Consumer complaint received 2016-09-05
Company: Burton Neil & Associates, P.C.
State: NJ
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: Other (i.e. phone, health club, etc.)
Issue: Disclosure verification of debt
Sub-issue: Not given enough info to verify debt

Complaint:
alleged debt was from a landlord demanding 4 months rent for me vacating the apartment before lease had expired. I was declared XXXX by the new jersey XXXX XXXX when I vacated pursuant to nj XXXX XXXX I had remedy at the time this purported debt occurred. I did not have the XXXX at the time the debt was created to enter into a debt. I also stand by XXXX XXXX XXXX a debtor is insolvent if the sum of the debtors debts is greater than all of the debtors assets at a fair valuation. All this was explained to the debt collector however upon deaf ears. The attorneys response was to borrow the money which I deemed totally inapropriate.I signed the agreement By : authorized representative and secured my rights pursuant to XXXX XXXX until I was able to do my research and due diligence in this matter.It is my contention that the alleged creditor acted unconscionably ( unfairly ) in this matter. Upon speaking with the alleged creditor he said the matter was out of his hands and I should speak with the debt collector. My contention the debt was sold. Its my understanding once a debt is sold it is extinquished. I attempted to speak with the debt collector regarding my financial situation at the time XXXX benefits, food stamp and phone benefit program but to no avail. I also offered my social security number to help verify any assets, or banking records to confirm my present financial condition again no assistance or response.When I agreed to the credit contract I could not afford to repay and the creditor knew this. I have however stood in honor and have paid what im able too under the most extraneous conditions. It is also my contention that the debt collector is a third party interloper on this matter with no lawful standing. Nor are they a bona fide party to any contract in which I am also a party, an agent of a bona fide party to any contractin which I am also a party, a holder in due course of any debt to which I am obligated or has shown evidence of the validity of the original contract, and that their claim is or was fraudulent.They also have not display a license or bond Showing that they are a bona fide agent, registered with the state which they must produce. I also challenge their authority to use my title/trust name in their correspondence. The Markind Law Group made a claim against my estate in which they are not the superior title holder. I am the holder in due course, they do not have a superior claim.When challenged on this aspect of their claim again vagueness and a lack of a coherent, competent response. I also contend that the alleged debt was never assessed under penalty and perjury, or verified under oath thus not a true bill in commerce.I dclare that I do not nor did I ever act as surety for the en legis artificial title. A maxim of law clearly states " XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX '' Dissimilar things ought not be joined.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation