logo

Debtconsolidationcare.com - the USA consumer forum

Forums
  • Latest topic

Sued for credit card debt in Texas

Date: Mon, 08/02/2010 - 18:28

Submitted by paintballrefjosh
on Mon, 08/02/2010 - 18:28

Posts: 5 Credits: [Donate]

Total Replies: 13


Hi all,

I've done lots of searching and found some good resources here but I was confused by the summons I received. It appears there's two parts: first they talk about service, venue and facts (which states a summary that I didn't pay for the card, etc). The second part is "Requests for Admission."

My main question is which list of facts/bullet points and I supposed to answer back with accept/deny?

Also does anyone have an answer template for a similar case in Texas? This doc they sent has 17 bullets under the requests for admission, is that normal? Seems a bit much from other posts I've read.

If needed I can post a copy of the documents.

Thanks for the help!


hey Josh--

It would help if we knew what they were asking you to respond to. Many times, they include requests for information that they dont have any business asking for. If you like, you can send the documents to my email, its the same as my screen name here, at yahoo dot com. I would be happy to look them over for you. Also, feel free to make a copy, so that you can blank out any personal info that you want to keep private, and then you can scan that copy. Once I see what they sent you, we can get you ready to respond.

Jon


lrhall41

Submitted by skydivr7673 on Mon, 08/02/2010 - 21:06

( Posts: 2036 | Credits: )


Jon,
Thanks so much for the reply. I'll bring the documents with me to work tomorrow, or type it in tonight and upload it for you. In the mean time here's a copy of the answer I've typed up so far, any pointers are appreciated :) I'm assuming it will be much more helpful to have the summons too so I'll get that tomorrow. Thanks again!!

[QUOTE]
Comes now the defendant, My Name Here, appearing pro se for it's reply to Complaint naming Equable Ascent Financial, LLC, Plaintiff as follows.
All allegations of the Complaint(s) are denied unless expressly admitted herein. :
ANSWER

[LIST=1]

  • In response to paragraphs #1 thru #11, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of the Complaint and therefore denies the same and puts Plaintiff to its strictest proof thereof.
  • In response to paragraph #12, Defendant denies.
  • In response to paragraph #13, Defendant admits.
  • In response to paragraph #14, Defendant denies.
  • In response to paragraphs #15 thru #17, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of the Complaint and therefore denies the same and puts Plaintiff to its strictest proof thereof.

    AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES



    [LIST=1]
  • Defendant had no knowledge that Equable Ascent Financial, LLC owns above alleged debt and demands proof of such ownership.
  • Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff's Complaint and each cause of action therein fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the Defendant for which relief can be granted.
  • Plaintiff has unclean hands as Plaintiff admits to purchasing the defaulted debt allegedly owed by the Defendant, causing Plaintiff's injury to its own self, therefore Plaintiff is barred from seeking relief for damages.
  • Plaintiff's Complaint violates the Statute of Frauds as the purported contract or agreement falls within a class of contracts or agreements required to be in writing. The purported contract or agreement alleged in the Complaint is not in writing and signed by the Defendant or by some other person authorized by the Defendant and who was to answer for the alleged debt, default or miscarriage of another person.
  • Defendant claims a Failure of Consideration, as there has never been any exchange of any money or item of value between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
  • Defendant claims Lack of Privity as Defendant has never entered into any contractual or debtor/creditor arrangements with the Plaintiff.
  • Defendant alleges that the granting of the Plaintiff's demand in the Complaint would result in Unjust Enrichment, as the Plaintiff would receive more money than plaintiff is entitled to receive.
  • Defendant reserves the right to amend and/or add additional Answers, Defenses and/or Counterclaims at a later date.

    COUNTERCLAIM

    [LIST=1]
  • Plaintiff violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act [COLOR=#000000]??[/COLOR] 808.(1) which plainly states the plaintiff was not to use any unconscionable mean to collect the debt by not collecting any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law. Plaintiff has never produced such an agreement.
  • Plaintiff violated Fair Debt Collection Practices Act [COLOR=#000000]??[/COLOR] 809(a). by never attempting to communicate with the defendant which circumvents defendant's right to dispute the alleged debt as allowed by federal law.
  • Defendant prays for judgment on the plaintiff in the form of $1000 as per Fair Debt Collection Practices Act [COLOR=#000000]??[/COLOR] 813.(a)(2).




    VERIFICATION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT





    [LIST=1]
  • a. I have read this document. To the best of my knowledge, information and belief the information, contained in the document is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law.
  • I have not been determined by any court in Minnesota or in any other State to be a frivolous litigant or subject to an Order precluding me from serving and filing this document.
  • I am not serving or filing this document for any improper purpose, such as to harass the other party or to cause delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation or to commit a fraud on the Court.
  • I understand that if I am not telling the truth or if I am misleading the court or if I am serving or filing this document for any improper purpose, the court can order me to pay money to the other party, including the reasonable expenses incurred by the other party because of the serving or filing of this document such as court costs, and reasonable attorneys fees.

