- Log Out
- •
- Member Center
- •
- Help
- •
- About Us
- •
- Contact
Debt Buyer Loses Collection Case Appeal Over Wikipedia Page
An appeals court has reversed a $17,500 judgment against a debtor over evidence submitted in the original trial: a page from the online encyclopedia site Wikipedia.
An appeals court in New Jersey has overturned a $17,500 judgment against a debtor because the collection law firm that originally won the case admitted a page from the Web site Wikipedia into evidence.
A panel of appellate judges in the Superior Court of New Jersey – Appellate Division said in their opinion dated April 17 that Wikipedia is a “malleable source of information” and that it is “inherently unreliable.”
The case involved a debt collection action brought on behalf of debt purchaser Palisades Collection, LLC against Steven Graubard. Palisades’ legal representation claimed that Graubard owed $30,500 on a credit card account he opened in 1999 with Chevy Chase Bank. After a series of bank mergers, the account ended up with JP Morgan, who sold it to Palisades.
CORNERSTONE SUPPORT, INC.
We are the premier STATE LICENSING and COMMERCIAL INSURANCE provider to the ARM industry. We are a valued partner to 1,000+ collection agencies, debt buyers, attorneys.
After a communication from a law firm representing Palisades in February 2006, Graubard said that he was disputing the validity of the claim because, to his knowledge, he had “never been granted credit by the original creditor named in your notification.” The law firm filed suit in May 2006.
At the trial, the collection attorneys attempted to prove the chain of title of Graubard’s account. According to the court records, the plaintiffs contended that Chevy Chase’s credit card operations had been purchased by Bank One, Bank One was subsequently purchased by JP Morgan, who then sold the account to Palisades. To prove that the mergers and acquisitions had taken place, lawyers for Palisades admitted into evidence an article from the New York Times and an entry from the online encyclopedia site Wikipedia.
The trial court agreed with the plaintiffs and awarded Palisades a judgment of $17,500, after the judge said that the debt buyer could not prove why the credit card balance had grown to $30,500.
On appeal, attorneys for Graubard argued that Palisades did not have standing to prosecute the claim, as Graubard had never owned a Chevy Chase credit card. They argued that the articles submitted by Palisades’ attorneys did not prove the chain of title.
The appellate panel agreed and reversed the original decision. In the opinion, they wrote that Wikipedia is a “malleable source of information [and] is inherently unreliable, and clearly not one ‘whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned.’ Purged of this inadmissible material, plaintiff has not produced sufficient evidence to show it has the right to collect this claim from defendant.”
Palisades can appeal the decision. Attempts to reach both law firms involved for comment were unsuccessful.
For his part, Graubard conceded to local paper The Record that he is not disputing that he had a credit card and made the charges in question. "This entire case is about the chain of title on the debt,” he told the paper.
Read the appellate court’s decision here.
Care to Comment?
(Please read our comments policy first.)
Topics:
Companies:
Related Resources
News
Analysis
Publications
Research
Products and Services
Comments
Comment from eileen on April 24, 2009 at 11:15AM EST
So, if the debtor admits that he had the card, and made the charges, why not do the right thing and (grab the pearls)pay. We used to call debtors of this stripe deadbeats.
Comment from george on April 24, 2009 at 11:18AM EST
The court was right to recognize that Wikipedia is a great place to casually research, but you cannot rely on its veracity.
Comment from Anonymous on April 24, 2009 at 11:19AM EST
"Graubard conceded to local paper The Record that he is not disputing that he had a credit card and made the charges in question."
So why not just say 'I know i owe it but i want to see if i can get away with not paying it if i can'?
Comment from Anonymous on April 24, 2009 at 11:25AM EST
Why on earth would the plaintiff have used wikipedia as evidence of chain of title??? Seems like maybe they have a case for legal malpractice against their atty.
Comment from TX Debt Atty on April 24, 2009 at 11:33AM EST
I absolutely cannot believe that an atty tried to prove up mergers and acquisitions by using Wikipedia . . . that info is easily accesible through legit gov't sources.
Comment from CaliRob on April 24, 2009 at 12:18PM EST
Hope that lawyer who used Wikipedia at trial has paid-up E&O coverage.
Comment from Anonymous on April 24, 2009 at 12:32PM EST
I offer no comment on this case, but it is a very reasonable request that one trying to collect a debt can prove that they have the right to do so.
Inability to provide a chain of title opens up all kinds of problems, including some that could create very very serious problems for a debt buyer/debt collector.
Comment from Anonymous on April 24, 2009 at 12:43PM EST
Shame on the plaintiff's attorney for attempting to use Wikipedia and double shame on the trial judge for admitting it into evidence. Is the judge not aware that the plaintiff's attorney could have created the information himself, posted it to Wikipedia and printed it before any erroneous information was removed? Talk about abuse of discretion!
Comment from Christopher Coelho on April 24, 2009 at 12:52PM EST
There's no question that the man (probably) owes and should pay.
But I'm astonished that the attorney couldn't be bothered to properly establish chain of title. Hello! What was your client paying you $400 an hour for? To surf the internet? To read Wikipedia?
