HSBC Bank Nevada, National Association, Las Vegas, Nevada (“HSBC Nevada”) - No longer in existence

CREDIT CARD DEBT SUITS  BASED ON 
ACCOUNTS OF HSBC BANK NEVADA, N.A.

HSBC BANK NEVADA, N.A. was a national bank that has since ceased to exist. It issued various private label and co-branded cards, including Best Buy and Metris. Its portfolio also included accounts issued in the name of DIRECT MERCHANTS BANK.
 
Claims based on charged-off accounts of this nature are typically brought by debt buyers, such as NCEP, LLC; PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC ("PRA"); CAVALRY SPV I, LLL (as assignee of EQUABLE ASCENT FINANCIAL, LLC); MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC; and MAIN STREET ACQUISITION CORP.
 
Attorneys for these debt buyers often do not produce a cardmember agreement to establish the contractual foundation of their claim. Other documentation is often also of poor quality. Sometimes they submit an application for a credit card, and pretend that the application is the contract, even if the application makes it clear that it may or may not be granted, and states that the cardholder agreement will be sent with the card (assuming the application is approved). In many of these debt collection cases, the documentation of the portfolio transfers is often of very dubious character also. There is frequently no specific evidence to demonstrate that the particular account on which the debt collection attorney sues was part of the portfolio to which the bill of sale or other form of assignment document pertains. One-page bills of sale typically refer to other documents (such as exhibits, schedules, and contracts) and the information contained in such other documents, but these other documents are typically not attached, and therefore are not before the court for evidentiary purposes.

HSBC BANK NEVADA, N.A.'s active credit card portfolio was acquired by Capital One Bank, National Association, McLean, Virginia and Capital One Bank (USA), National Association, Glen Allen, Virginia in a 2011 asset purchase transaction, with regulatory approval granted in 2012. Defaulted account were apparently also part of the transaction, which arguably makes Capital One a debt collector, as opposed to a creditor, under the FDCPA, when it attempts to collect on such accounts. But there may be reasonable grounds for legitimate disagreement on the matter, particularly in cases when it is not clear, or not clear initially without the benefit of discovery, what that status of the the particular account was at the time of the portfolio sale transaction.

HSBC BANK NEVADA, N.A subsequently merged with its corporate parent and its charter under the National Bank Act was surrendered to the OCC. As a result, the bank no longer exists.

EXCERPT FROM APPLICATION FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL
FOR HSBC-CAPITAL ONE DEAL FOR SALE OF CREDIT CARD BUSINESS

HSBC - CAPITAL ONE DEAL - TRANSACTION SUMMARY
(click image to enlarge)

HSBC BANK NEVADA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION - BACKGROUND 

HSBC Nevada was chartered in 1993 under the Competitive Equality Banking Act (“CEBA”).

A CEBA bank is not a “bank” for purposes of the Bank Holding Company Act if it engages “only in credit card operations” and is restricted by statutory provisions from competing with retail banks by limiting its deposit taking and lending activities. Under CEBA, HSBC Nevada could not make any loans outside of its credit card operations, including commercial loans, farm loans, or community development loans. In addition, HSBC Nevada applied for, and received, a limited purpose designation under the CRA on February 1, 1996. A limited purpose bank is a bank that offers only a narrow product line to a regional or broader market and for which a designation of limited purpose bank is in effect.

HSBC Bank Nevada, National Association, Las Vegas, Nevada ceased to exist when it merged into HSBC Finance Corporation, Mettawa, Illinois (“HBIO”), its non-bank parent corporation incorporated under Delaware Law, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 215a-3. 1 As a result of the merger, HSBC Nevada’s corporate existence ended and its charter was surrendered to the OCC.

 FDIC information on HSBC-related financial institutions in the U.S.

The Bank Holding Company is HSBC HOLDINGS PLC (based in London)

Motion for Continuance: Reset of Trial Date, Motion for Summary Judgment Hearing or Submission; and request for postponement of other court hearings

What is a continuance? What is required for a motion for continuance? Which rule applies?

