Here is a copy of my answer that I am going to bring to the courthouse tommorow. I think I lost the formating when I transferred it over here, but you get the jist. Any suggestions are apreciated. Thanks
Defendant’s Answer to Complaint
I
That the Plaintiff is a Corporation, incorporated under the laws of the United States and is qualified to transact business in interstate commerce and is an assignee of UICI/AFCA, HOUSEHOLD.
ANSWER: Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the legal status of the Plaintiff.
II
That to the Plaintiff’s knowledge, the Defendant(s), above named is/are individuals residing in the county of CLARK, State of Nevada.
ANSWER: Defendant admits the statement in Paragraph 2.
III
That to the Plaintiff’s knowledge and belief the true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise of the Defendant DOES I through X are unknown to the Plaintiff, who therefore sues said Defendant(s) by fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes on such information and belief alleges that each of the fictitiously named Defendants is in some way responsible for the damages sustained by Plaintiff in this action.
ANSWER: Defendant denies using fictitious names.
IV
The Plaintiff and the Defendant(s) entered into an agreement wherein the Plaintiff agreed to provide the Defendant(s) with financial services in the form of credit services and pursuant to said agreement did provide said services to the Defendant(s) at the special instance and request of the Defendant(s). That the Defendant(s) defaulted in payment to the Plaintiff and that the following default in payment thereto, the balance due and owing from the Defendant(s) to the Plaintiff is in the sum of $2,053.71, plus interest accrued thereon at the mutually agreed upon contract rate per annum, or in the absence of contract interest, statutory interest, from the date of the last payment or the date the debt was incurred, whichever is sooner until this debt is paid in full.
ANSWER: Defendant denies the statements in Paragraph 4.
V
That the documents, writings, communications and activities between the parties constitute a contractual agreement between parties sufficient enough to bind the Defendants for the services rendered by the Plaintiff.
ANSWER: Defendant denies the statements in Paragraph 5.
VI
That the Defendant(s) benefited from the services provided by the Plaintiff and should be required to pay Plaintiff reasonable value for such services .
ANSWER: Defendant denies the statement in Paragraph 6.
VII
That the Defendant(s) accepted said services provided by the Plaintiff and was unjustly enriched by their failure to pay for the said services provided by the Plaintiff and should therefore be required to pay for said services.
ANSWER: Defendant denies the statement in Paragraph 7.
VIII
That although the demand has been made, the Defendant(s) have failed and continues to fail to make payment on said account; that there is now due and owing from the Defendant(s) to the Plaintiff the sum of $2,053.71, plus interest accrued thereon.
ANSWER: Defendant denies the statement in Paragraph 8.
IX
That it has become necessary for the Plaintiff to pursue this matter through the services of an attorney and that the counsel is entitled to a reasonable attorney’s fee therefore.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against the Defendant(s) as follows:
1. For the sum of $2,053.71, plus interest as set out above;
2. For reasonable attorney’s fees;
3. For costs incurred or to be incurred;
4. For such other and further relief as to this Court may deem just and proper in the premises
ANSWER: Defendant denies allegations and therefore demands for payment.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
I
THIS ACTION MUST BE DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY SINCE IT WAS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. THE PLANTIFF WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVIDE THE DEFENDANT WITH POSITIVE PROOF THAT THERE WAS ACTIVITY ON SAID ACCOUNT IN 2001 WHEN IT WAS REQUESTED BY THE PLANTIFF. ACCORDING TO PLANTIFF, ACTIVITY PRIOR TO THIS OCCURRED IN 1998 OF WHICH DEFENDANT HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF.
II
THIS ACTION MUST BE DISMISSED AS DEFENDANT REQUESTED VALIDATION OF THIS DEBT AND PROPER VALIDATION (I.E A CONTRACT OR OTHER AFFIRMATIVE PROOF OF OWNERSHIP) WAS NOT PROVIDED.
Karen
Linear Mode
