MyFairDebt.com

“ECM claims that the Holder Rule is inapplicable because it has assigned the note to Associates. We reject that argument as well. The clear and unambiguous language of the Rule "notifies all potential holders that, if they accept an assignment of the contract, they will be 'stepping into the seller's shoes.' " Lozada v. Dale Baker Oldsmobile, Inc., 91 F.Supp.2d 1087, 1094 [U.S.D.C. W.D. Mich. 2000]; Oxford Fin. Cos., Inc. v. Velez, 807 S.W.2d 460, 463 [Tex. Ct. App.1991] [emphasis added]. Any potential holder has notice that if it procured the purchase money loan or other consumer contract that it may be stepping into the seller’s shoes. Courts have refused to accept that such result would not attach simply because of a subsequent assignment of the loan, especially when the potential holder actively participated with the seller in placing the loan with the intermediary assignee. Associates Home Equity Services, Inc. v. Troup, 343 N.J.Super. 254, 778 A.2d 529 [N.J. Super. A.D. 2001] [There is also evidence that Wishnia "refers consumers" to ECM. Ibid. Indeed, in this case Wishnia made all the arrangements for the loan and had the Troups chauffeured to ECM's offices to close. A reasonable jury could also conclude that Wishnia was "affiliated with" ECM by "business arrangement." Ibid. The Troups presented evidence that Wishnia and ECM had mutually arranged at least six other home improvement or equity loans to other customers living in the City of Newark or the Newark area.]. The clear and unambiguous language does not purport to limit a creditor/assignee's liability in such fashion. Lozada v. Dale Baker Oldsmobile, Inc., 91 F.Supp.2d 1087 [U.S.D.C. W.D. Mich. 2000].