Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'new jersey'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Announcements
    • Polls
    • PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING / Board Announcements
    • Resources
  • Credit Repair Forums
    • Credit Repair
    • Collections
    • Credit Bureaus/Reports/Scores
    • Credit Article of the Week
  • Legal Issues
    • Is There a Lawyer in the House
    • Bankruptcy Q and A
  • Debt Validation
    • While You are In It Debt Validation Q and A
    • Debt Settlement
  • Loans and Banking
    • Obtaining Credit Cards, Auto Loans and Financing
    • Mortgages
    • Student Loans
    • Banking and Finance
  • Non Credit
    • Off Topic
    • Wine

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Location


Biography


Interests


Occupation

Found 9 results

  1. I am about to argue a motion to vacate a default judgement. The original complaint was filed against me without my knowledge in late 2011. The alleged date of default is from 12/5/08. I only learned about the lawsuit in April 2016, when I was sent a Notice of Wage Garnishment. I am arguing pro se. I did already object to the wage garnishment but in addition I have filed this motion to vacate. The Plaintiff (Midland Funding) and their attorney (Pressler & Pressler) sent everything from the initial 2011 complaint to the wrong address, even though I had formally changed my address with Motor Vehicle back in early 2010. The original debtor was Target National Bank. My primary defense is lack of personal jurisdiction, improper service. In addition, the city I moved to was in an entirely different county from where the lawsuit was filed. (Filed in Cumberland County, NJ and I reside in Salem County, NJ). I am hoping to win the motion without putting much emphasis on the County difference. I am comfortable with the current judge and don’t wish to change venues unless it is my only option left. Soon after I filed the Motion I received a letter from the Plaintiff's attorney asking me to prove my address from November and December 2011, when service occurred. As far as I know I already did provide proof of address change and enough documentation to show a pattern of my whereabouts during this time period. I am not sure if I should send them something right away or wait to see if the judgement is vacated? I have requested they Validate the Debt already and Pressler & Pressler refused since they had already won the default judgement. In any case, if my motion to vacate is successful, I would assume Midland Funding will attempt to refile. They might refile in Salem County this time, or attempt to restart or refile in Cumberland County. NJ Statute of Limitations on Debt Collection is 6 years. Since the original date of default on the debt is from 2008, is this debt now considered time-barred? Or is there any reason the statute of limitations would be ignored or reset? Of what issues should I be aware?
  2. I got stuck in traffic and was too late to submit my answer with MTC private/contractual arbitration. I called the court clerk in New Jersey she said I should then file a motion to vacate along with my answer. But needed a valid excuse. Am I destined for a default? Would the court consider health reasons valid? Any advice as to how to do best go about doing this? Actually, I'm still within the 30 days of being served. I've seen conflicting rules: 35 within the date the complaint was filed and 30 days within being served. Thanks
  3. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 25, 2016 CONTACT: Office of Communications Tel: (202) 435-7170 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU TAKES ACTION TO HALT ILLEGAL DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES BY LAWSUIT MILL AND DEBT BUYER CFPB Bars Law Firm, Debt Buyer from Churning Out Illegal Collections Lawsuits and Imposes $2.5 Million in Penalties WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) today ordered the debt collection law firm Pressler & Pressler, LLP, two principal partners, and New Century Financial Services, Inc., a debt buyer, to stop churning out unfair and deceptive debt collection lawsuits based on flimsy or nonexistent evidence. The consent orders bar the companies and individuals from illegal practices that can deceive or intimidate consumers, such as filing lawsuits without determining if debts in question are valid. The orders also require the firm and the named partners to pay $1 million, and New Century to pay $1.5 million to the Bureau’s Civil Penalty Fund. “For years, Pressler & Pressler churned out one lawsuit after another to collect debts for New Century that were not verified and might not exist,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Debt collectors that file lawsuits with no regard for their validity break the law and violate the public trust. We will continue to take action to protect borrowers from abuse." Pressler & Pressler is a New Jersey-based law firm that collects consumers’ debts for creditors through lawsuits and other means. New Century Financial Services, also based in New Jersey, buys and collects defaulted consumer debts and hands off those accounts to Pressler & Pressler for collection. To collect alleged debts on behalf of New Century and others, Pressler & Pressler filed hundreds of thousands of lawsuits against consumers. Sheldon H. Pressler and Gerard J. Felt, partners of the firm, each participated in the firm’s debt collection litigation practices. The CFPB found that to mass-produce these lawsuits, Pressler & Pressler used an automated claim-preparation system and non-attorney support staff to determine which consumers to sue. Attorneys generally spent less than a few minutes, sometimes less than 30 seconds, reviewing each case before initiating a lawsuit. This process allowed the firm to generate and file hundreds of thousands of lawsuits against consumers in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania between 2009 and 2014. The CFPB found that the respondents violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the consumer financial marketplace. Specifically, the CFPB found that Pressler & Pressler, the firm’s named partners, and New Century Financial Services: Made false or empty allegations about consumer debts: The CFPB found that the firm, the named partners, and New Century filed lawsuits against consumers without sufficient basis. Neither the firm nor New Century reviewed documents supporting the validity of debts. Filed lawsuits based on unreliable or false information: Some consumers had previously challenged the validity or accuracy of the debts, but the firm or New Century did not obtain or review information to justify their claims. The firm and New Century also filed suits and collected debt knowing that some account portfolios targeted for lawsuits contained unreliable or false information. Harassed consumers with unsubstantiated court filings: The CFPB found that the firm, the named partners, and New Century filed collection suits generated mainly by automated processes that relied on summary data. The firm won the vast majority of the lawsuits by default when consumers did not defend themselves, even though neither Pressler & Pressler nor New Century had verified that the debts were actually owed. Enforcement Action Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB has the authority to take action against institutions or individuals that engage in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. The CFPB also has authority over debt collection practices under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The CFPB orders require that Pressler & Pressler, the firm’s named partners, and New Century Financial Services must: Stop filing lawsuits with unsubstantiated claims: Pressler & Pressler, the named partners, and New Century cannot file lawsuits or threaten to sue to collect debts unless they obtain and review specific account-level documents and information showing the debt is accurate and enforceable. Ensure accurate court filings: The firm, the named partners, and New Century may not use affidavits as evidence to collect debts unless they accurately describe relevant facts including that the individual executing the affidavit has personal knowledge of the debt, or, if not, has reviewed documentation related to the debt. The firm must also keep an electronic record showing it is following proper procedures. Pay civil penalties: The firm and the named partners must pay a penalty of $1 million to the CFPB’s Civil Penalty Fund. New Century must pay a penalty of $1.5 million. The CFPB’s order against Pressler & Pressler and the named partners is available at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201604_cfpb_consent-order-pressler-pressler-llp-sheldon-h-pressler-and-gerard-j-felt.pdf The CFPB’s order against New Century Financial Services is available at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201604_cfpb_consent-order_new-century-financial-services-inc.pdf
  4. February 23, 2016 CONTACT: Office of Communications Tel: (202) 435-7170 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU ORDERS CITIBANK TO PROVIDE RELIEF TO CONSUMERS FOR ILLEGAL DEBT SALES AND COLLECTION PRACTICES Citibank Sold Credit Card Debt with Inflated Interest Rates; Debt Collectors for Citibank Altered Affidavits Washington, D.C. –The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau today took two separate actions against Citibank for illegal debt sales and debt collection practices. In the first action, the CFPB ordered Citibank to provide nearly $5 million in consumer relief and pay a $3 million penalty for selling credit card debt with inflated interest rates and for failing to forward consumer payments promptly to debt buyers. The second action is against both Citibank and two debt collection law firms it used that falsified court documents filed in debt collection cases in New Jersey state courts. The CFPB ordered Citibank and the law firms to comply with a court order that Citibank refund $11 million to consumers and forgo collecting about $34 million from nearly 7,000 consumers. "Citibank sent inaccurate information to buyers when it sold off credit card debt and it also used law firms that altered court documents," said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. "Today's action provides redress to consumers who were victimized by slipshod practices as part of our ongoing work to fight abuses in the debt collection market." Citibank, N.A., is a national bank with headquarters in New York, N.Y., that issues consumer