Hi... I had a very similiar experience with Midland - actually with one of it's subsidiaries "LVNV Funding". I gave up on a credit card when I lived in Las Vegas, Nevada in 2000. In 2007 I got a letter from some attorney in Denver demanding payment for the default judgment they had supposedly gotten against me in 2003 ( ! )- with many thousands in interest and attorneys fees added on of course. Seeing as how I had never been served anything whatsoever or recieved even a letter from LVNV funding or Midland about any lawsuit, I couldnt imagine how a lawsuit could have proceeded against me without my knowledge or how there could be a judgment against me. I just assumed that I had a right to be served and that it would be impossible for them to get a judgment against me without me even being informed of the court proceedings against me... WRONG!..... Apparently Midland served some guy in Fort Collins Colorado whose only similiarity to me isthat he happened to have my same last name ( and a completely different first and middle name). We are also different ages, hair color, and different races- he is black, I am white. Midland literally served this guy with a different name than mine, at an address at which I had never resided, in a city where I have never even lived. ( I did drive through it once! ) Midland swore under oath on the summons that it was true and accurate information about me, and the Larimer County Sherrif's deputy - a Ms. Karen Mianecki- who served this BS summons to this random guy lied under oath in a sworn affidavit to the court when she turned in her paperwork that she had verified his/ my identity and had personally served ME with my summons to appear. Midland blatantly lied under oath when they filled out the summons with a bunch of bogus information, and the deputy who claimed to have served me also lied under oath. So they got a default judgment against me! Bottom line is that Midland gets away with this crap all the time. They just serve anybody they feel like, get a default judgment, and then years later when the person who was never actually served finds out about it, Midland just says "oops!" and proceeds to sue you even after the statute is expired on the basis that they made good faith efforts to try and serve you within the statutory period....Anyways, in my case, I traveled in person to Loveland/Fort Collins Colorado and tracked down this deputy who claims to have served me- total bullsh!t. Bottom line, she admitted to me and to the court that she never actually checked the guy's id and she had just assumed that Midland had the right info on the summons because she had served the guy papers before. I petitioned the court to vacate the judgement and the judge did vacate it, BUT he refused to dismiss the case on statute-of-limitations grounds because the creditor- according to him at least - had "TRIED" to serve me with the statute's timeframe. My argument was that they just served some random guy at some random address, and that serving anybody you feel like serving is NOT sufficient to protect their right to still sue me 7 years after the fact. But the judge wasnt having it, so I settled for a thousand bucks to avoid getting sued . The whole situation still infuriates me! Banks and credit card companies will hold you to every single letter of the law and apparently THEIR rights have to be respected, but MY rights under the law were simply set aside because the judge basically felt like it. In your case, If you were not properly served, and you can prove it, you'll probably be able to get the judgment vacated as I did, but the fact that you were not served during the statutory period may not prevent the courts from allowing a new lawsuit to go forward if the creditor can convince the judge that they "tried " to serve you. It isnt legal strictly speaking, it isnt fair, and if you want to spend the next twenty years and your life savings appealing it to the Supreme Court, you would probably win, but is it worth the effort and money to do that? . If the law was followed it would prevent such a lawsuit, but as I found out, the law only is enforced strictly when it helps the collection agencies and the banks. When strict interpretation of the law works in favor of the little guy, apparently the law is really more of a "guidline" or a "suggestion" than it is a set of rules that has to be applied to everybody equally. I noticed in a later comment you stated that Midland is known for being difficult to work with. I have news for you- they are literally the spawn of satan. Pure evil. You will come to hate them as I do, with all your heart. Good luck to you. Get your judgment thrown out and then settle before thay can refile is my advice.
