Summons and Complaint
Date: Tue, 01/18/2011 - 09:47
I was mailed a summons and complaint from a law firm in Minneapolis, which is where I live. It is for an unpaid bill from a health care provider which I do not confirm nor deny owing. The complaint says "this communication is from a debt collector," which, to me, means that it is the initial communication this firm has had with me.
There is no case number or hearing date, which is the norm for MN law. Firms do not have to file a summons with the court before it is sent to the defendant. To me, this seems like a warning from the law firm, that if I do not call and settle they will, in fact, file a formal summons.
My concern is that, by asking them to verify the debt, they will file a formal summons. I do not have the money or resources to even file an answer with the court in Minneapolis ($320). Nor do I have the time with a baby due soon. Should I call and work out a payment option? I know that if I fight it in court I have a chance, but if I lose I would be paying the original debt, and any attorney and filing fees that accompany a loss, which would effectively double or triple what I owe.
Any ideas?
My suggestion would be not to ignore the summons. If you do, if
My suggestion would be not to ignore the summons. If you do, if this is a legit bill they will take you to court. If this company is actually a law firm, I would ask them to validate the debt. If you owe the debt, then you need to make payment arrangements.
Wait, so you received something that's being called a "summons"
Wait, so you received something that's being called a "summons" but it came in the mail? You weren't served by a representative of the court? Is this correct?
That is correct. It had a forwarding label from the USPS from m
That is correct. It had a forwarding label from the USPS from my old residence. I called the courthouse, they confirmed that it had not been filed. It was not served by a representative nor did it have an affidavit of service. Also, since they are a law firm and not a collection agency they are exempt from many FDCPA regulations.
However, I did confirm yesterday that the firm does represent the hospital. I called the firm and requested that they send an itemized bill which, it would appear in this instance, they would have since they are the hospital's law firm. During my call I did not confirm anything, but they said they would be willing to do a no-interest 10 month payment plan. If everything checks out it may be the best course of action rather than duke it out in court and presumably lose.
Actually, if they are trying to collect on a debt, they are not
Actually, if they are trying to collect on a debt, they are not exempt from the FDCPA as they are acting as "debt collectors" and are going to be held accountable by collection regulations. Is the debt legit? If it is, then setting up a payment plan may be the best course of action.
If you're disputing any portion of the debt, you may have these people on FDCPA violations and court would be a good thing.
Quote:
15 USC 1692e Section 807(13) The false representation or implication that documents are legal process. |
According to Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, the only way th
According to Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, the only way that is acceptable for service of summons upon defendant when the defendant's residence is known is personal service. It specifically says that the summons must include a complaint, and that the summons must be either left with you or it can be left at your place of residence with "some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein."
The RCP do not say that it is acceptable for them to mail a copy of the summons to you.
It would be a good idea for you to speak with an attorney on this matter. There may be a legal aid office in your area that can offer low- or no-cost legal help.
I have a feeling it's not even a real summons, sky. I think the
I have a feeling it's not even a real summons, sky. I think these people are sending out dunning letters and calling them "summons and complaints." That's a clear violation of what I stated above; don't you think? I agree that the OP should get a lawyer. Something sounds really fishy about this "attorney."