    [/QUOTE]


    • lrhall41

    Submitted by paintballrefjosh on Tue, 08/03/2010 - 13:57

    ( Posts: 5 | Credits: )


    don't know that it matters or would make any difference, but reading the request for admissions, in parts they use the term "the issuer" and then in other part they use the term "plantiff". It seems to me that they use the terms in different areas to benefit them. Because issuer and plantiff are two different companies.


    lrhall41

    Submitted by on Wed, 08/04/2010 - 13:09

    ( Posts: | Credits: )


    OK, first, this is basically pretty normal. Although, I do have to say, some of their claims are rather amateur....either they are trying to throw the whole boat at you at once to confuse you or they really are confused themselves. For example, this one is just priceless:

    Defendant's breach has damaged Plaintiff in the amount of ______

    What a load of crap....they CHOOSE to buy an account for pennies on the dollar, and then they go in front of the court and say "the defendant damaged us for the full amount we claim as owed". What a load of bull...

    OK, I have questions for you, but they would be better handled outside of this forum, or at least in private on this forum. If you like, you can PM me or we can use email, but I want to get some more info from you that will help to respond to this. Either way is fine with me, just let me know what you think.

    Jon


    lrhall41

    Submitted by skydivr7673 on Wed, 08/04/2010 - 15:22

    ( Posts: 2036 | Credits: )


    um, joe, no one ever said that it wasnt legal for them to sue on a debt that they bought. But the fact is that the plaintiff's own statement is blatantly false and couldnt possibly be true.....think about it:

    "Defendant's breach has damaged plaintiff...."

    HOW? The plaintiff had NO INVOLVEMENT with this alleged breach until they CHOSE TO in an effort to PROFIT FROM IT. Therefore, the defendant couldnt possibly have "damaged" them. If anything, THEY damaged THEMSELVES by choosing to buy an alleged debt! They CHOSE to spend their money to acquire an alleged account, so if they dont end up collecting on this account, THEY PUT THEMSELVES IN THIS POSITION.

    Additionally, they claimed that the defendant damaged THEM in the full amount that they claim to be owed. If you owe ABC Credit $5000, and I buy the debt from ABC for $100, then the maximum damage I could sustain is ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS. According to the plaintiff's statement, they would have had to pay the full $9000 plus in order to even begin to hope that they could rightly claim such damage. Thats why I called it a load of crap--because it is. The only way that the defendant could have damaged the plaintiff from a purely legal point of view is if the defendant had a binding agreement with the PLAINTIFF and breached that. Clearly that isnt the case here.


    lrhall41

    Submitted by skydivr7673 on Fri, 08/06/2010 - 09:43

    ( Posts: 2036 | Credits: )


    I understand first hand how debt buyer petitions contain these types of misleading statements, some of which can give you ammo for counterclaims. Legal claims like this are property that can be bought and sold. The buyer of a debt gets to sue for the amount of the debt, not what they paid for it. It sucks, but it is legal when they file suit for breach of contract. When they file suit for some kind of equitable remedy, that is when you can make the argument that they only paid $100 so that is all they are entitled to.


    lrhall41

    Submitted by Joe Smith on Fri, 08/06/2010 - 12:12

    ( Posts: 93 | Credits: )


    Right, but isn't all of that taken care of by this:
    Quote:

    Plaintiff has unclean hands as Plaintiff admits to purchasing the defaulted debt allegedly owed by the Defendant, causing Plaintiff's injury to its own self, therefore Plaintiff is barred from seeking relief for damages.


    They could still sue for the debt itself, but can't claim any "damages." Or am I reading this wrong?


    lrhall41

    Submitted by paintballrefjosh on Sat, 08/07/2010 - 18:11

    ( Posts: 5 | Credits: )


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Joe Smith
    I understand first hand how debt buyer petitions contain these types of misleading statements, some of which can give you ammo for counterclaims. Legal claims like this are property that can be bought and sold. The buyer of a debt gets to sue for the amount of the debt, not what they paid for it. It sucks, but it is legal when they file suit for breach of contract. When they file suit for some kind of equitable remedy, that is when you can make the argument that they only paid $100 so that is all they are entitled to.


    again, Joe, youre missing the point.

    I never said that they were acting illegally because they sued for that amount. What I said was that they were telling BS stories when they claimed that "defendant DAMAGED PLAINTIFF in the full amount...."

    Plaintiff was not damaged in any way by defendant in this matter. I will say it again--in order for the defendant to have damaged the plaintiff, there would have to have been an agreement between plaintiff and defendant. If defendant actually owes this debt, then the damaged party would be the original creditor. And while the OC gets the right to sell the account to a third party, that third party is flat wrong in claiming that they have been damaged. The damage happens when an account goes into default....and with any account, it goes into default with the OC. It doesnt go into default with the JDB, it was already there before the JDB chose to try to profit off of it. Shoot, plaintiff didnt even give defendant the chance to pay the debt in the first place, they never even contacted him prior to falsely claiming "we were damaged".


    lrhall41

    Submitted by skydivr7673 on Sat, 08/07/2010 - 19:56

    ( Posts: 2036 | Credits: )


    Did you guys ever come up with an answer for this lawsuit? I have an identical suit...only the name, amount and account is different. It looks like a boiler plate version...same 17 items listed on the Request for Admissions.

    If you came up with something I'd sure like to know. I have to get mine done by end of next week. Any help with my case would surely be appreciated.

    Thanks,
    MyCaseDismissed


    lrhall41

    Submitted by Oscar Smith on Sat, 08/21/2010 - 16:51

    ( Posts: | Credits: )