Served a summons...now what to do?
Date: Wed, 07/27/2011 - 11:43
Complaint
Comes now the Plaintiff, Equable Ascent Financial LLC, and alleges that Defendents, adult resident citizens of Rankin County, Miss, are indebted to Plaintiff in the amount of $8,870.21, Plus interest and court costs, and for cause of action would show unto the Court as follows:
1. Plaintiff, Equitable Ascent Financial LLC, is an LLC organized and doing buisness under the laws of the State of Illinois.
2. The Plaintiff, and/or it's predecessor in interest, issued a credit card in Defendants names under it's account number ending in -9924.
3. Defendents recieved and used, or authorized another to use, the card and thereby became obligated to pay for the charges so incured.
4. Defendents subsequently defaulted on the obligation to make monthly payments on the credit card account.
5. Said default proximately caused damages in the amount of the lawsuit.
6. The entire balance of the credit card account is presently due and payable in full in the amount of $8,870.21.
7. Plaintiff brings this action upon Sworn Affidavit as to be the amount due which is hereto the court shown and attached hereto as "Exhibit A".
8. Plaintiff has made demand upon the Defentents more than thirty (30) days prior to this action, and the account remains past due, owing and unpaid.
Wherefore, premises considered, Plaintiff prays that Defendents be summoned to appear and answer, and that upon final hearing, Plaintiff have judgement against Defendents for:
1. $8,870.21, which is the balance due on the credit card;
2. Post judgement interest at the maximum rate allowed by law;
3. All costs of the court; and
4. All such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.
1. I have never had a credit card ending in -9924 nor has my spouse or have I authorized anyone else to have or use.
2. I have never had any contact with Equable Ascent Financial LLC. other than this Summons.
3. There was never any correspondance or demand to pay 30 days prior or any other time prior.
4. The plaintiff's evidence is just a piece of paper of Plaintiff being sworn in Illinois court that I owe this debt and that Plaintiff is "familiar with all the facts and circumstances. (no valid contract or paperwork) I can scan it and post it with info x ed out if need be.
Thanks so much for any help. I NEVER had a correspondence with EQUABLE and dont know where to start or what my options are.
Thanks
Where you actually served? Or did you just get this in the mail
Where you actually served? Or did you just get this in the mail?
Have you checked the court dockets for your county? Is there an attorney handling this for equitable? Is equitable licensed in your state to collect?
Have you checked your credit report lately for any debt similiar to this??
summons
I recieved a buisness card from a county sheriff in my mail box Monday, It gave a number to call between 8-5 for court papers. so I called Tuesday and a the sheriff said he had papers for us and delivered them to me that afternoon.
I have not checked with the court clerk or my credit report. We each only have 3 cards each. and we are in good standing with all of them.
summons
How would I find out if Equable is licensed to collect in my state?
The First page of the notice lists a Name and a Law Firm from Memphis, TN stating her to be the attorney for Equable and that a response must be maied within 30 days to her.
Since a law firm is collecting, they would need to be licensed i
Since a law firm is collecting, they would need to be licensed in your state.
You need to check your credit report asap. Do you have a child by the same name? Do you have a common name?
Summons
Wow - this is quite a situation you're in. First of all, Equable is one of the worst junk debt buyers out there. They are greedy, and want to line their pockets as much as possible.
First, are you absolutely certain that you do not have any outstanding debt out there, that could have been purchased by Equable? Even if the account number doesn't match your records (sometimes original creditors change the account number post charge off).
Second, since a summons has already been served, and a lawsuit filed, you'll have to file an answer. I would definitely mention the FDCPA violation of not providing you with 30 days notice to request validation of the debt in your answer. Also, please list all of the other reasons you referenced regarding why it doesn't appear this debt is actually yours. But, remember, if there's a chance that you have an unpaid bill out there, this could be it.
I also suggest that you call Equable and/or the law firm to find out exactly for what this is. You may learn that the debt is not really yours, and the lawsuit can be dismissed (not likely, but definitely worth a shot). Even though it's too late to "officially" request validation of debt in written form, it can't hurt so that you'll have proof of your attempts if you should have to appear in court later on.
If it goes so far as having a court date assigned, you'll have to appear in court and explain to the judge that this is not your debt. Again, this is only going to work if the debt is not really yours. I know I keep referencing this point, but I've honestly never encountered a client of ours who received a collection letter or summons for a debt that wasn't owed. So, I'm skeptical as to whether not this is actually an error.
Remember, Equable is a ruthless organization, so be ready for a fight. If you can tell me whether or not you have any outstanding debt that you may have forgotten about, I can give you more definitive answers.
Best of luck to you!
Marie Megge
Donaldson Williams, Inc.
let's address a couple things: Quote:First, are you absolutely
let's address a couple things:
Quote:
First, are you absolutely certain that you do not have any outstanding debt out there, that could have been purchased by Equable? Even if the account number doesn't match your records (sometimes original creditors change the account number post charge off). |
Believe it or not, this is actually not very relevant to the case at hand. My line of thinking goes basically like this--if they cannot prove that I owe a debt TO THEM, then I do not owe a debt to them. Plain and simple. Even if you knew you had an old credit card debt, you still need to dispute their claims and force them to prove three things---
1--that this specific debt is legitimately owed by you
2--that this specific debt collector has the legal right to collect it
3--that the amount they claim you owe is truthful and legitimate
Without all of those three things being proven, I wouldnt pay a cent. If they truthfully are entitled to that money, then they should have no problem proving it with real records. I own a business....and if I didnt keep records of my business, then I wouldnt get to collect money due to me in a dispute. They are no different.
Quote:
Second, since a summons has already been served, and a lawsuit filed, you'll have to file an answer. I would definitely mention the FDCPA violation of not providing you with 30 days notice to request validation of the debt in your answer. Also, please list all of the other reasons you referenced regarding why it doesn't appear this debt is actually yours. But, remember, if there's a chance that you have an unpaid bill out there, this could be it. |
This is false. It is not an FDCPA violation for a CA to lead with a lawsuit. They must state in their initial communication with you that you have the right to dispute....but there is nothing in the law that says they cannot sue you right off the bat. this link shows what I am talking about. The debt collector/attorney did violate the law if they did not send the required notice of rights within 5 days of the initial contact(the summons), but there is nothing illegal about them filing the suit UNLESS the consumer had sent them written notice of dispute prior.
Quote:
I also suggest that you call Equable and/or the law firm to find out exactly for what this is. You may learn that the debt is not really yours, and the lawsuit can be dismissed (not likely, but definitely worth a shot). Even though it's too late to "officially" request validation of debt in written form, it can't hurt so that you'll have proof of your attempts if you should have to appear in court later on. |
This is ABSOLUTELY bad info, and for several reasons. First, this same poster noted this in the opening part of their post:
First of all, Equable is one of the worst junk debt buyers out there. They are greedy, and want to line their pockets as much as possible.
This is not a CA that will politely and truthfully discuss the matter with you. And you would be wasting your time if you called them. This is now already in the courts, and that is where you will have to do your talking--in court. As for "requesting written validation", you would again be wasting your time. Once they file suit, they will no longer even consider replying to such a request. You are still entitled to this information, but it will now have to be requested through the discovery process in court. The person that posted this stuff clearly has no real experience in court proceedings like this--the info they posted is completely misleading and will possibly lead to you getting a judgment against you without even having had the chance to fight for your rights. you will have to file an answer, and your answer simply needs to deny each of their claims. Force them to prove their case. The "sworn affidavit" is hearsay, and therefore inadmissable in court. In your answer, I would specifically object to the "sworn affidavit" as hearsay and request that the court not allow it to be admitted as evidence of anything on the grounds that it is hearsay. I would also note that the business exemption does not apply to this "sworn affidavit" because it was clearly created specifically for this court case and not in the normal course of business. It would appear that this affidavit is the only piece of "evidence" that they have used to file suit--so if the court throws it out, I would then motion for dismissal with prejudice.
Quote:
If it goes so far as having a court date assigned, you'll have to appear in court and explain to the judge that this is not your debt. Again, this is only going to work if the debt is not really yours. |
And again, this is completely false. Do you remember when O.J. Simpson was found not guilty? Whether or not he REALLY did it was not the issue--it was whether or not the plaintiff could prove their case well enough. The same applies here. You could owe them your life and your first-born--and if they cannot properly prove it, then you fight to the end. There have been many cases over the years where people were sued by a CA that didnt even have the right to collect a debt, and the CA won simply because the defendant did not know their rights and did not fight back. CA's like this count on people not knowing their rights. The person who posted this stuff sounds to me like someone that actually works FOR debt collectors.....I would not trust any of the info that mariemegge has posted here. Court is not a place of black or white. It is a place of selling your case. Anyone who has worked in such an environment would know this, and mariemegge sounds a lot like someone that doesnt know this at all--or perhaps does know it, but doesnt want to share it.
Quote:
I know I keep referencing this point, but I've honestly never encountered a client of ours who received a collection letter or summons for a debt that wasn't owed. So, I'm skeptical as to whether not this is actually an error. |
It's really funny how this person markets herself as part of a professional debt settlement company....and yet, she makes no mention at all about the sleazy tricks that collectors use, like the ones that this CA is using on you.
FACT--the "sworn affidavit" is useless and worthless. In fact, a CA that uses one of these pieces of crap IS in violation of the FDCPA, because they are a scam. The person that signed and swore to the affidavit could not possibly have ANY "first-hand knowledge" of whether or not you actually created this debt. They work for the DEBT COLLECTOR, and they claim to know first-hand that you are in fact the person that opened an account with SOMEONE ELSE--the original creditor. In other words, this person LIED on this piece of paper. Is it possible that the OC's records are in error? Of course--many creditors over the years didnt even keep proper records. Others didnt keep enough information to properly identify the debtor down the road. Still others have simply chucked their records because the debts are old and they have long since been sold to other collectors. And if those other collectors do not have the records--and most of them do not--then how can they prove that you are the actual debtor, or that the amount they claim you owe is correct?
Here's some more for you....
1--there is no mention at all in the summons you posted about time. When was this account supposedly opened? When did it go delinquent? It is entirely possible that the debt they are trying to sue over could have passed the applicable statute of limitations, and therefore they would be breaking the law by trying to sue over it. But our "debt professional" fails to tell you about this. Instead, she says she's skeptical about your claim that this is a bogus debt. WHY? In an industry KNOWN for fraudulent paperwork, forgeries, and lawsuits without a shred of proof, she's skeptical of YOU? hmmmm....
2--you said that the summons is from Mississippi. You then said that an attorney from TENNESSEE is the plaintiff's attorney. Why didnt "mariemegge" pick up on the fact that the attorney would have to be a member of the bar association in YOUR STATE in order to represent their client in this lawsuit? Why didnt she mention that Equitable Asset Management must be registered with your state in order to legally take ANY collection effort against you there? mariemegge had one response--to focus on "are you sure you really dont owe this debt?" Think about this-the debt collection industry literally has HUNDREDS of companies in it that routinely break laws, lie, and pull all kinds of stunts to get money from people. She clearly knows this because she told you that this debt collector is one of the worst! But the only thing that she is skeptical of is YOU? This whole lawsuit is a textbook case of a frivolous suit--one that never should have even been filed. And if she really knew her business, she would have told you this. I guess she only gets the chance to earn money from you if she can convince you that you might need her services. Where I come from, the facts should be more important than trying to chase down a buck like that.
Quote:
Remember, Equable is a ruthless organization, so be ready for a fight. If you can tell me whether or not you have any outstanding debt that you may have forgotten about, I can give you more definitive answers. |
Yeah, "marie", I am going to have to stop you right there. This is someone asking for help about a summons he received. IF HE HAS ANY OTHER OUTSTANDING DEBT, it is not relevant to this thread and therefore none of your business. I know that you work in the capacity of getting paid to help people try to settle debts--and you will NOT, repeat, NOT do that work here on this forum with our members. This will be your one and only warning--STOP fishing for business on this forum. If I see it again, you will be shown the door.
Summon
Sorry Sky, totally have to disagree with you on many points, but there are a few that I'll need to address, because....well, I must.
First, it is perfectly legal for third party purchasers of bad debt to attempt to collect on that debt. Once the debt is purchased, the debtor does indeed owe money to the purchaser of that debt. Yes, you should always request validation of that debt, but in this case a summons has been served.
As I stated in my previous post, at which time you accused me of providing false information, it is a violation of the FDCPA to originally communicate with a debtor via a summons. Please see below:
?? 809. Validation of debts [COLOR=black][/COLOR]
15 USC 1692g12 ?? 809 15 USC 1692g
[COLOR=black]
[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black](d) A communication in the form of a formal pleading in a civil action shall not be treated as an initial communication for purposes of subsection (a).[/COLOR]
As is clearly demonstrated, the initial communication may not be in the form of a summons. Therefore, my information was not false or misleading at all.
Additionally, you accuse me of soliciting business. Really? I was asking OP if they believe they have outstanding debt to determine if this debt may actually be owed. If OP does not have any old, delinquent accounts, they will be able to prove that this is not their debt. If, however, they do have some outstanding debt lingering around, there's a pretty good chance that this summons is as a result of that debt. When I asked them to let me know so that I can be of assistance, I didn't mean so that I can help them settle their debt. I simply meant that this is all irrelevant if they don't owe money to anyone. If they do, though, I can better assist them with more definitive answers to resolving this particular situation. And, for your information, our office does not take on cases as small as this person's, so I was definitely not soliciting their business.
Shame on you for making such accusations. I understand cynicism, but not at your level. Absolutely ridiculous!
Marie Megge
[COLOR=black][FONT="][/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT="][/FONT][/COLOR]
excuse me?
the only ridiculousness is your posts.i suggest the OP ignore your ramblings,and PM skydiver for further advise.i noticed he picked you apart pretty good,and you get snippy.btw that section you mentioned is very open to interpretation.so prove us wrong marie that you only are here not only to get business to your site,but to judge people.we don't do that here lady.i do have one question for you.
you mentioned it is legal to ask for validation once a summons is sent.define that please as unless it's what i'm thinking i will move to censure you as that is ridiculous.
Summons
Paul,
Please clarify your question, and point out to me where I suggested that it is legal to ask for validation after a summons has been served. I do recall suggesting that OP attempt to send a VOD even though a summons was served, but it was simply so that they could have whatever they need in their arsenal to fight this lawsuit.
And you state that what I posted is open to interpretation. No, it's not. If you read the entire FDCPA (was too long to post here), you'll see that this is not open to interpretation, and it's 100% clear that a collector or collection law firm must provide written communication within five days after the first communication (phone call), and that written communication must state the following, and must not be in the form of a civil action (summons):
?? 809. Validation of debts
(a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing???
(1) the amount of the debt;
(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;
(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;
(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and
(5) a statement that, upon the consumer???s written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.
(b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original credi15
USC 1692g
12
?? 809 15 USC 1692g
You also state that I'm judging, but it appears that it's the other way around. I am simply helping individuals with their debt, and I've received many thanks from the grateful consumers on this site. I'm sorry that you and Sky don't appreciate my efforts, but I will continue to do my best to assist these people. They are intimidated and scared, and truly seem to appreciate all the help they can get. Obviously, they cannot afford to pay for professional services, so where better than to obtain some much needed assistance.
Have a wonderful day!
puh-lease
people have thanked you.really?i recall on the discover settlement thread that the OP there took issue with you.however the issue here is that if the OP follows your horrid advice they will get a default judgement as the only way to get validation now is through discovery in court(you do know what discovery is right?).anyway i am now watching you as long as you are here.so just know that.
Summons
Yes, I'm well aware of what discovery is. Still looking for answers to some of my questions, though. Let's face it - if the debt is legit they're going to have to resolve it one way or another. If the debt is not legit, that's another issue. OP never (to my knowledge) clarified what this may be for, or if it is legitimate or not. Without this information it's difficult to give more definitive answers. Yes, it's tempting to tell OP to fight, fight, fight, but it's also important to know if OP believes this could be a debt for which he is liable. He says he never had a credit card ending in this number, nor did he have communication with Equable, but this in itself does not mean that there's not a debt out there for which he could be liable. I was simply waiting for this answer to be more clear with my input. I won't take the time to answer your most recent insult, but thanks for keeping your eye on me, Paul. Not sure where I would be without your watchful eye.
Have a great weekend!
If I were the original poster I would have been scratching my he
If I were the original poster I would have been scratching my head by now. I am scratching my head and slapping my face after reading this snoozefest. Bottom line is a person is served with a legal summons. He has to appear in court. If he does not; he loses. Once there, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.. My gut is that the defendant in this case is trying to BS his way out of something on a fabricated technicality. Just my opinion.
The entire court case will be shorter than the verbal volleyball that occured here.
What he said:)
Frogpatch is right... 1) summons was delivered by local sheriff. A suit has been filed.
2) an answer & affirmative defense should be filed unless the OP wants a default judgement.
3) The answer can state that the OP has no knowledge of the debt. no record of the debt etc.. ideally providing proof, recent report from all three bureau's showing no listing etc.. it can also question whether the CA has the proper assignment/ownership to collect
4) then it is up to the CA to prove otherwise. if they can, then hello default judgement, if they cant then hello dismissal or hello more time for CA to prove..
If its valid pay it.. if it isn't fight it. If you fight it, best to be represented by qualified counsel.
Marie.... allow me to help you out here, as you clearly have no
Marie....
allow me to help you out here, as you clearly have not the slightest clue what you are talking about.
[QUOTE]First, it is perfectly legal for third party purchasers of bad debt to attempt to collect on that debt. Once the debt is purchased, the debtor does indeed owe money to the purchaser of that debt. Yes, you should always request validation of that debt, but in this case a summons has been served.[/QUOTE]
First, you are barking up the wrong tree. I did not at any time say that it wasnt legal for a third party collector to attempt to collect a debt. What I DID say was that I will not pay one penny to any third party CA unless they can prove those three things. Now, please be so kind as to admit your mistake, otherwise, I suggest you quote me word for word saying that third party CA's cannot collect debts. You are trying to argue against a point that I never claimed in the first place.
Second, no, you should NOT "always request validation". Because like I told you, once the summons and complaint are filed, they wont even bother responding because they do not have to. This brings us to your next mistake....
[QUOTE]As I stated in my previous post, at which time you accused me of providing false information, it is a violation of the FDCPA to originally communicate with a debtor via a summons. Please see below:
?? 809. Validation of debts
15 USC 1692g12 ?? 809 15 USC 1692g
[COLOR=black]
[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black](d) A communication in the form of a formal pleading in a civil action shall not be treated as an initial communication for purposes of subsection (a).[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
Check the wording again there, Marie. It does NOT say "the initial contact cannot be a summons". What it says is that the summons cannot be treated as the initial contact "for purposes of subsection a". Now, go back and read subsection a, and you will find that the "initial contact" they refer to is that within 5 days of contact OTHER THAN A SUMMONS, the CA must provide the disclosure of rights, etc etc. In other words, while it DOES NOT say they cannot sue you without initial contact, or that the summons cannot come before any other contact, it DOES SAY that if the summons comes without any prior contact, then the summons DOES NOT NEED TO INCLUDE the same info as any other "initial communication". For the purpose of notifying a consumer of their right to dispute, the summons IS NOT TREATED THE SAME as any other initial communication. Remember, it said a summons is "not an initial communication"....it didnt say "the initial communication cannot be a summons". BIG difference, and you clearly made an error in your interpretation. your false interpretation could have caused someone here to wrongly file a FDCPA violation suit and lose even more money....congratulations!
Reading. It's your friend. For someone who is supposed to be a professional, that is supposed to deal with this information daily, you sure do not know much about it. And that has me very concerned for our membership here.
Quote:
Additionally, you accuse me of soliciting business. Really? I was asking OP if they believe they have outstanding debt to determine if this debt may actually be owed. |
Thats funny....we actually edited posts from you where you had a link to your company, and even where you asked people to go to that link for more help. Dont even THINK of trying to lie to me now. You and I both know what you have posted here, and what other moderators have told you. In addition to that, what difference does it make with regard to one debt if the OP there had other outstanding debts? NONE, thats what. A debt collector was trying to collect on a specific account, and you went asking if the OP had other outstanding debt, and to talk to you about it if he did. I was born in the dark but it wasnt last night, Marie.
Quote:
If OP does not have any old, delinquent accounts, they will be able to prove that this is not their debt. If, however, they do have some outstanding debt lingering around, there's a pretty good chance that this summons is as a result of that debt. When I asked them to let me know so that I can be of assistance, I didn't mean so that I can help them settle their debt. I simply meant that this is all irrelevant if they don't owe money to anyone. |
Then why did we catch you telling people here to follow your link so you could help them? We aint stupid here, sport.....we see these things come and go here all the time. First off, you registered under one name "mrmegge", and when that one was attracting suspicion you registered this current one. We pay attention to these sorts of things because we are here to actually help our members, we are not here for a buck. You had some posts edited under your old name, and then you posted the new name immediately after that, and post links again?? Like I said, we arent stupid.
Quote:
If they do, though, I can better assist them with more definitive answers to resolving this particular situation. |
Thanks but no thanks. We need CORRECT info here, not false assumptions and wildly incorrect interpretations of law. Hell, the FTC enacted and enforces the law we're talking about and I even showed you what their staff attorneys said about the summons bit...and you STILL tried to claim you were right. Look, be honest. Your ship is sinking. Time to jump off while you still can see the horizon.
[QUOTE]And, for your information, our office does not take on cases as small as this person's, so I was definitely not soliciting their business.[/QUOTE]
Now I KNOW you are lying. You didnt even know how "small" this person's debt issue is. Thats why you asked what other debts they had! If you knew that his debt problems were too small, you never would have had to ask what the scope of his debt issues was!
Quote:
Please clarify your question, and point out to me where I suggested that it is legal to ask for validation after a summons has been served. I do recall suggesting that OP attempt to send a VOD even though a summons was served, but it was simply so that they could have whatever they need in their arsenal to fight this lawsuit. |
That is not adding anything to the fight, Marie. It is completely a useless gesture. A judge will not care if you asked for validation after being served or not. It does NOTHING to help the consumer's case whatsoever. You advocated that the OP do something that will waste his time and prove completely useless in court.
[QUOTE]And you state that what I posted is open to interpretation. No, it's not. If you read the entire FDCPA (was too long to post here), you'll see that this is not open to interpretation, and it's 100% clear that a collector or collection law firm must provide written communication within five days after the first communication (phone call), and that written communication must state the following, and must not be in the form of a civil action (summons):[/QUOTE]
WOW you are really mixed up. Not only does the FDCPA not even mention anywhere that a summons cannot be first copntact, it even says that a summons is not required to follow the model for "initial communication" as set forth in the law. Not only that, but you have now changed your argument. You originally claimed that a summons "cannot be initial contact". You NOW have said, and i will re-quote it here for accuracy's sake:
[QUOTE]nd it's 100% clear that a collector or collection law firm must provide written communication within five days after the first communication (phone call), and that written communication must state the following, and must not be in the form of a civil action (summons)[/QUOTE]
Now you are saying that first WRITTEN contact cannot be a summons, whereas before you said that a summons could not be initial contact at all. No matter, I already showed you where the law says you are dead wrong on both counts. READ THE LAW. READ THE WORDS. PAY CLOSE ATTENTION. You are mistaken. REMEMBER, the law said that a summons is not "initial communication" FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBSECTION A. In other words, with a regular initial contact, the CA must provide the disclosure of rights within 5 days and allow 30 days in which the consumer can dispute. But a summons IS NOT CONSIDERED INITIAL CONTACT FOR THAT PURPOSE....meaning, if a summons is first contact, then the CA is not required to send any additional notice within 5 days, or to provide a 30 day window for dispute.
Quote:
I am simply helping individuals with their debt, and I've received many thanks from the grateful consumers on this site. |
What you are doing, Marie, is providing false info to our members. What you are doing, and what you have already been caught more than once trying to do, is to solicit people to your company website. In other words, what you are doing, Marie, is violating our forum's terms of service.
Quote:
I'm sorry that you and Sky don't appreciate my efforts, but I will continue to do my best to assist these people. |
What I do not appreciate is what you have been doing here. It isnt helping. Dont even begin to talk to me about helping people here....I have spent countless hours of my time, and even a lot of money, helping people here. I do not get paid for what I do. I have actually prepared legal documentation for people that they have taken to their debt attorneys....and the attorney asked if another attorney prepared the filing. I have prepared documentation for people who could not afford an attorney so that they could provide it to legal aid places to verify that it would legally fit their needs. I have never asked for, nor would I ever take, one penny in return. Countless people here have won cases like this one with help from people like myself and Paul. AT NO TIME have I EVER helped someone and they came back to me and said "I did what you said to do and you were wrong, I lost my case because you gave me wrong info". I went to college and studied the laws...did you? Clearly not....if you did, I would ask for my money back.
Quote:
They are intimidated and scared, and truly seem to appreciate all the help they can get. |
Help, yes. False information? No.
Quote:
Obviously, they cannot afford to pay for professional services, so where better than to obtain some much needed assistance. |
I would prefer that this "assistance" be correct assistance. You dont even know the law you are advising people on. I posted it for you. I showed you the FTC's own internal decision on this matter, and THEY hold the opinion that matters on this deal because it is THEIR law. So this will be my final pleasant warning to you. If you continue to insist on posting false information and misleading our members here, I will personally see to it that you are shown the way out of this forum. You are right--they are scared and they do not know the law....so when someone comes along and offers advice, many will take it without knowing any better. And I will NOT allow bad advice to continue to be posted here like this.
Oh, and "have a wonderful day!":cool:
Bottom line on this one is simple.... Regardless of what may be
Bottom line on this one is simple....
Regardless of what may be legitimately owed, CAs do not deserve to be rewarded if they cannot follow the laws in place. Period. The suit is in MS. The plaintiff is from another state. The attorney is from yet another state. The potential for crooked dealing is too great.
I am all for paying bills....IF they are legitimately owed, IF the amount claimed to be owed is proven accurate, and IF the CA in question has the legal right to collect on the debt. Here's the fact of it, folks--if a CA isnt proving those three things to you, then DO NOT PAY THEM. If I just walked up to you and said "hey, you owe me $1000".....it doesnt matter if you owed someone else that sum of money ten years ago! What matters is that I can prove that you owe it to ME, and that I have the right to collect it! Time and again, folks, we have seen people pay a debt collector because they knew they owed a bill....only to find that they got scammed, and that the bill is still legally outstanding because they paid a CA that didnt have the right to collect it. If ANYONE on this forum cannot understand the importance of getting this info verified before telling someone to pay the bill, you dont belong here and you CERTAINLY dont belong here giving people advice.
Summons
Okay...not even going to take the time to respond to your false accusations. It's just not worth it. For whatever reason, the two of you clearly have it in for me, and are attempting to discredit me. My track record speaks for itself. Zero complaints. Rave reviews. A spotless BBB record. Years of experience, and yes, a college education, and also NOT charging people (even my own clients) when they clearly cannot afford it. You may continue your ramblings and false accusations, but I refuse to contribute to this unproductive dialogue.
I did get a good little chuckle, though, based on your promises to keep an eye on me. From this point forward, whenever I see your posts I'm sure that I'll only be able to picture the character, "Roz", from the movie Monsters, Inc. " I'm watching you, Wazowski. Always watching. Always." Thanks for making me smile!
Look, lady, the law says what the law says. Did I change the wo
Look, lady, the law says what the law says. Did I change the wording of the law in my post? It is crystal clear where you made your errors. It is also clear that the FTC doesnt agree at all with you. Here's another FTC example of you being wrong on this....
http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/kroft.htm
[QUOTE]Under the principals that the Supreme Court set out in Heintz v. Jenkins, law firms that are "debt collectors" presumably must include Section 809 notices in connection with every summons, if the summons is the first communication with the consumer in connection with the collection of a debt. [/QUOTE]
Note that the FTC itself is not telling anyone that a summons cannot come without any prior communication....and THEY are the ones that enforce the very law you are misquoting. If your claim were correct, then they would not be discussing what conditions the CA must meet when a summons is the first contact--they would have simply said "you cannot sue and have a summons served without first having other contact". Face it, you are wrong. The law says so. The FTC says so. Put your big girl pants on and deal with it already.
As for your qualifications, the BBB? Really? The BBB is a sham, and anyone who knows business knows it. In many places, the BBB will give a good record to anyone who pays them. BBB offices are independently run, and not at all governed on any level. This is common knowledge.
As for these so-called false accusations, are you for real? What did I say that was false?
FACT--you signed up under a different name, here it is:
http://www.debtconsolidationcare.com/User/mrmegge
Are you trying to tell me that "mrmegge" is not "mariemegge" when you both have stated that you represent the same exact company?
FACT--you have been warned under both screen names to stop soliciting with your links posted here. In fact, that's the reason why the link to your company's website was edited out of some of your posts. Where is the "false" statement there?
FACT--if you continue to stir the pot with false claims of wrongdoing and incorrect interpretations of the law, you will be seeking a new forum to populate. We are here to HELP people.....not to solicit business from them for money, and not to provide false statements to people that may well get into trouble by following such bad advice. If you can play along, then thats cool....but as of now, you have not done so. The choice is yours.
Bravo Sky Bravo!! Sorry I just had to say thank you for your
Bravo Sky Bravo!!
Sorry I just had to say thank you for your posts!!
is there any reason I can't file a response pro se or would that
is there any reason I can't file a response pro se or would that be risky?
Any help in the wording of the response and a motion to strike the affidavit would be great.
Thanks again.
yes you can
yes you can file an objection the affidavit as part of your response.do this, PM skydiver as he will craft a response for you.he will help you i guarantee it.
Summons Answer
Looking for some input. I've had no answer from skydiver so this is what I've come up with. Just wondering what someone thinks before I send it out.
Equable Ascent Financial LLC
Plaintiff
Vs.
Defendants
Comes now the defendants, (Names), appearing pro se for its reply to Complaint naming Equable Ascent Financial, LLC, Plaintiff as follows: All answers correspond to the numbered paragraphs of the Complaint(s). All allegations of the Complaint(s) are denied unless expressly admitted herein.
ANSWERS
1. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment.
[COLOR=black]2. Defendant has never been issued a credit card by the Plaintiff ending in account number -9924.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]3. Defendant denies having received or using a credit card issued under account number -9924.. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]4. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the [/COLOR]
truth of the averment.
[COLOR=black]5. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]6. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]7. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment. Defendant objects to Client Affidavit Exhibit No. 1 as hearsay. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]8. Defendant has never been contacted by Equitable Ascent Financial, LLC.[/COLOR]
DEFENSES
1. Equable Ascent Financial, LLC, has not proven it is the real party in interest. Defense demands proof of ownership.
[COLOR=black]2. 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.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]3. 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.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]4. 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.[/COLOR]
5. Defendant claims Lack of Privity as Defendant has never entered into any contractual or debtor/creditor arrangements with the Plaintiff.
[COLOR=black]6. Plaintiff???s Complaint fails to allege a valid assignment and there are no averments as to the nature of the purported assignment or evidence of valuable consideration.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]7. 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.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]8. Defendant reserves the right to amend and/or add additional Answers, Defenses and/or Counterclaims at a later date[/COLOR]
Respectfully submitted on August 10, 2011
(Names)
Defendants
I also created a Motion to strike affidavit
[FONT=Arial][COLOR=black]IN THE COUNTY COURT OF RANKIN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI[/COLOR]
[LEFT][COLOR=black]Equable Ascent Financial LLC[/COLOR]
Plaintiff
vs.
(Names)
[COLOR=black]Defendant [/COLOR][/LEFT]
[LEFT]MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIDAVIT[/LEFT]
[LEFT]Comes now the defendant, pro se, and makes request that the court strike the affidavit entered by plaintiff as "exhibit A" from these proceedings.[/LEFT]
[LEFT]1. Plaintiff has submitted into evidence an AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM (hereinafter referred to as "Affidavit").[/LEFT]
[LEFT]2. Plaintiff has provided no evidence to support their claim that they are the owner of said debt. The record does not disclose this information and it cannot be assumed without creating an unfair prejudice against the Defendant. [/LEFT]
[LEFT]3. Said Affidavit pertains to acts and events that allegedly occurred between Defendant and the original creditor, which plaintiff has not identified in their complaint. Plaintiff is clearly a third party and not the original creditor by their own admission.[/LEFT]
[LEFT]4. At no time was the creator of the Affidavit, or any of Plaintiff's employees, present to witness any alleged acts or creation of the records of any alleged transactions between Defendant and the original creditor.[/LEFT]
[LEFT]5. As such, said Affidavit falls under the hearsay rule and is inadmissible as evidence.[/LEFT]
[LEFT]6. Defendant further states that the Affidavit is not subject to the Hearsay Business Records Exemption because it was not made at or near the time of the alleged acts or events.[/LEFT]
[LEFT]7. The information contained in the Affidavit is merely an accumulation of hearsay. [/LEFT]
[LEFT]8. Upon information and belief, the creator of the document is not currently and has never been employed with the original creditor, and therefore cannot possibly have personal knowledge of how said original creditor's records were prepared and maintained, and is unqualified to testify as to the truth of the information contained in the Affidavit.[/LEFT]
WHEREFORE, the Defendant prays this Honorable Court that Plaintiff???s Affidavit be stricken from evidence in the above action.
Respectfully submitted this day, August 10,2011
(Names)
Defendants
I CERTIFY that I mailed a copy of this MOTION to:
Brie Wallace (TN #028166/MS #103454)
Mendelson Law Firm
P O Box 17235
Memphis Tn 38187-0235
Plaintiff's attorney at the above address
by (Names),
[COLOR=black]Defendant on August 10, 2011[/COLOR]
Any input will be appreciated.[/FONT]
Wow, I'm sorry, I didnt get any message from you. Lets see what
Wow, I'm sorry, I didnt get any message from you. Lets see what we can do here.
First things first--I checked and the attorney you mentioned is an active member of the Bar Association in your state. Kinda weird though....I dont know why they would hire an attorney from Memphis, TN, to come to MS and be present for a court case. Seems to me like something I would keep an eye on if I were you--if you lose this case, they will stick you with their legal fees as well, and if that happens, I would definitely mention that I do not feel it is proper for them to send me a bill for a traveling attorney when they could have and should have simply picked one that is already present here in the state. The law firm they chose has no listed location in MS, and the attorney was admitted to the bar in your state in April 2010. Now, you need to do some checking as well, because I am not certain of your state's requirements for debt collectors to be registered or licensed, or for any outside business to be registered. Check with the MS secretary of state office, they can help you there.
Your answer looks pretty good. Like I said, check that stuff out before you send this off, though, because if this CA is supposed to be licensed in your state and they are not, I would definitely add that to the mix.