Skip to main content
index page

I've Been Served in TX..now what

Submitted by spud321 on Mon, 08/09/2010 - 19:37
Posts: 55
Credits:
[Donate]

How do I answer these questions? How do I answer them without discriminating myself?


Plaintiff's Request For Admissions

1) Admit that I entered into agreement with GE Capital...admit or deny
2) Admit that you accepted the credit for purchases of goods
3) admit that the account has not been paid, discharged, settled, or compromised
4) admit the charge off amount is 3516
5) Admit that the above described account is the same account which plaintiff is seeking to collect in the lawsuit

Pretty much they are wanting me to admit to everything so they can get a judgment without having to go to court! URGH!!! There are more questions but they are redundant.


Submitted by spud321 on Tue, 08/10/2010 - 04:39

spud321

( Posts: 55 | Credits: )


Quote:

Originally Posted by mac4702
Plaintiff's Request For Admissions

1) Admit that I entered into agreement with GE Capital...admit or deny
2) Admit that you accepted the credit for purchases of goods
3) admit that the account has not been paid, discharged, settled, or compromised
4) admit the charge off amount is 3516
5) Admit that the above described account is the same account which plaintiff is seeking to collect in the lawsuit

Pretty much they are wanting me to admit to everything so they can get a judgment without having to go to court! URGH!!! There are more questions but they are redundant.


let's see.if you can truthfully deny even one question.deny evrything else.for example:if the 3516 is not the actual charge off amount then everything else is iffy as well.go by that.if you can honestly deny even one,deny or put N/A in the response.yes those papers can get redundant.different ways of asking the same thing.


Submitted by paulmergel on Tue, 08/10/2010 - 04:58

paulmergel

( Posts: 15514 | Credits: )


Thanks! I can deny some of the questions like Admit that more than 30 days prior to filing suit, Plaintiff presented "demand" letter.

I don't recall receiving a demand letter! I also noticed that the charge off amounts are different each credit report. Plus they have it listed as me making a payment 09/2006 when I don't recall making that payment.
Don't they have to prove I made that payment? Also, how can I find out what PYOD paid for this debt?
Thanks!


Submitted by on Tue, 08/10/2010 - 05:20

( Posts: 202330 | Credits: )


Quote:

Originally Posted by Anonymous
Thanks! I can deny some of the questions like Admit that more than 30 days prior to filing suit, Plaintiff presented "demand" letter.

I don't recall receiving a demand letter! I also noticed that the charge off amounts are different each credit report. Plus they have it listed as me making a payment 09/2006 when I don't recall making that payment.
Don't they have to prove I made that payment? Also, how can I find out what PYOD paid for this debt?
Thanks!


well getting PYOD to say what they paid for the debt will be difficult,as for answering their interrogatories.deny,deny,deny.make them prove their case.


Submitted by paulmergel on Tue, 08/10/2010 - 05:36

paulmergel

( Posts: 15514 | Credits: )


This is a perfect example of where an attorney should be retained! If this goes to court and the defendant loses there will be a judgement for the amount plus more than 1000.00 in attorney costs and court costs! A simple letter from an attorney would lead to a settlement out of court with no judgement! Who would you rather pay? Your lawyer and a settlement or their lawyer and a judgement? Unless you are well trained in the law you will be hung out to dry if you try to fight this in court alone! "The person who goes to court alone has a fool for a lawyer!" Sorry but I have been there and it is on my file for years to come!


Submitted by Frogpatch on Tue, 08/10/2010 - 06:46

Frogpatch

( Posts: 5381 | Credits: )


I tried calling the "law" office that is handling the case. NO answer. I would hire an atty, but I cannot afford one. These jackals are wanting 4100.00! What is a reasonable offer to get them to go away? The process server told me they are scumbags and to offer them $500! Yall don't know how much I want to fight this out but I just don't have the money:(

PS..I am in TEXAS!!


Submitted by spud321 on Tue, 08/10/2010 - 10:32

spud321

( Posts: 55 | Credits: )


Quote:

Originally Posted by mac4702
I tried calling the "law" office that is handling the case. NO answer. I would hire an atty, but I cannot afford one. These jackals are wanting 4100.00! What is a reasonable offer to get them to go away? The process server told me they are scumbags and to offer them $500! Yall don't know how much I want to fight this out but I just don't have the money:(
PS..I am in TEXAS!!



It would be best for you to contact an attorney and work out payment arrangements. Since your credit card company has already filed a complaint against you, $500 will not make them go away. They want it all. Good Luck


Submitted by on Wed, 08/11/2010 - 15:34

( Posts: 202330 | Credits: )


Alright...first things first. Ignore EVERYONE at this point in time that has told you to seek a settlement out of court. This is NOT the time to offer a settlement, you dont have any details about the account! For another thing, I have a sneaking suspicion that this account may have passed the applicable statute of limitations in your state, which makes this whole lawsuit illegal.

1--who is the actual plaintiff as listed on the summons? Michael Scott should be the plaintiff's attorney. But who is the actual plaintiff?
2--you said that they claimed that a payment was made in 9/06....is it any wonder that they listed that date NOW? So they claim to be filing suit a month before SOL would expire...this is a common trick. A lot of times, debt collectors illegally file suit on debts that have gone past the SOL, and they lie about date of last payment to make it look like SOL hasnt passed yet. I would be demanding proof of that last payment, and since they were kind enough to list a month and year that this "payment" was made, there isnt any reason why they shouldnt be able to produce valid records of this payment.

3--did you EVER get any contact from this plaintiff before? Any phone calls or any letters?

get back to us, we can go from there to get you the best info possible.


Submitted by skydivr7673 on Wed, 08/11/2010 - 19:09

skydivr7673

( Posts: 2036 | Credits: )


PS--notice how all the comments telling you to settle come from anonymous posters?

We have a fair share of debt collectors who come in here trying to post bad information. its entirely possible that youre hearing from a couple of them in those posts. Meanwhile, I am here, with a real identity, and I have been a member of this forum for years. And I have helped a lot of people in this situation.

You live in Texas, which has the absolute best laws in this country when it comes to protecting consumers like you from debt collectors and illegal tactics. What you need to know is this--they must prove their case against you in court. If they cannot prove it, then they cannot win and you cannot be made to pay them a penny. None of these talking heads who are urging you to settle have told you any of this. Gee, I wonder why.....


Submitted by skydivr7673 on Wed, 08/11/2010 - 19:15

skydivr7673

( Posts: 2036 | Credits: )


"Have you been sued? If so, DON'T LIE on these questions. You can get in major trouble for lying"

Not really. The only real time you can get into trouble in this type of sit is POST judgment if you lie about say, not owning a car that could be attached in an execution situation. Or possibly if you are directly examined in a courtroom by a judge but even then you can simply say you dont recall. Civil suits are all about the plaitiff PROVING their case with paperwork (or, too often just convincing a judge that doesnt know/care the law). Its not up to you to prove their case for them.

So if theres any possible reason to deny even ONE of them like was said earlier just deny, deny deny. Or if this scares you then "Dont recall, therefore deny". Make em prove it if they can.

And certainly listen to what Skydivr/Dr Tax tells you. He be da man :)


Submitted by rown on Thu, 08/12/2010 - 06:52

rown

( Posts: 70 | Credits: )


I have my credit report from 2008 and the last payment states 09/2006 under the Lowes section. PYOD or Sherman bought the debt when it was charged off. The suit was filed in 04/2010. I did call the Small Claims court where it was filed and they did verify it. I contacted a lawyer but he wanted 1200 up front plus travel expenses. All I have in my name is a house and a checking account...no car or anything else! I am a sahm. We plan on selling our home in the near future and I cannot afford a judgment right now. I had to settle due to lack of funds for a lawyer. Believe me...I would fight these bastards but cannot afford it due to money and a hot temper. Part of me hopes they "forget" to notify the court of settlement and they seek judgment then I can ask the judge to toss the whole damn thing out! Wishfull thinking! I'm sorry to let some of you down by not fighting:(


Submitted by spud321 on Fri, 08/13/2010 - 09:59

spud321

( Posts: 55 | Credits: )


why did you settle? Small claims court is a place where you do NOT NEED A LAWYER.

