Its along one, thanks in advance for reading and any input……… Here is the sum of what this is for. In Nov of 2002 I did a VOLUN REPO on a car- the balance at that time was less than $1000 however the company (Bank One) refused to give me a payoff. (I know what we learn now and wish we had known then.) The value (Kelly Blue book) was at the time of VOLUN REPO was over $5000. ( the Blue book now is over $4000) The account was closed by grantor (CR 2002, 2003, 2004) however a WO and account closed a grantor’s request. In 2006 it states on my CR it was sold and does still show Bank one. Now Bank one has since gone out of business (I’m certain Chase bought them in 2004?) and I believe it is Chase that now owns them? However It is Bank one that was the OC right? I am being sued by an attorney (the assignee and its assignee Legal Collection CO) There is nothing on my credit report from either of these companies- not sure if that’s relevant but either way. They do have a copy of the original promissory note signed by myself. However I was first Late in payments in 2001, thus wouldn’t the statue of limitations be valid here? Is there a place that shows not just the statue of limitations but When those statue of limitations goes into effect? It is my understanding that it is from the first delinquency, not the last date of actions?Now here is a catch to all this, once upon a Late February 2008, I was called at work by this gal, who said (And I am not even joking) CA:hi I’m (name) and you owe $1496.00 do you want to pay that by credit card or check? (WTF?) Me: what? Who are you what are you talking about? CA: I don’t have to tell you anything you are being uncooperative; we have a garnishment against you and well just enforce that –click- then to my boss to find out where to send garnishment to. The other catch? They called my 13 yo child told him they were calling me for a job to get my number at work. Now I wrote all of this down time/date and number was called from and it was apparently this company (due to goggle search) Yeah so that brings us to this. (On 4/6/07 that’s right 2007) there was a default judgment against me ($1496.00) - never appeared on my credit report. I found out as in March 2008they began to garnish my wages, I immediately filed a motion to quash the judgment (Vacate) and did win that (they never served me I do plan on suing the server as well), along with the CA to return the funds they had at that time garnished (they have yet to have done that). However, I was served right there to go back to court this month(new amount ($9400.00)- I have since filed a extension request, however it has not yet happened yet so well see. BTW- they have since garnished my wages one more time; I never received the wage release so I faxed what the court did have to my employer. –in a way that will work to my benefit- Here was my answer- Please help with anything you can. Thanks again! I just want to be prepared in court as much as I can- Did I say thanks? Thanks again! Plaintiff(s) v. Defendant(s) Me The Defendant(s), answer(s) the Complaint as follows: Defendant, appearing pro se, for its reply to the Complaint of Plaintiff (hereafter "Plaintiff") states as follows: All allegations of the Complaint are DENIED unless expressly admitted herein. 1. In response to paragraph #1, the Defendant disputes the alleged debt, as solicited in paragraph #1 of the complaint. DENIES having information and knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations at paragraphs #1. Defendant DENIES being the person who allegedly owes this debt, and demands Plaintiff show through their burden of proof otherwise. 2. In response to paragraph #2, the Complaint states legal conclusions to which no response is necessary. However, to the extent that the Court may deem a response to be necessary, defendant DENIES the allegation and demands strict proof thereof. 3. In response to paragraph #3, the Defendant is at this time without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation contained therein, and on that basis generally and specifically DENIES the allegation contained therein, and leaves the Plaintiff to provide proof. Defendant demands strict proof thereof. 4. In response to paragraph #4, to the extent a response is required, defendant is at this time without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation contained therein, and on that basis generally and specifically DENIES the allegation contained therein and leaves the Plaintiff to provide proof. Defendant demands strict proof thereof. Defendant has no knowledge of any contract or agreement with plaintiff. 