iEscape

Members
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About iEscape

  • Rank
    Newbie

Profile Fields

  • Location
    TX

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice -- the following are just the thoughts of a fellow defendant.... I agree with Clydesmom about removing the usury defense (TRCP 93.11). If you insist on keeping it, it requires a verified denial (pg.6), or an unsworn declaration. You may want to re-redact the plaintiff's petition PDF you've uploaded to remove the cause number, bar code at the top, and anything else identifying, if you care to. I can read your name through the marker. I don't know about using texasrocker's special exception to account stated argument in your answer. I don't fully understand the alternative "Suit on Debt" pleading (Count Two). While the pleading doesn't specifically say 'account stated' or 'stated account', perhaps the wording somehow implies an account stated theory. I haven't seen a claim worded like that yet, but I'm inexperienced with this b.s. legal b.s. still. I'd be very careful about adding things to your answer that may have no bearing on your case, as it might piss off an overburdened JP court judge. The plea to the jurisdiction on lack of standing seems appropriate, since there are no exhibits showing an assignment of your debt, but you've left some wording out. You might change "Instead, Plaintiff alleges "On or about March 10,2009." to Instead, Plaintiff alleges "As of July 9, 2013, Plaintiff has ownership of the account and has been assigned the rights to this account, including the right to collect the outstanding balance which it pleads for herein." I think that fits with the argument, but I could be mistaken. I noticed that your plaintiff didn't mention "that all conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred." You might want to include the specific denial from this example (paragraph 2). I think it will force the plaintiff to prove otherwise. From what I've seen, specific denials require some additional reasoning, so you may need to do more than just quote what's said in that example. I'm also defending a breach of contract case. It seems incredibly unfair that a plaintiff can make claims, which you are required to specifically defend, when they don't offer you the contract you supposedly breached to examine. The legal system is borked. Good luck. I'll try to keep up with your thread.
  2. Has anyone sent discovery / admissions / interrogatories to a lawyer representing Portfolio Recovery Associates that references the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's consent order against them? If so, would you please share? Thanks in advance!
  3. Have you tried using Tor Browser to access the sites your ISP seem to be blocking? Using Tor is a better alternative to using a "free" proxy, if you can't afford paid proxy / VPN services.
  4. I believe this only affects people using the Defendant's Original Answer that texasrocker shares with Texas residents, but I haven't searched the forum for help provided in other states. I discovered the following while researching the answer I ended up filing with the court. With much appreciation, I used some of what texasrocker provided, but I had to abandon most of it because I didn't believe it applied to my specific case. It's almost always going to be pointless to claim the usury defense provided by texasrocker ("Defendant asserts that the interest rates charged by the original creditor are usurious."). While Texas has decent usury laws, and it appears they might apply (thus capping your interest at a maximum of 18% annually), in the vast majority of situations this won't apply to your debt with regard to an original creditor. Original creditors cleverly bypass state usury laws by setting up headquarters, or going through other banks, in states with lax or nonexistent usury laws. If you think Texas usury laws actually apply to your debt and you want to use this defense (it's one of the many use-it-or-lose-it defenses), be sure to follow the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 93(11), and verify your denial. Many people have lost their cases simply because they didn't follow procedure and file a verified denial for a defense that required one. There are examples of what a verified denial looks like if you search. You don't have to notarize your denial, but most examples show the verification on its own page, verified by a notary,
  5. Thank you for that texasrocker! I'm curious -- why do you think I have a good chance against this law firm? Obviously, I'd rather not declare BK7 if I don't have to. If I fight and lose this case, is it a trivial matter to discharge its judgment in a BK7 when DFS accounts are supposedly secured? I assume I should omit the line that says, "Defendant asserts that the claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations." since I'm within the SOL? When you say to edit the parts in red: Instead, Plaintiff alleges "Defendant's account has been assigned to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff is the current holder of Defendant's accounts" See Plaintiff's Original Petition under "Facts" paragraph 6. There is no allegation or statement as to who was the seller, and there is no way from these pleadings to determine if Plaintiff purchased the account from anyone in the chain of title, and no way to determine what rights, if any, the Plaintiff has to bring suit. Is this what you mean I should edit it to? Instead, Plaintiff alleges "On or about {[date]}, Defendant's(s') Account was assigned to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff is the current holder of Defendant's(s') account and the proper party to bring this lawsuit." See Plaintiff's Original Petition & First Discovery Requests under section D. Facts, paragraph 6. Also, does the italicized argument apply to my case? Earlier in that paragraph 6, they mention DFS.
  6. 1. Who is the named plaintiff in the suit? Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC 2. What is the name of the law firm handling the suit? Rausch, Sturm, Israel, Enerson & Hornik, LLC 4. Who is the original creditor? (if not the Plaintiff) "Account" opened with Dell Financial Services, LLC On the first set of discovery, "the original creditor" left blank. On the second set of discovery, "the original creditor" shall mean Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC 10. When is the last time you paid on this account? within SOL 12. What is the status of your case? Suit served, being handled in district court, answer turned in, discovery due I've done a lot of reading on the site and I'm impressed by the help given. I haven't been able to find any info about the double discovery issue of mine. I received two, six-page sets of discovery along with my original petition. The first set looks like it belonged to someone else's petition, but had most of my information pasted in. The three big things it had wrong were: there was no original creditor listed at all; they referenced an owed amount that didn't even closely match the petition in the admissions questions; and the wrong county is used above the verification section. The second, six-page set of discovery has those errors corrected and slightly altered the admissions questions, to tailor them more toward the type of account they're suing me over. I'm hoping this error might help me, but I'm not too optimistic about it. Maybe it's what the courts would consider a bona fide error? I have another month to answer discovery, but I'm not sure if I need to answer both sets. They're both labeled "First Discovery Request". Another thing I'm worried about is that the account the lawsuit references is from Dell Financial Services, and their accounts are supposedly different. They're secured accounts as opposed to unsecured. I don't know if the original answers I've seen, shared by texasrocker, apply to this type of account as DFS might be considered an account that deals in goods directly. I'm not sure.... Also, I think it's odd that DFS was mentioned in the original petition, but not in the discovery as the original creditor. PRA is listed as the original creditor in the second of the two sets of the discovery. Would someone please help me get an answer together?