Furthermore, the fact that the attorney couldn't produce a record of fees and charges is highly questionable. While the increase from $17k to $30k may indeed be legit, both in terms of the agreement and of state law, the fact that there's a gap there is going to raise questions in the mind of any judge or jury. Hard to feel sympathetic for the debt buyer when that happens.
The whole thing stinks of legal malpractice and rank incompetence.
Comment from Tom Hyberger on April 24, 2009 at 1:26PM EST
To the above poster. At issue is that the person here does owe money and acknowledges it. Whether there is a "chain of title" or not it can be reasonably proven that there is. Were I an attorney I most certainly would not have used Wikipedia as a source of verification but it doesn't change the fact that the person does and did owe SOMEONE and in lieu of this fact I would have, as a collector, recommended he pay the original creditor directly. He is, of course, not doing that and all concerns here are an attempt to circumvent actual payment of the debt. That is why a protest was filed. They are looking for loopholes
Comment from Anonymous on April 24, 2009 at 2:46PM EST
It sounds like the Plaintiff's attorney was unprepared and pulled together the chain of title evidence in a last minute, ditch effort and poorly planned manner. Where were the statement copies and maybe a copy of a check showing a payment made by the debtor? This should not have been tried without proper evidence. I agree that there is susceptibility to a malpractice claim by the Plaintiff.
Comment from J. David Stuart on April 25, 2009 at 1:40PM EST
I'd love to be paid $400 an hour to try a simple credit card case. Doesn't happen. As for lack of evidence, this is hardly the lawyer's fault. The client is responsible for having evidence to prove the chain of title.
Comment from consumer on April 26, 2009 at 9:19AM EST
If the debt is being pursued by a company other than the original creditor, shouldn't there be a burden upon the debt buyer to prove they have the right to collect? All Graubard did was make the debt buyer prove they were the proper party to be paid.
Comment from Legal debt collector on April 26, 2009 at 6:48PM EST
Okay, I have to agree full heartedly that this atty is not doing his job in the least, whether it be his or his clients requirement to put together proof of ownership of the debt, it is without a question the atty's job to make sure he is walking into a case where he is pursuing the judgement on behlaf of his client with a solid case based on factual evidence. This did not happen obviously!!
However there still remains this problem that the consumer, has openly stated in public press that he is responsible for payment to SOMEONE, but nowheres is there information leading us to believe he has offered to even extend payment to the original creditor. In my opinion it appears as above posters have stated the consumer is being a typical "debtor" and looking for anything possible to avoid his responsibility for repayment!!
Comment from Bob on April 27, 2009 at 12:24PM EST
Nothing but another excuse for a "victim" in this country to not have to thier debts. What a sad and sorry country the USA is turning into. His 30k debt is reduced to 17k and the courts still find a way to let him off the hook.
Comment from Nvassarx on May 4, 2009 at 7:15PM EST
Having been in Mr. Graubard's shoes, I know he wanted to pay his money, BUT just didnt want to pay 1.8 times more than he actually owed, PLUS to the wrong people! With the original creditor NO LONGER around....this leaves him totaly confused. This confusion was "resolved" by a very nice JUDGE on appeal. Nvassarx
Comment from PaulaGem - on May 4, 2009 at 8:45PM EST
The credit industry anticipates a certain number of defaults, it is built into their business plan and they aren't hurting.
People die, people get sick, hurricaines blow neighborhoods away, there are a million reasons why people default on a loan. I'm being sued right now. My business tanked and I didn't understand why, I kept thinking it would get better and after years of struggle I was diagnosed with brain injury due to anoxia. I settled on one card, but the rest I just couldn't manage.
Walk a mile in someone else's moccasins before you malign them.
Comment from PaulaGem on May 4, 2009 at 8:50PM EST
continued -
Debt paper is flying around so fast right now that much of it does not have a proper chain of title. Harvest Credit claims to have one of my acounts, but they bought it from Dodeka via Turtle Creek. Guess what? The guys that loaned Dodeka the money to buy portfolios are suing them for breach of contract. They have a lean against Dodeka's portfolios so it is probable that Harvest doesn't have the right to collect even if they can prove title....
There is a reason for why the courts "Rules of Civil Procedure". and a reason why they shouldn't be skipped over.
Comment from Anonymous on June 23, 2009 at 1:55AM EST
The defendant is not a deadbeat, why should he have to pay anyone who accuses him of owing any amount of money, let alone 30,500 dollars. Who has not proved that he owes the debt under the law. If he accused the debt buyers of owing him money do you think for a second they would just pay because he demands them to do so? It also could be argued that debt buyers are the biggest scam artist in society, a drug dealer should get more respect, anyone who sets out the earn a living off of the misfortunes and mistakes of others should have such a nerve to call someone a deadbeat. Think about it, the debt buyers are accusing the defendant of owing a debt in the amount of 30,500 dollars, of which they probably bought this debt for about 300 dollars, and they do not even have the necessary proof that the individual they are accusing owes the money. Maybe the original debt owners such as Chase bank Citibank and others should take responsibility for their losses and settle these debts with the debtor for the amounts they sell them to these degenerates.