5. In response to paragraph #5, no response necessary 6. In response to paragraph #6, no response necessary 7. Plaintiff's petition fails to allege whether or not the purported assignment was partial or complete and there is no evidence that the purported assignment was bona fide. 8. Plaintiff's petition further fails to allege that the Assignor even has knowledge of this action or that the Assignor has conveyed all rights and control to the Plaintiff. The record does not disclose this information and it cannot be assumed without creating an unfair prejudice against the Defendant. 9. Plaintiff is not the real party in interest. 10. Plaintiff's petition 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 Petition 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. ***Now this was in refrence to the fact that I have no agreement with them I did with Bank one not wiht the CA)***[/B] 11. 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. 12. Defendant claims Lack of Privity as Defendant has never entered into any contractual or debtor/creditor arrangements with the Plaintiff. 13. Defendant alleges that the granting of the Plaintiff's demand in the Petition would result in Unjust Enrichment, as the Plaintiff would receive more money than plaintiff is entitled to receive. 14. Plaintiff is barred under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, hereinafter called FDCPA, from collecting attorney fees, interest, collection fees, and any amount not specifically provided for by agreement. 15. Defendant claims Accord and Satisfaction as Defendant alleges that the original creditor accepted payment from the Plaintiff or a third party for the purported debt, or a portion of the purported debt, or that the original creditor received other compensation in the form of monies or credits. 16. Plaintiff voluntarily, with knowledge inherent, made an assumption of risk in assuming ownership of a purported debt, and is not entitled to judgment and not entitled to equitable, pecuniary or statutory damages. 17. Plaintiff’s damages are the result of acts or omissions committed by non-parties to this action over whom Defendant has no responsibility or control. 18. Plaintiff’s prejudgment interest violates the standard of equity and there is no evidence of pecuniary loss. 19. Defendant DENIES every other allegation not previously admitted, denied or controverted 20. Defendant reserves the right to amend and/or add additional Answers, Defenses and produce additional evidence to support such defenses and/or Counterclaims at any time. Re: COUNTERCLAIM 1. Defendant resides in Colorado and is a consumer as that term is defined by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 15 USC 1692 et seq ( “FDCPA”) 2. Legal Collections and its agent Plaintiff are “debt collectors” as the term is defined by the FDCPA. 3. The alleged promissory note is a “debt” as that term is defined by the FDCPA, which the alleged account was meant to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes 4. On or before 4/10/08, at a time best known to it, Plaintiff engaged Plaintiff to collect this alleged debt from defendant; at all times Plaintiff was acting for and under the direction of Plaintiff . 5. On 4/10/08 Summons and complaint was issued to Defendant in court. 6. In response thereto, defendant sent Plaintiff a letter wherein defendant disputed the debt and asked Plaintiff to provide validation, per 15 USC 1692g. A copy of the letter and tracking notice are attached. 7. Plaintiff ‘s act to bring this action without validating the debt was intentional and, on information and belief, persistent and frequent. 8. Plaintiff has violated the FDCPA by bringing this action before validating the debt, and defendant is injured thereby. 9. Defendant restates and realleges the matter in paragraphs 1 through 8. 10. On 4/10/08 Motion to Quash service summons and complaint of Default Judgment dated 4/26/07. 11. Motion to Quash Authorized including Payment to Defendant for Garnished wages to be paid by Plaintiff To date Payment has not been received, and defendant is injured thereby. 12. On 4/10/08 Writ of Garnishment was issued. 13. To date Release of Garnishment has not been received, and defendant is injured thereby. 14. Additional garnishment have been taken, after Writ of Garnishment was issued and defendant is injured thereby. 15. On 1/29/08, Plaintiff communicated the debt to a third person by calling defendant’s 13 year old child twice, without Defendant’s prior consent or valid court order, in violation of 15 USC 1692c( and 15 USC 1692d, and defendant has been injured thereby. 16. Defendant restates and realleges the matter in paragraphs 1 through 16. WHEREFORE, the defendant asks the Court for judgment: a. dismissing the complaint herein, b. in favor of the defendant on the counterclaims: I. for actual damages, ii. for statutory damages in an amount up to $5000.00 iii. for reasonable attorney’s fees, per 15 USC 1692k, c. costs and disbursements of this action, d. such other and different relief as the Court finds proper. Thoughts? suggestions? Interpretations?