CONTINUANCE AND RE-SET DEFINED 

A continuance is the legal term used to refer to a court (judge) not going forward with a hearing or trial on the day it was set to commence per prior notice and notation on the docket (the court's agenda ketp by the clerk). This may happen for a variety of reasons. It may be the judge's unilateral decision based on scheduling considerations involving other matters, or it may be requested by either party or both parties for reasons of their own.
 
In debt cases, amount of time to try a case is normally not a major issue because these types of trials are, with rare exceptions, very quick and jury trials are virtually unheard of. Many such cases are disposed of within minutes, especially when there are not live witnesses, and a business records affidavit with attachments is used instead. Some judges even give them priority on trial day if they can be taken care of in a matter of minutes.

A closely related terms is "reset". A continuance amounts to reset if a new date for the hearing or the trial is fixed at the same time the continuance is granted. The new date will be noted on the docket, and a notice will be mailed to the parties and/or their attorneys, if any, by the clerk.

Nonlegal terms that refer to the same type of action in other contexts are postponement and rescheduling.

THE RULE GOVERNING CONTINUANCES: More than one

There are actually several rules in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure that deal with continuances. It has been proposed that the rules be reorganized and simplified. Although the Supreme Court revised serveral rules in 2013, and added new ones, a comprehensive make-over has yet to happen.

Texas Rules governing motions for continuance of trial

The most important rule for continuances of trials is rule 251. It provides for three scenarios: motion for continuance by one party, which must be supported by affidavit (or "verified", i.e. sworn to), motion for continuance by agreement of the parties;  and continuance by operation of law.

TRCP 251 titled CONTINUANCE

The rule does not completely reflect what typically happens in the courtroom. First, many continuance are done by the court on its own initiative, or upon appearance of at least one party or attorney, regardless of whether a motion for continuance is on file. Judges don't have to justify a decision to reset a case, as long as the right to a trial is not thwarted altogether.

There may be a variety of reasons for judges continuing cases, and it is particularly common in courts with a heavy caseload, such a county courts at law in large counties that handle the majority of debt collection cases.

Second, the rule does not state that an agreed continuance is automatic. The judge still retains discretion to grant the continuance or deny it and go forward with the hearing or trial. As a matter of common courtroom practice, however, the judge will  almost always grant an agreed motion for continuance as long as trial has not already been reset several times before in the same case.

County and district court judges may be more concerned with the length of time cases linger on the docket without a final decision because the Supreme Court has adopted guidelines for timely disposition, statistics are kept, and judges may be evaluated on their performance, based on such metrics, come the next election. If many very old cases remain pending, it makes them look bad. The disposition guidelines do not apply in justice court, and statistics for individual courts are typically much harder to come by.

Third, the summary judgment rule has its own provision for motions for continuance, but it closely tracks the rule that applies to trial continuance based on an alleged need of the party for additional discovery or deposition testimony.  

Finally, the set of rules that expressly address the topic of continuance do not cover another important ground for a trial reset: insufficient notice, or none at all.

MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE BASED ON LACK OF NOTICE OR INADEQUATE NOTICE OF TRIAL OR HEARING SETTING 

In order to enforce minimum required notice periods, the aggrieved party must bring its complaint to the trial court's attention. If an appeal may ensue, it would also be important to obtain a ruling on the objection.
The complaint about insufficient notice of a hearing or trial setting may be done by written objection filed with the clerk or through a motion for continuance.

There are some differences between the two forms: A motion for continuance will require a certificate of conference with the opposing counsel who set the hearing and will have to be captioned opposed or unopposed. Second, since it is a motion, it would have to be accompanied by a proposed order, and would arguably be subject to timeliness requirements applicable to motions generally. At least, the motion should be filed as promptly as possible, once the need for it becomes apparent. Third, a motion for continuance would be expected to be sworn like motions for continuance based on other grounds, at least as long as the lack of notice or insufficient notice is not apparent elsewhere on the record. To be on the safe side for purposes of appeal, the motion should be sworn ("verified") or accompanied by an affidavit setting forth the relevant facts regarding lack of (or belated) notice.

