Nathan Wertz v. Asset Acceptance, LLC - 2/25/14

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Tuesday  February 25, 2014 
11:00 AM  EST

11 a.m. 71A03-1305-CC-175 . Nathan Wertz appeals the trial court’s judgment dismissing his counterclaim against Asset Acceptance, LLC, pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6) for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.  In his counterclaim, Wertz alleged that Asset, a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Michigan, had attempted to collect a debt from Wertz, which it had purchased from the original lending institution, in Indiana without first having obtained a license from the Department of Financial Institutions pursuant to Indiana’s Uniform Consumer Credit Code.  The parties also dispute whether Asset was required to obtain a license under the Indiana Collection Agency Act, whether Wertz’s counterclaim sufficiently pleaded a claim under the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, and whether Wertz’s counterclaim entitled him to relief under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Back to Events
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT