Midland Funding/ Fred Hanna - What to say in the answer????

I don't know where to get a lawyer, but if you decide to represent yourself, there are a lot of people here who have been through it and know the procedure and could offer helpful advice.

I'm assuming Midland has bought the debt....without more info on the account I can give you some basic information.

You want to make sure you answer the summons, this is imperative! You want to basically deny each statement or answer with, "Without sufficient documentation to agree or deny."

Then during discovery you want to send them your own....basically asking for all proof on this debt.

This is very, very basic information. If you give us more details we can help better.

Well, the last date of payment was July 2004 (looked on my credit report) and the statute of limitations in GA is 6 years... so I know that I need to put that in my answer...The complaint has 6 statements:

1 - my address;
2 - me agreeing that I entered into a credit card agreement and "received and used the credit card at issue in this action"
; 3 - I breached the credit card agreement and left an outstanding balance of $1,089.74;
4 - "all rights and title to defendant's credit card account were legally assigned to plaintiff in writing";
5 - "despite demand by plaintiff, defendant has failed to pay the amount due on the credit card account"
6 - "defendant is liable to plaintiff for the sum of $1,089.74, plus interest of $.00, plus court costs"

"wherefore, plaintiff demands judgment against defendant in the principal sum of $1,089.74 plus interest of $.00, plus court costs of $76.50


I never spoke to Midland and never received a ltr in the mail... so the SOL is up, but where do I put that on the answer and how do I respond to each statement??

by the way, the original credit card was with citibank and Midland bought it in 2008

Don't trust Midland.
:eek:
I think we can assume Midland SAYS THEY BOUGHT THE DEBT.

You say they bought the debt in 2008. How do you know that? Did they tell you that or did they show you the agreement between Citibank and Midland wherein Citibank says they assign all rights to the debt to Midland. So far we have nothing from Citibank suing you. Unless Midland has a note of transfer of the debt to them they are just whistling dixie.

Whether or not they actually did remains to be seen.

Midland are the lowest, you cannot trust them for one second.

I have spent the greater part of the last two days still trying to be rid of these scum.

I have filed a lot of stuff against them and I'd be glad to share what I know if you are still interested.

DO NOT AGREE TO ANYTHING UNTIL THEY PROVE THEY OWN THE DEBT AND ESTABLISH STANDING TO SUE AND SHOW A CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MIDLAND AND YOU.

CITIBANK IS NOT INVOLVED, WHATEVER YOU PROMISED CITIBANK HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH what you have not promised to Midland.

I'll be willing to bet you they don't have any evidence other than a fraudulent affidavit to "prove" their case.

ADMIT NOTHING. :(

Let's paint a picture. You're having dinner with friends one evening when the doorbell rings. You excuse yourself to see who it could be. When you open it there are a couple of people there who say that you owe TIM BUCK TOO money and they are here to collect it.

What should you do? If you do owe Tim Buck Too money, how do we know these thugs aren't con artists here to get you to pay them for a debt and after you do they run off down the street saying what a sucker you are.

Maybe they were down at the local pool hall and heard somebody say that you owed Tim Buck Too some money and so they decided to pull a scam on you and tell you that they are collectors for Tim Buck Too when in fact they don't know TBT and he doesn't know them. So if you pay them you just got ripped off.

TALK IS CHEAP. The proof is what counts.

It's the same scenario in court, just because Midland shows up and says you owe Citibank and they are there to collect proves nothing. DO NOT ADMIT TO ANYTHING, NOTHING. I suppose you could admit your address but other than that DENY ALL ALLEGATIONS. Thats all they are right now Midland alleging you owe Citibank. Citibank is not there with them vouching that they gave Midland the right too collect. They need a signed Contract, for one thing, showing that you applied for a Citibank Card. Until they prove they have standing they don't have a right to know anything.

Here's what you need to put in your Answer (and don't forget Entry of Appearance)

The only thing that is not denied is Count 1 # 1 and that is your name and address.

Everything else is denied because you have no contractual relationship with Midland.

No employee or representative of Midland was present at any contractual relationship that you might or might not have had with Citbank. Thus they have no personal knowledge of any contractual relationship between you and Citibank.

Midland did not establish an assignment of any contract you might have signed.

They must produce strict proof. That is they must produce all contracts , charge slips, records of payment and all correspondence that you might have had with Citibank. Although they need not produce everything they must produce enough to show that such a contract exist. the rest can be argued in subsequent pleadings.

They must also produce an assignment of contract that gives them the right to sue on behalf of Citibank.

Do not immediately use SOL as a defense, otherwise you will get a 1099...wait and see if they can even prove the account is yours.

Here are some sample answers:

1. Agree
2. Without documentation to agree or disagree
3. Without documentation to agree or disagree
4. Disagree
5. Disagree

That is basically your answer...to explain the answers, you do not know for fact if 1-3 are true since you have no documentation to support these claims and since you do not know these things you disagree that you owe them anything and you disagree that you never responded to them because they never sent you anything to respond to.

Then you want to send them discovery when you get to that part, asking for them to produce the statements since they claim that they know you used this card...so make them prove it.

Demand the signed copy of your agreement since they claim to have had one with which to base the claims and if it does in fact give them the right to sue you and proves you even had this account.

Ask to see this legal assignment since they claim to have it in writing......egg on their face if they can't cough this up despite them saying they had it....hello perjury?

You also want the statements to prove you actually owe what they say you owe and didn't inflate what the statement reflects.

There is a good chance they will spit out an affidavit. You will want to object to it as hearsay, that you have the right to call this person into the court and question her to the veracity of his/her claims in that they had detailed and first hand knowledge of such account....because the ONLY way they could have such knowledge is if they in facted worked for the credit card company and routinely handled the accounts and then you could even challenge for proof that they had YOUR account...that is if the person even shows up to testify :)

Here is a sample answer:

Comes now the defendant, _____________, by and through her attorney of record, _____________________, and files this her answer, and in support of same, would show unto the Court the following facts to-wit:

1. Defendant admits the allegation in paragraph 1.
2. Defendant is without sufficient documentation to admit or deny the allegation of paragraph 2.
3. Defendant is without sufficient documentation to admit or deny the allegation of paragraph 3.
4. Defendant denies the allegation in paragraph 4.
5. Defendant denies the allegation in paragraph 5.

Defendant has no knowledge of this account with the plaintiff as plaintiff never sent a letter or made a telephone call to defendant in reference to said account and defendant only learned of said account when served with the complaint. Defendant has never seen the agreement or written authorization the plaintiff claims to have.

Defendant demands a jury trial.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant demands that said complaint be dismissed with cost assessed to Plaintiff.

Respectfully submitted:


-------

Now this is just a sample, there are many more samples out there and you may be able to get a blank answer from the courthouse, or the courthouse website for your use.

The both of you have explained this lawsuit and answer process very clearly to me... thank you! But I have another question that I need clarity on (I am a flow-chart/ timeline kind of person): sooooooo I file an answer using the statements "disagree" and "without documentation to agree or disagree" and I DO NOT mention statute of limitations... do I ever mention the SOL later on in the process (such as during discovery)?? I'm asking because if I do mention it, the only proof I have is on my credit report.... my credit report says Citibank and my last payment was 60 days late as of Sept 2004 --> then it says Midland Credit (original creditor: Citibank) and it was bought sometime in 2008 with the amount on it..... If I were to mention this (with the information on my credit report), wouldn't that be proof that I "admit" (indirectly) to the lawsuit and that I do owe Midland the money and a judgment would be filed against me?

Also, what happens after I file an answer? What happens during the Discovery process?

Goldenbast, you said, "Now this is just a sample, there are many more samples out there and you may be able to get a blank answer from the courthouse, or the courthouse website for your use."

I called the Dekalb Cty court, and they do not have a form to fill out.... Isn't that crazy? They just said to write my statement on paper.

Ok you would mention SOL after discovery if they did happen to provide the statements because that would definitively prove when the last payment was made. If that happens you then file a motion to dismiss based upon the fact that it is out of SOL as evidenced by the documentation provided by the plaintiff...but again, only if they prove up the debt...

Because....if you mention SOL before they provide validation, the case may well be dismissed, but you will be stuck with the 1099 and have to pay taxes as if the amount was actual income.......IF they can't prove the account is yours then you never need to even mention SOL because you can dismiss based on lack of evidence and you won't have to pay taxes on it.

The beauty of this is two-fold, first, you make them prove the account.....if they can't the whole thing goes byebye...if they DO manage to produce such documentation then it STILL goes byebye by using the plaintiff's own information against them, though you will have to pay the taxes.

Your credit report is no good to you as it has been proven countless times that the CRAs are rampant with misinformation and even outright fraudulent accounts.....besides, why do the work of the plaintiff for them? Let them do all the work.

Once answer is filed you should get a hearing date, this differs with each state and even county so keep close check on your court. There is a good chance the plaintiff will try to file a motion to default judgment which you simply object too.

Sometime during this process you will get discovery from them, they will ask you for all sorts of very personal information and will try to make you provide documentation yourself....you object to these things as either not relevant to the case, or that you don't have such information to provide them with. You can use the papers they send you as a template for your own. If they do not send you any, then you need to send them some.

Quote:

You have been AMAZING and VERY HELPFUL!!!!!! I was about to mess my own self up since I was going to say in my answer that the SOL expired..... THANK YOU SO MUCH...... I will probably be back here to ask you some more questions in the near future

It wouldn't have been totally a mess up, since even paying taxes is still much less then the actual amount, by why pay anything before they have been made to prove it up? :)

If you mention the statute of limitations it will be the same, imo, as admitting the debt because without knowing about the debt how would you be able to say it is outside SOL.

YES, if they can prove all the things mentioned by Goldenblast and the ones I referred to then you might use the SOL if in fact it is outside the statute of limitations.

If history is any indicator they can't prove anything.

Incidentally, SOL does not do away with the debt, it just prohibits them suing based on the debt. The debt is still a valid debt it just limits what they can do to collect it.

Quote: