Oh MIO DIOS!!! My head is spinning!! :speechless: Let me see if I can do any more damage...-- errr... help you out any.... I take it from your post count this is not your first time posting here.... so you should have done a link back to your original post so we could read about what you have done so far.... Now on to your confusion .... There are plenty of attorney's who are first used as a "collection agency" by the creditor. They are hoping that the alleged debtor will be scared into paying due to the fact that an attorney is the one contacting them about the debt. Pretty much anyone with an tiny bit of common sense will realize that when an attorney sends you a collection letter, there is a silent threat that they have the capability to sue you. Thus, you are more motivated to pay. Also due to them being a licensed attorney and having gone to law school, they should know the rules of law much better than a regular collection agency, thus are held to a higher standard when acting as a collection agency first. When you do not pay, they essentially "change roles" and become "the attorney of the plaintiff", thus are acting in the official role of an attorney who has filed a suit. When they were acting as a "collection agency" and broke some rules, the FDCPA would apply-- to the attorney, not the OC. Although, the OC did hire the attorney so you could include them in a separate suit that you could file against the attorney.... When they are acting as "attorney for the plaintiff", then you have to deal through the court when they break rules or don't follow procedure... Legaleagle even said the same thing: So, I'm not understanding what you are trying to explain. Are you trying to use the attorney's violations of FDCPA when they were first acting as a debt collector as affirmative defenses in the case they are acting as "attorney for the plaintiff" in now??? Again-- as legaleagle already said--- The attorney is NOT an employee!!! As to the affidavit being out of date and having errors, that does help you! Have you also filed a counter affidavit per MCL 600.2145?? OC is not a debt collector!! If they are the OC of the debt, they are not held to the same rules as collection agencies or JDBer's! If the OC was using their internal collection department, they WOULD be employees of the OC! But because they ARE employees of the OC, they would be immune from FDCPA. Since they gave it to the attorney to collect, the attorney IS subject to FDCPA when they were acting as a collection agency. When they filed the suit, they became "attorney of the plaintiff" which means now they have to play by the rules of the court--and so do you! BV80 also says same thing we are saying: If you can get the affidavit stricken at trial due to it being out of date, it won't have any evidentiary weight in the case. Again, you did not link this thread to your original thread with the details of what they are suing you, so we are playing "blind mans bluff" in the dark here.... Take to heart what legaleagle is saying here-- We are not saying you cannot win against an OC, but it is more difficult! As others have noted Discover is one tough cookie to go up against. But, you do have that out of date affidavit, and you might have more "material issues in dispute" that you realize. Just keep telling yourself, "it only takes ONE to get this MSJ denied!!" And this is what a lot of people wonder .... which I don't have a firm answer to.... but, just don't give up!! KEEP READING!!! This stuff is HARD to grasp!!!