MINIMUM NOTICE REQUIREMENTS 

The minimum required notice depends on the nature of the hearing, and  -- in the case of trial settings -- whether it is the first trial setting, or a reset.

Summary judgment hearings (or hearings by submission) require a minimum of 21 days prior notice to the other party (called the non-movant); other types of motions can be set on much shorter notice: as much as a few days under the TRCP, but the local rules in a particular county, court system/division, or individual court, may require more.

For the first trial setting, the minimum notice is 45 days for contested cases. Any second or later trial setting is only subject to "reasonable" notice. Trials may be set or conducted without regard to minimum notice periods if not contested.

APPELLATE CASE LAW ON CONTINUANCES AND DENIAL THEREOF

There is plenty of case law from the courts of appeals, which typically involves denials of motions for continuance, and whether such a ruling by a trial court judge was error.

Generally, such a denial is no abuse of discretion, and not grounds for reversal of the judgment, if the motion was defective (such as  not having been sworn, or not setting forth grounds); or if there was no good cause for the continuance, i.e. need for it supported by sworn facts that establish that the substantive requirements for a continuance have been satisfied.

A typical basis, whether pretextual or well-founded, for not wanting to go forward with a trial is the claim that further discovery is needed, or that a witness is not available to testify, or wasn't available for deposition. Another common reason is a scheduling conflict of one of the attorneys, particularly a conflicting trial setting in another court.

NEED FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY AS GROUNDS FOR CONTINUANCE 

Rule 252, oddly titled "APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE" rather than Motion for Continuance, sets rules for a continuance based on the unavailability of testimony. This ground must be supported an affidavit that shows that the party seeking the continuance for that reason has exercised due diligence in seeking to obtain such testimony, and that the testimony is material.

TRCP 252: Form and substance for Motion for Continuance based on
need for additional discovery, testimony

The rule speaks of testimony, but it could also be a lack of documentary evidence, particularly in the summary judgment context, although the summary judgment rule has its own provisions in this regard, which are very similar.

Summary Judgment Rule provisions for Continuance of Hearing
to Prepare Better Response

OTHER BASIS FOR CONTINUANCE - ABSENCE OF PARTY'S ATTORNEY 

Rule 253 states that the absence of a party's lawyer does not constitute good cause for continuance or postponement of trial, but the judge nevertheless has some discretion under such circumstances.
Rule 254 addresses the situation of an attorney serving as a legislator. In most cases the grant of a continuance requested by such attorney-legislator is mandatory if the legislature is in session.

TRIAL COURTS EXERCISE DISCRETION

As a general rule, the grant or denial of a motion for continuance is a matter on which the trial court exercises its discretion. Some judges let it be known that they will grant the first continuance as a matter of course, and that any further ones require good reason or extraordinary circumstances.

RULES GOVERNING TRIAL CONTINUANCE VERBATIM (click image for better view)

Image of the several rules governing trial continuance in Texas courts (click to enlarge)

MANDAMUS PETITION FILED TO GET COURT OF APPEALS TO OVERRULE TRIAL JUDGE ON DENIAL OF MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE, BUT UNSUCCESSFUL 

Dan G. Young Profile of Attorney with JWY Lawfirm in Lubbock

WHO-IS-WHO AMONG THE CREDITORS’ BAR

Dan G. Young with JENKINS Lawfirm in Lubbock

INDIVIDUAL ATTORNEY PROFILE  OF DEBT COLLECTION ATTORNEY

Dan G. Young is a collection lawyer with Jenkins,Wagnon & Young, LLC. 

Attorney Dan G. Young has been licensed in Texas since 1983, and in Oklahoma since 2005. Unlike most other collection lawyers, Young is admitted not only to practice all courts of the State of Texas, but in federal district courts and bankruptcy courts in the multiple Districts of Texas; in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals; and in the U.S. Supreme Court. His law degree is from Texas Tech University (1983).  

NAME CONFUSION: SEVERAL TEXAS ATTORNEYS WITH SIMILAR NAME 

Young is a common last name. Not surprisingly, there a number of other attorneys with the same last name, and even one with the same first and last name, and a few more with the first name Daniel rather than the short version Dan. It is therefore important to include the middle name to distinguish Dan G Young from other attorneys with very similar names. The official licensing and registration records for Dan G. Young do not reveal what middle name the G stands for.  

Attorney Dan G. Young’s Texas Bar Number is 22177250

LAW FIRM AND COLLEAGUES 

Dan G. Young is a name partner at JENKINS, WAGNON & YOUNG.. Jody Jenkins and Dan G. Young sign pleadings in debt collection litigation handled by this firm. J. Mark Wagnon devotes himself to other legal matters, which consist in large part of transactional work. Wagnon does not appear as attorney of record in the firm’s collection lawsuits. Like Jenkins and Wagner, Dan G. Young was previously with McCleskey, Harriger, Brazill & Graf, L.L.P., which is true of his partners also. 

Brian Benitez (full name Brian Louis Benitez) is an associate at the firm. He too is a graduate from Texas Tech University School of Law. Benitez was licensed in 2012 and recently joint the firm.

PRACTICE AREAS

Although he is best known as a debt collection lawyer, Attorney Dan G. Young lists a number of other areas of practice on this State Bar profile:  Bankruptcy, Business, Consumer, Creditor-Debtor, Insurance, Labor-Employment, Litigation: Commercial, Real Estate, Other, Finance

ADDITIONAL BIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 

According to his bio on his firm’s website, Dan G. Young was born in Lubbock in 1957, earned his college degree in his home town in 1979, and also went to law school there, earning his JD from Texas Tech University School of Law  in 1983, where he was also on the law review. He was licensed that same year. Young has chosen collection work as his niche in the legal field. He is a member of the National Association of Retail Collection Attorneys  and the American Collectors Association.

FOR WHICH CREDITORS DOES DAN G. YOUNG LITIGATE?

A search on the Harris County District Clerk's websites reveals  Dan G Young as attorney of record in 437 cases. Recent clients include CONVERGING CAPITAL CORPORATION, SIMMONS FIRST NATIONAL BANK, CACH LLC, EQUABLE ASCENT FINANCIAL LLC, GLOBAL ACCEPTANCE CREDIT COMPANY.

APPELLATE RECORD IN TEXAS

Dan G. Young has a much more extensive appellate track record than most other debt collection attorneys in Texas. He is listed as attorney in 30 cases, although there are few in recent years.  One of the appeals resulting in a noteworthy opinion involved a debt collection case brought on behalf of Hudson & Keyse, L.L.C. on an assigned Chase Manhattan Bank credit card debt that was appealed to the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Houston. Many appeals in debt collection matters get dismissed for various reasons, such as nonpayment of fees, defective appellant’s brief or none, and lack of jurisdiction due to untimely filing of notice of appeal, or for other reasons.  

TYPICAL PETITION IN DEBT SUIT 

Notwithstanding his appellate law credentials, the pleadings filed by Dan G. Young are rudimentary. Like all other debt collection firms, litigation templates are used and suit papers for individual cases are generated with document production software that inserts a few pieces of variable data into the e-template for pleadings, motions, and other documents. While the typical original petition contains a fact section, it may not even feature a separate paragraph on the legal theory of recovery. See sample of fact section: 

ATTORNEY FEE AFFIDAVITS 

Both Jody Jenkins and Dan G Young seek attorneys fees in debt suits. The typical amount claimed as reasonable, regardless of county in which the suit is filed, is $1,500. See excerpt from sample fee affidavit: 

LAWFIRM ADDRESS AND CONTACT DETAILS FOR DAN G. YOUNG

Dan G. Young

JENKINS, WAGNON & YOUNG, P.C.

P.O. BOX 420

Lubbock, Texas 79408-0420

Phone: 806-796-7322

Fax: (806) 771-8755