OT Who has the burden of proof to produce proof of payment of a debt?

Private creditor and private debtor both agree that a debt was created a few years ago (within the statute of limitations). Creditor says that there was a partial payment made, but there's still an outstanding balance owed. Debtor says they paid the whole debt. Creditor wants to move forward in collecting the supposed remainder of the debt. The debtor is requesting proof of the payment to verify how much is actually owed. Who has the burden of proof to produce proof of payment of the debt?

Let's assume bank records for both party don't go back far enough to show what was paid on the day in question. No receipt was requested by debtor or generated by creditor when the payment in question was made.

 

Good question. I hope someone can provide an answer.

 

The collector/creditor has to provide an ITEMIZED statement if requested by the debtor. Said debtor needs to request an itemized statement showing actual charges for services provided, with dollar amounts, and further documentation showing what has/has not been payed on the debt. Do this as soon as possible. The burden of proof is on the party who is attempting to collect.

Side note: Always dispute any derogatory marks on your credit report, whether legitimate or not! Credit bureaus are backhanded, unethical and cut-throat. They are also swamped with gridlock and don’t have time to challenge individual cases. In many cases you can get these derogatory marks dropped easily, without much fuss.

Fuck debt collectors, creditors and credit bureaus! Always make it difficult for them, if possible. The more individuals doing these thing this will loosen their grip of power.

 

Obviously to me, the debtor has the responsibility to provide proof that he paid the debt.
Why do you ask?

 

I'd say this falls under the "innocent until proven guilty" law.

If someone simply walked up to me and claimed I owed them money, I'd say, "prove it."

 

Exactly.

 

Neither party is disputing that a debt was created. There is able documentation of the creation of the debt. It's whether the debt was paid in full in the one payment that was made. Aside from the creditor's personal accounting records, neither party appears to have documentation of what exactly was paid.

 

I think ABM laid out the reasoning why the debtor is responsible for proving that he paid off the debt perfectly.

 

Debt collectors often buy debt and all they have is a list of names and $amounts.

What you could do is ask them to prove that you owe them money. If they can’t, they’ll likely move on to the next poor bastard they can try to shake down.

 

Well yes, they do have to prove that a debt was incurred. But it was specified that the collector and debtor both agreed that a debt was incurred so I presumed that we could move on from that point.

 

The person being owed the money must establish that he is owed money and that appears to have been established. The borrower has to prove they paid it or made some payments to lower the amount owed.

 

If I purchased something from you for, say, $200 and gave you a Benjamin, said I'd give you the balance in 2 weeks, and we wrote up the receipt, but I never ended up paying you the balance, would you be able to beat me in a court of law?

 

Therein lies my point: Burden of proof really means nothing. It's all about the beating of truth.

 

Anyone remember this guy?

 

Easily you would be beat. You have a contract (the agreement) you only have a receipt to prove you have paid $100. Unless you can provide proof you paid the other $100, you're screwed, especially if the receipt shows $100 still owed.

 

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-xpm-2013-jul-08-la-fi-lazarus-20130709-story.html

 

but it has already been established and agreed upon that a loan was made and the amount. The borrower can only prove he has paid $100. I would gladly take my chance in a court of law if I was the one loaning the money.

 

It doesn't matter in this case because both parties agree that a debt was incurred. So, how is anyone to know that the debt was paid unless the debtor produces evidence? This case is so simple that I wonder why we're still discussing it.