No contract for lawsuit.....

i would bring it up and motion to have the suit thrown out.he doesn't need a contract to sue?preposterous!if nothing else demand validation during this meeting,but you should be able to have it thrown out.

What about the judgment I already have? I failed to answer the interrogatories and they got a default, that was last year.

Sounds like you have no grounds for setting the first default aside...sounds like you were properly served and you dropped the ball.

soaplady is correct.on this one though you should be able to get it thrown out.

OK I went to the case management conference today. The attorney on record didn't show but a local attorney did. She told me that right now they do not need a signed contract but for trial they will. You would think that at some point they would have to disclose what evidence is being used against me. They can't just surprise me at trial with a signed contract could they? Not that it matters because it's not mine anyway. So the only thing they can do is forge something.

I have about 90 days to serve them again with interrogatories, production of documents and admissions.

What should I ask for?

If it is TRULY not your account, then you need to get all the account details you can and file a police report. You take this police report with you to court and if they show you a signed contract then you have the police report and you can always show the judge on your drivers license, or anything you have signed in the past that the signatures don't match.

They are stalling if they don't want to show you the contract now. Ask the judge why would they do this?

Should I just go to the courthouse and file a motion to dismiss and not even bother to let it go to trial?

Anyone??

do as goldenbast advises.then check with your clerk to see when the DISCOVERY phase is.that is a phase where they and you present your cases before trial.if this bottomfeeding CA can't come up with the contract during discovery it will be thrown out.get that police report before this.ask your court clerk about what the local attorney said.find out from them as it sounds like this CA and attorney are trying to trick you.don't know about motioning for dismissal at this point.you could try it.

ok, hang on a second....I think you may have read the law incorrectly. In basic terms, it says that no action can be brought without a contract as evidence in the following cases:

1--against an executor of a deceased person's estate, when the debt belonged to the deceased. This simply means that the CA cannot go after your estate for the debt of the dead person without proof in the form of a contract that you agreed to be obligated to that debt.

2--they cannot bring an action against you for anyone else's debt without producing a contract that you signed taking responsibility for that debt.

3--let's say you wanted to marry some model. You made a written agreement with her that if she married you, you would pay for her existing debt. They cannot bring action against you in that case without producing the contract you would have signed.

4--in any situation concerning real estate, rental property, land, etc etc, they need the signed contract.

5--if you sign an agreement for a loan, but the loan is not actually supposed to go into effect for more than a year from now, they need the signed contract to bring an action against you.

It doesnt mean that they dont need a contract, it simply means that the law you posted here doesnt apply to a typical consumer debt. You MIGHT be able to squeak through using #2, but in my opinion it isnt the best way to go. #2 uses a scenario where they admit the debt is someone else's but then they try to claim that you entered into a legally-binding agreement to pay it anyways. Your situation is not that, it is where they actually think they have the right person and they dont. I would push more for validation of the debt as a general rule than using this law myself.

Thanks for clarifying that for me. I was told massachusetts is a statute of frauds state and a contract is needed to sue. I am probably just looking at the wrong law.

oh, I wouldnt doubt that a contract is needed--as far as I know, we still live in the land of 'innocent until proven guilty'. I cannot imagine a CA taking someone to court, telling the judge, "well, no your honor, we have no proof of our allegations against the defendant", and winning their case in any manner other than default. It is basic contract law that proof of such a written agreement needs to be provided. I would look into the statute of frauds to see if you can find more info there.