You really just shot yourself in the foot because they will most likely notify the court of whats called a stipulated judgment--and you will still have judgment on your record! Just because you agreed that you owe the money, that doesnt mean they will stop everything now. They have already incurred the cost of filing suit, so it isnt anything now for them to inform the court that you have agreed to a stipulated judgment. The court will then rule in their favor upon the agreement you have made, and it will still most likely end up on your record. Plus, you just gave them all that they need to try to seize your bank account.

Man, we could have helped you with what you needed...without the cost...


Submitted by skydivr7673 on Fri, 08/13/2010 - 16:07

skydivr7673

( Posts: 2036 | Credits: )


Stipulated judgment means you agree to the judgment. Don't do this.
The lawsuit is in Justice Court, not Small Claims Court. It is the same place, same judges, but companies cannot sue in Texas Small Claims Courts, so they file in Justice Court. The company will have a lawyer, you should too, but can probably find a lot of helpful advice here to fight the lawsuit if you can't afford a lawyer.


Submitted by Joe Smith on Sat, 08/14/2010 - 08:31

Joe Smith

( Posts: 93 | Credits: )


Quote:

Originally Posted by mac4702
Stipulated judgment...how does that work? I haven't signed anything yet...


At this point that may not matter. If they have you on a recorded phone call agreeing to pay a settlement, then getting a judgment will basically be a walk in the park for them. All they have to do is play the tape for the judge, and say "if the defendant didnt know they owed this money they never would agree to this settlement". And you lose your case. Even if they did not record it, if they simply state in court that you agreed to a settlement offer, then the judge will most likely find against you. If they say this in court and you deny it, and then they play a recorded conversation where you agreed to it, then your case is sunk. You see where I am going with this.

The worst part of this is that people just dont know...in more than half of all the cases I have ever researched, when a debt is several years old and has gone to a few different debt collectors, the one thats suing you doesnt even have any of the documentation they need to prove that you owe the money! If people would just deny and show up to defend, many of these lawsuits are simply dropped by the PLAINTIFF on court day....they dismiss their own case because they are hoping that you wont show up. If a person who has been sued shows up and challenges the plaintiff about proving their case, many of them simply dismiss their own case and go away! I am not kidding! I have helped dozens of people on this forum in this exact same situation and I have researched hundreds, perhaps thousands more cases on my own....and you would be AMAZED how often that happens!

I do not advocate that anyone skip out on a legitimate debt, but it is not a legitimate debt in my mind unless it can be proven by the people who are trying to collect it. Too many times we have seen people pay a "debt collector" that didnt actually have the legal right to collect on the debt, so that is why I advocate the way I do. A debt collector needs to prove that I owe the debt, prove that they have legal standing to collect on it, and prove the amount is correct. ONLY THEN would I even think about discussing payment arrangements.


Submitted by skydivr7673 on Sat, 08/14/2010 - 08:48

skydivr7673

( Posts: 2036 | Credits: )


What gets my goat is that these rotten CA pay so little for the debt and then try to collect on the whole amount plus their added fee's!! There should be a law against this and I would love to see something on the books that say a CA cannot collect except for what THEY paid for the debt!!


Submitted by spud321 on Sat, 08/14/2010 - 10:13

spud321

( Posts: 55 | Credits: )


Quote:

Originally Posted by skydivr7673
At this point that may not matter. If they have you on a recorded phone call agreeing to pay a settlement, then getting a judgment will basically be a walk in the park for them. All they have to do is play the tape for the judge, and say "if the defendant didnt know they owed this money they never would agree to this settlement". And you lose your case. Even if they did not record it, if they simply state in court that you agreed to a settlement offer, then the judge will most likely find against you. If they say this in court and you deny it, and then they play a recorded conversation where you agreed to it, then your case is sunk.


That's not correct. In court, you can't offer settlement offers or negotiations as proof of debt. Think of all the lawsuits out there that are settled just because it is more cost effective to settle than to litigate.

I would offer to settle for a DISMISSAL, not an agreed judgment because an agreed judgment is still a judgment.


Submitted by on Sat, 08/14/2010 - 12:40

( Posts: 202330 | Credits: )


Quote:

Originally Posted by rown
"Have you been sued? If so, DON'T LIE on these questions. You can get in major trouble for lying"
Not really. The only real time you can get into trouble in this type of sit is POST judgment if you lie about say, not owning a car that could be attached in an execution situation. Or possibly if you are directly examined in a courtroom by a judge but even then you can simply say you dont recall. Civil suits are all about the plaitiff PROVING their case with paperwork (or, too often just convincing a judge that doesnt know/care the law). Its not up to you to prove their case for them.
So if theres any possible reason to deny even ONE of them like was said earlier just deny, deny deny. Or if this scares you then "Dont recall, therefore deny". Make em prove it if they can.
And certainly listen to what Skydivr/Dr Tax tells you. He be da man :)


This is bad information that could get someone in serious trouble. DON'T LIE IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

Sure you get them on a technicality, that's ok, like "Admit you opened this account in January of 2006" when if fact you opened it in October 2005, you can "deny", but if you actually opened that account, you have to answer this question.


Submitted by on Sat, 08/14/2010 - 12:44

( Posts: 202330 | Credits: )


How is that for confusing. Conflicting legal advice from people who are not lawyers. Everyone has their opinion. The advice that will benefit you the most is advice that applies to the local and state rules of civil procedure. I'm sure I will get in trouble for saying it again, but get legal advice from a lawyer who handles these types of cases in your state and in the court where your lawsuit is.


Submitted by Joe Smith on Sat, 08/14/2010 - 15:24

Joe Smith

( Posts: 93 | Credits: )


Quote:

Originally Posted by Anonymous
That's not correct. In court, you can't offer settlement offers or negotiations as proof of debt. Think of all the lawsuits out there that are settled just because it is more cost effective to settle than to litigate.

I would offer to settle for a DISMISSAL, not an agreed judgment because an agreed judgment is still a judgment.


You have obviously missed the entire point of what I said. We are talking about a stipulated judgment here, not the plaintiff seeking a judgment for the full amount.

Also, let's face facts. If you know anything about how court works, you know that what I said is dead on the money. Let me explain it a bit better for you. Suppose I sue you, and you deny my claims in your answer. I then speak to you on the phone, and you agree to pay a settlement to me so that the case will be ended. I record that conversation. I then take it before a judge, and play the tape. If you come in denying the debt, and I have recorded proof that you admit to owing it and even that you agree to pay a portion of it to me, then why in the world would I not play it for the court and then request that the court find in my favor for the amount you agreed to pay? A JUDGMENT, even a stipulated one, gives me as the plaintiff all the power, and FAR more options than a settlement agreement, dont you agree?

Your comment about how settlements are taken all the time means nothing--because if I record you admitting to owing the debt, there's all the proof I need to convince the court that you do in fact owe me. A settlement is one thing--but then it must be enforced, and if the consumer refuses to honor their end of the deal, then the CA has to consider suing anyways, right? Which is why I said, if they have already gone this far into court proceedings, it isnt anything at all for them to ask that the court rule on the stipulated judgment. Which is easier for a debt collector to enforce--a settlement agreement, or a judgment? Thanks for playing.

By the way, settlements are taken all the time, yes, but NO attorney is doing whats best for his client if they have concrete proof that the debt is legitimately owed, and he accepts a settlement instead of getting judgment for the full amount. Settlements work great for when there is a question as to the outcome of the case. Lest you forget, civil court is not about absolute right and wrong, but rather a preponderance of the evidence. If I am the plaintiff's attorney, I may have an easier time convincing YOU, the defendant, that you should settle, than I would have convincing the court that you owe me the money. Court is not a place of absolutes or things written in stone.

Then again, in this case, what motivation does the plaintiff have to accept a settlement for dismissal instead of stipulated judgment? This defendant is scared and I have no doubt that they know it. you dont think they use that to their advantage? It takes literally less than a minute for any good attorney to know when he/she is talking to a defendant that doesnt know the system and how it all works. You can try to strong-arm them if you like, but then again, as the defendant, and without an attorney, you hold no aces in this poker game, they hold them all. They know it too. You dont have anything to bargain with in this particular case that would motivate them to dismiss rather than push the stipulated judgment.


Submitted by skydivr7673 on Sat, 08/14/2010 - 19:32

skydivr7673

( Posts: 2036 | Credits: )


I am going through this whole paperwork and lawsuit thing with MJS as well.. I started receiving calls from some guy wanting to deliver me some paperwork in July...I made a time to be home.. he never showed.. I said screw it.. then I come home the other day to a document duck taped to my door...so I took it off and it was a photo copy of some kind of "court document" saying I was being sued..then exactly a week later I got two letters in the mail from same law offices of MJS for me and one for my husband about a different lawsuit from the same company. I will be quite frank about this whole thing... I do not deny that I had this debt for several years and when I ran into hardships and called and begged them to help me and make arrangments it was a no go..so I stopped paying.. I know that is horrible and I don't run from my responsibilities but I know for a fact that the amounts they are suing me for are way off the original debt amount (yet I need to still get my credit report to verify) I don't even know how to answer these questions. I didn't sign for anything and I damn sure have never spoke to these people on the phone..this is the first correspondence I have recieved from this lawfirm..and I truly think that my credit is messed up enough...I might as well just file for bankruptcy. I live in Texas...I do not know if I should send the debt verification letter for both me and my husband or what? Also in the letters with the "court documents"... it says at the bottom..its not to late to settle..please call !!! So are you gonna sue me or what? I'm soooooooooooo confused!!!!:confused:


Submitted by sharuss69 on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 00:28

sharuss69

( Posts: | Credits: )


A good place to start for your situation is determining if the statute of limitations has expired. Typically, if you owe a debt, I'm all for settling or resolving the issue, but for accounts that end up with Michael J. Scott's office, I disagree with my own opinion. They are ruthless, unethical and nothing less than a pain to deal with. You can't trust anything when it comes to this law firm, so be sure they even have a leg to stand on before you even consider settling or doing anything other than fighting this lawsuit.

Good luck to you!


Submitted by mariemegge on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 11:49

mariemegge

( Posts: 168 | Credits: )


A better place to start is to find out if these clowns even sued you in the first place, or if this is just them trying to scare you into paying.

You need to contact the clerk of courts where they claim to have filed suit against you. Find out if there is an actual lawsuit or not. For some reason I have a feeling that they may not have sued you--this is not unheard of, especially with these clowns.

Something stands right out at me--the fact that you said someone called you "to set up a time to meet so they could serve you". Process servers, as far as I have seen, do not do this. They go to your house, and try to find you or someone else that can legally receive the summons. They can and do also go to your place of employment if they cannot find you at home.

Do the papers you had taped to your door actually say that they filed suit? Or does it say something like "we have not yet filed suit"? Is it a summons, or a notice that you may soon be served a summons for a lawsuit? A lot of these crooks use documents that look like court docs, but in fact are not. This is not legal, it is a violation of the FDCPA. Naturally, these scam artists dont care about that. Let us know about the details--do the papers list a court or a certain county? If so, is it the county you live in?


Submitted by skydivr7673 on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 12:30

skydivr7673

( Posts: 2036 | Credits: )


When I dealt with some issues like this, they "said" they tried to serve me, and then the judge allowed door service. The papers are probably legit, though.

Have you been on top of this from the get go? MJS is quick to back off if you have any legit counterclaims. What state are you in? Who is the plaintiff they are suing for? How much is the debt? When was the last payment?

You might want to start your own post on this. Get back with some answers, and we will help you through this. It might be easier than you think.


Submitted by stick101010 on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 23:27

stick101010

( Posts: 39 | Credits: )


Here's what I've noticed with these idiots - they'll "try" to sue everybody. So, as a consumer it's your right and responsibility to be sure that they have a legitimate claim, because Michael J. Scott doesn't care. Again, they will file suit, whether it's legit or not. And, yes, Skydivr is correct - they may not have sued you at all. I've not noticed this trend with Michael J. Scott, but some law firms will send you something that looks much like a summons, but isn't one at all. Again, I haven't seen this with Michael J. Scott, as they like to jump right into lawsuits, but maybe they're changing tactics a bit.

Please keep us updated, as if you successfully fight this (maybe) lawsuit, I believe it can help many others follow suit.

And one more point, which is a little off base, but still relevant to Michael J. Scott - sometimes they try to sue our clients, and if and when they realize these particular clients don't reside in Texas, they send the account right back to the creditor, rather than working out a deal - even though it's our client's desire to settle the account. So, as you can see, they are more interested in lawsuits and judgments than amicable resolutions.

Good luck!


Submitted by mariemegge on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 07:04

mariemegge

( Posts: 168 | Credits: )