismissing it.  Prosper has already incurred the cost of the (1) preparation of the complaint; (2) the filing fee; (3) service of the complaint.  Cases in bankruptcy are stayed (not dismissed) all of the time.

We already know that Prosper takes people's words for it with no backup.

This is Prosper's hot shot collections firm?

+1.  Although as it turns out this borrower really did file BK, Prosper's attorney's actions described above are moronic.  I've never heard of a case being dismissed just because someone says the defendant filed BK.  The proper procedure is to receive confirmation from the Court, and then stay the action.  A lot can happen that would make dismissal really stupid -- aside from whether a BK really exists, the Court could dismiss the BK, discharge of the debt could be denied, etc. 

And perhaps evem more distressing, there is more evidence of Prosper incompetence here: 

As of this date, Prosper has not received official notice of the filing from the bankruptcy court.

If the deadline for filing objections to the plan was yesterday, assuming (as seems the case from xraider's post from PACER) the borrower listed Prosper as a creditor, Prosper would have received notice of the BK filing, and a copy of the proposed plan, long ago.  Thus, it appears that Prosper dropped the ball and failed to process these items received from the Court.  Although not especially surprising, certainly very disquieting.  How is Prosper going to file proofs of claim and other necessary documents in BKs, if it fails to process the paperwork properly?

[ira01]

There's a lot to verify on her listing.  Do we know which listing it is?  I wonder if anyone reported her listing to Prosper?

This one has not been matched to a listing yet.  In fact, many of the loan ID#'s haven't been connected to their prosper listings yet.  If you are on a NAT loan that hasn't been matched to a listing ID yet, please PM me the loan # and listing #.

The list we have is compiled here (lots is missing).

http://www.prospers.org/wiki/NewAgencyTest

If we can match this up quickly, and it turns out the borrower lied in her listing, we should demand (if it's not too late already) that Prosper contest the dischargeability of this debt in the BK for fraud, and also that Prosper justify its "commercially reasonable" verification of this loan or repurchase it. 

[moremoneymarc]

poof

[NewHorizon]

This one had a judgment of 6 figures before our suit.

More importantly had a lawsuit been filed trying to collect that money before that loan, AND was it reflected properly as a public record when the loan was funded?

I'm wondering if that judgment was entered before Prosper filed against her?  Or did Prosper see that judgment and still think that there were assets to recovered?  Or did Prosper just not look for the judgement before filing?

[xode]

And they're trusting that claim?  I'd wait for proof of the filing, and STAY the action, instead of dismissing it.  Prosper has already incurred the cost of the (1) preparation of the complaint; (2) the filing fee; (3) service of the complaint.  Cases in bankruptcy are stayed (not dismissed) all of the time.

We already know that Prosper takes people's words for it with no backup.

This is Prosper's hot shot collections firm?

+1.  Although as it turns out this borrower really did file BK, Prosper's attorney's actions described above are moronic.  I've never heard of a case being dismissed just because someone says the defendant filed BK.  The proper procedure is to receive confirmation from the Court, and then stay the action.  A lot can happen that would make dismissal really stupid -- aside from whether a BK really exists, the Court could dismiss the BK, discharge of the debt could be denied, etc. 

And perhaps evem more distressing, there is more evidence of Prosper incompetence here: 

As of this date, Prosper has not received official notice of the filing from the bankruptcy court.

If the deadline for filing objections to the plan was yesterday, assuming (as seems the case from xraider's post from PACER) the borrower listed Prosper as a creditor, Prosper would have received notice of the BK filing, and a copy of the proposed plan, long ago.  Thus, it appears that Prosper dropped the ball and failed to process these items received from the Court.  Although not especially surprising, certainly very disquieting.  How is Prosper going to file proofs of claim and other necessary documents in BKs, if it fails to process the paperwork properly?

So much for "education and training in the law" making people more knowledgeable in the law and more rational in their actions.

[xraider]

xode, I would have expected an experienced collection law firm to do its homework before filing a collection action.  When I go after defendants, I always do public records searches and asset checks since there's no reason to sue otherwise.

Default judgment entered in September 2007.  It's a 40-page complaint, and I'm not sufficiently interested to spend the $10 to get a copy.  There's also a judgment lien filed in September, 2007.  Buchalter, Nemer had the case, so it wasn't small potatoes.     

Looks like our debtor tried to fund her boyfriend's recording business.

If anyone cares, please let me know and I'll post details in Lenders-Verified.

   

[Mtnchick]

xode, I would have expected an experienced collection law firm to do its homework before filing a collection action.  When I go after defendants, I always do public records searches and asset checks since there's no reason to sue otherwise.

Default judgment entered in September 2007.  It's a 40-page complaint, and I'm not sufficiently interested to spend the $10 to get a copy.  There's also a judgment lien filed in September, 2007.  Buchalter, Nemer had the case, so it wasn't small potatoes.     

Looks like our debtor tried to fund her boyfriend's recording business.

If anyone cares, please let me know and I'll post details in Lenders-Verified.

   

We really need a way to track down and see who this is as a borrower.

[Senator]

We really need a way to track down and see who this is as a borrower.

What did Shira call us?

Oh yes, "snooping lenders".