1st time in court... please help
Date: Wed, 09/10/2008 - 11:20
I was server in Florida and have until the 1st of November to show up in court for a pretrial/ mediation, a party I've never been to before:)
I honestly don't know if the debt is mine and need to know what the first steps are in regards to paperwork, and research...
thanks:)
1. Are you being sued by the original creditor (OC)or a junk debt buyer (JDB)?- plaintiff on your summons
says an assignee of Chase? Does that mean that Chase still owns the account or that the plantiff is in fact the professional investment and finance? They sound like a law firm to me and hence makes me think that they are not the owners of the account as the very nature of assignee by definition is: Individual to whom a title, claim, property, interest, or right has been transferred.
2 If a JDB, who is the OC?
Chase
3. Have you verified the summons with your county courts? in person or via their website
No, how do I do that?? Why do I do that?
4. Have you had any prior communication with the people suing you? prior collection notices, etc
Don't recall ever getting a notice in the past or a phone call..but I read that a summons has been accepted as a primary means of correspondance
5. When was the last time you made a payment on the account? - important for determining if SOL has indeed expired
Middle of 2005 so I'm still within SOL
6.Did they send anything else with the summons? Affadavit, a statement from the OC, interrogatories..etc
Summons, charge-off slip, and affidavit of debt; which is signed by the a records keeper for the plantiff ( professional investment and finance)??? I thought someone with personal knowledge of the account , i.e. the OC, had to be involved?
hmmm... still not getting the whole assignee thing?? am I dealin
hmmm... still not getting the whole assignee thing?? am I dealing with chase or professional investment and finance llc??
hi-- ok, let's take these one at a time. First, the plaintif
hi--
ok, let's take these one at a time. First, the plaintiff at this point is a third party, so the fdcpa applies here. Even though chase may still own the debt, it doesnt matter because the named plaintiff is someone other than chase.
Now, my best advice to you is to state that you have no business dealings with the plaintiff and challenge EVERYTHING they present as evidence. For example, this "affidavit of debt" is not admissable in court unless you allow it to be. It is nothing more than someone at the third party debt collector's office signing a statement claiming that they have full knowledge of this account. It is considered hearsay in court, but only if you object to it. You have the right to question anyone who brings forth accusations against you--and the person who signed that "affidavit" is doing exactly that, so at that point I would request that the court require that person's appearance so that you can question them. More times than not, collectors use this because they know that most debtors arent educated in the law, so they wont say anything about it and the collector gets away with it. But when challenged, when they cannot produce that person in court, the affidavit gets thrown out and they cannot use it.
The whole thing about going to court is whether or not they can prove that you owe them money for anything. I would state that I have no knowledge of any obligation to pay them and make motion for discovery, asking for proper legal validation of this debt.
I have a question about those affidavits. How exactly does the
I have a question about those affidavits. How exactly does the scenario play out?
I think the way it works is both parties are standing before the judge. At some point the judge asks for evidence and the plantiff submits the affidavit as an exhibit and that is when you object on grounds of hearsay. Is that how it works or should it be objected to when answering a summons? Also if the person that signed the affidavit shows up what questions should be asked to get the thing thrown out?
I agree, those are some good questions.. I'm required to appear
I agree, those are some good questions.. I'm required to appear for a pretrial conference/mediation, which from what I've read is used to decide what evidence there is, and if it should go to trial..
But I'm also confused about the processes involved and their timing, in regards to answering the summons....
Everyone says to answer the summons yet it also seems that some tell me to make my motions and objections before the judge??? Don't I only have a certain amount of time to challenge the information in the summons??
you need to make your statements in the answer to the summons.
you need to make your statements in the answer to the summons. For example, you have to provide all of your intended defenses in the summons. Bottom line is, this CA has never provided you with any proof of their claims, and the law is clear that a court cannot assume guilt based only on their say-so. They must provide documentation, unless you dont show up at all, then they get a default judgment.
Now, as I see it, your defense is that you are not aware of having any business dealings with this plaintiff, and therefore you arent aware of any obligation to pay this plaintiff. Then you make motion for discovery, requesting that they provide proper legal validation of the debt. You can mention in your answer, in response to them listing an affidavit, that 'Defendant hereby objects to this affidavit, as it is hearsay and therefore not admissable as evidence. Defendant further requests that the court require the party who has signed and sworn to this affidavit to be produced and made available for questioning.' Then, at the hearing I would reiterate this in front of all parties, so that it will be on record there too. The law requires them to prove that you owe the debt, so make them do exactly that. Otherwise, dont pay them a penny. If they cannot prove it in front of the judge then they cannot win their case.
thanks for the reply... I went to court today to familiarize my
thanks for the reply...
I went to court today to familiarize myself with how everything works and upon questions the clerk of courts found that since it a pretrial mediation I needn't answer the summons because it is not a trial... This sounds a bit shady to me but does make me wonder if filing a motion for discovery will make me look a bit bloodthirsty.. especially since the clerk told me that filing anything before the mediation wouldn't serve any cause??? Please help clarify this process...
any summons(pretrial, mediation, anything) gets a response right?
I wouldn't lose any rights to file a motion though simply because it hasn't gone to trial right?
This is how I interpret what I've heard from what I've read..
thanks again
i recently received summons... u have to answer the complaint, o
i recently received summons... u have to answer the complaint, or there will be a judgement against you. This is what I wrote:
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
COMES NOW Defendant, YOUR NAME, and file this her Answer to Complaint filed against her and would respectfully show unto the Honorable court the following:
1) In response to paragraph 1), the Defendant has no knowledge of the factual basis of this allegation, and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof.
In response to paragraph 1), the Defendant admits
Defendant is a resident of the Court and is subject to this Court????????s jurisdiction
2) Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 2) of the Complaint,
3) Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 3) of the Complaint,
4) Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 4) of the Complaint,
5) Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 5) of the Complaint,
6) Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 6) of the Complaint,
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant, YOUR NAME, pray that the Honorable Court will receive and file this answer and that upon a final hearing of this cause will enter a Judgment dismissing with prejudice the Complaint of the Plaintiff.
This was you are denying everything that was said against you (if that's true). For me, a case management has been set, where both parties will bring their proof, and it'll go further from there...
Hope this helps!