credit cards. From 2010 to 2013, Citibank sold portfolios of charged-off credit card accounts. It typically provided debt buyers with information about the consumer and the debt, including the supposed annual percentage rate (APR). A “charged-off” account is one the bank deems unlikely to be repaid, but may sell to a debt buyer, usually for a fraction of face value. The debt buyer then can try to collect on those accounts. Illegal Debt Sales Practices Citibank broke the law when, from February 2010 until June 2013, it provided inaccurate and inflated APR information for almost 130,000 credit card accounts it sold to debt buyers. These buyers then used the exaggerated APR in debt collection attempts. Citibank also failed to promptly forward to debt buyers approximately 14,000 customer payments totaling almost $1 million. The CFPB found that Citibank violated the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Financial Protection Act. Specifically, Citibank: Overstated the annual percentage rate in accounts sold to debt buyers: Between February 2010 and June 2013, Citibank overstated the APR for 128,809 accounts it sold to 16 different debt buyers. For some accounts, Citibank claimed the APR was 29 percent when it was actually 0 percent. Consumers paid about $4.89 million to debt buyers who used an APR inflated by more than 1 percent in collection efforts. Delayed sending consumer payments to debt buyers: From 2010 to 2013, Citibank delayed forwarding to debt buyers nearly 14,000 payments made by consumers, totaling almost $1 million. This delayed the updating of account balances and subjected consumers to collection efforts from debt buyers after they had already, in reality, paid off their account. Enforcement action Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB has the authority to take action against institutions or individuals engaged in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. Under the CFPB’s order addressing illegal debt sales practices, Citibank must: Refund an estimated $4.89 million to roughly 2,100 consumers: Citibank must refund all payments consumers made from Feb. 1, 2010 to Nov. 14, 2013 to debt buyers that referenced an inflated APR provided by Citibank in their collection efforts where the discrepancy was more than 1 percent. Accurately document the debt it sells: Citibank must provide certain account documents when it sells debt, such as the credit agreement and recent account statements. Stop selling debt it cannot verify: Citibank cannot sell debts if it cannot provide documentation, if the consumers notified Citibank of identity theft or unauthorized use, if consumers allege in writing that they do not owe the amount claimed, or if the account is within 150 days of the end of the statute of limitations. Include certain protections in debt sales contracts: Citibank must include provisions in its debt sales contracts prohibiting the debt buyer from reselling the debt. Provide consumers with basic information about the debt: When it sells a debt, Citibank must give consumers information about the debt, such as the name of the original creditor, the credit agreement, and recent account statements. Pay civil money penalties: Citibank must pay a $3 million penalty to the CFPB’s Civil Penalty Fund. The full text of the CFPB’s consent order on debt sales is found at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201602_cfpb_consent-order-citibank-na.pdf Altered Affidavits Separately, the CFPB is taking action today against Citibank, two of its affiliates – Department Stores National Bank and CitiFinancial Servicing, LLC – and two debt collection law firms for altering affidavits filed in debt collection lawsuits. Citibank retained Faloni & Associates, LLC, of Fairfield, N.J., and Solomon & Solomon, P.C., of Albany, N.Y. to collect credit card debt on its behalf in New Jersey state courts. Citibank filed sworn statements attesting to the accuracy of the debt allegedly owed. Citibank then provided the affidavits to their attorneys to file with New Jersey courts. The two firms retained by Citibank altered the dates of the affidavits, the amount of the debt allegedly owed, or both, after the affidavits were executed. This violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In May 2011, Citibank learned that one of its law firms had altered affidavits and stopped referring new credit card accounts to it. At Citibank’s request, a New Jersey court dismissed actions pending as of Sept. 12, 2011 that Citibank identified as involving altered affidavits or incorrect information. The CFPB’s order requires Citibank to comply with the New Jersey state court order, in which Citibank had to refund $11 million collected from consumers and stop collection of an additional $34 million in debts, both of which Citibank has done. Solomon & Solomon, P.C., must pay a $65,000 penalty to the Bureau’s Civil Penalty Fund. Faloni & Associates, LLC, must pay $15,000. Consistent with the Bureau’s Responsible Business Conduct bulletin, the CFPB did not impose civil money penalties on Citibank for this violation, especially in light of its efforts to recompense harmed consumers. The full text of the CFPB’s consent order against Citibank, N.A., Department Stores National Bank, and CitiFinancial Servicing, LLC, related to the altered affidavits matters is available at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201602_cfpb_consent-order-citibank-na-department-stores-national-bank-and-citifinancial-servicing-llc.pdf The full text of the CFPB’s consent order against Faloni & Associates relating to the altered affidavits matters is available at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201602_cfpb_consent-order-faloni-and-associates-llc.pdf The full text of the CFPB’s consent order against Solomon & Solomon relating to the altered affidavits matters is available at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201602_cfpb_consent-order-solomon-and-solomon-pc.pdf
  5. Hello there, everyone! Firstly, I know this is a long post to begin with, but I just wanted to thank you all for all of the information I've gained from this site just upon reading. You all are a huge help to everyone on here who takes the time to read about their case and sharing your valuable knowledge and past histories is incredibly helpful. So now, I'll get to my case. It's a very little amount, Pressler & Pressler, Midland Funding, NJ - apparently all parties are quite well known, but all details are below. Upon first receiving this, I knew not even where to begin knowing it wouldn't be worth it to hire a lawyer and assuming it's probably a debt they have little to no info on. Upon reading this site and all of your valuable knowledge, I've been able to formulate the below answer. From there, I'm lost, might even be lost with the below, but any and all comments, thoughts, questions, concerns, anything at all is greatly, greatly appreciated. 1. Who is the named plaintiff in the suit? Midland Funding LLC 2. What is the name of the law firm handling the suit? (should be listed at the top of the complaint.) Pressler & Pressler, LLP 3. How much are you being sued for? $2,108.17 4. Who is the original creditor? Credit One Bank credit card 5. How do you know you are being sued? Received Summons/Complaint 6. How were you served? Mail 7. Was the service legal as required by your state? Yes 8. What was your correspondence (if any) with the people suing you before you think you were being sued? May have spoken to on phone. May have received letters. They have my phone number listed incorrectly on the front page of the complaint (comes up for someone with the same last name who lived on the same street I did on a previous address but was not me - makes me think they lack any info?) 9. What state and county do you live in? NJ, USA 10. When is the last time you paid on this account? 8/2/2011 11. What is the SOL on the debt? 6 years in NJ 12. What is the status of your case? Suit served? Motions filed? A summons/complaint has been filed against me. I have 14 days remaining to answer. 13. Have you disputed the debt with the credit bureaus (both the original creditor and the collection agency?) I don’t trust unlisted number and thus most likely had no communication with them and this came upon me unknowingly. No I have not disputed the debt. 14. Did you request debt validation before the suit was filed? No. 15. How long do you have to respond to the suit? May 4th, 2015 16. What evidence did they send with the summons? An affidavit? Statements from the OC? Contract? They did not attach anything along with the complaint. The only pages I received were the two special civil part summons and return of service pages, and the summons/complaint page. They provided nothing, no documentation, anything attached to the complaint. RECEIVED MONDAY 3/23/2015 4:57:52 PM 13231242 XXXXXXXXXXXXX Attorney for Plaintiff File # XXXXXXXX FILED Defendant(s) Civil Action COMPLAINT (Contract) Plaintiff having a principal place of business at: 8875 AERO DR STE 200 SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 says: 1. Plaintiff, MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, is the assignee and the current owner of a CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A. account, having the last four numbers XXXX, which went into default with a balance of $2,108.17. 2. The last three digits of the social security number of the person who used the account are XXX (actual complaint does have these 3 numbers). 3. The account was assigned from the original creditor, CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A. through it's legal selling entity CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A./FNBM, LLC to SHERMAN ORIGINATOR III, LLC on 04/12/2012, and then to MIDLAND FUNDING LLC on 04/19/2012. 4. Plaintiff, MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, alleges that the Defendant, XXXXXXXX, is the person who opened and used the account having the last four numbers XXXX, and has a social security number with the last three digits XXX. 5. Plaintiff is seeking from the Defendant, XXXXXXX, on the above account, the sum of $2,108.17. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment for the sum of $2,108.17 plus costs. I certify that the matter in controversy is not the subject of any other court action or arbitration proceeding, now pending or contemplated, and that no other parties should be joined in this action. I certify that confidential personal identifiers have been redacted from documents now submitted to the court, and will be redacted from all documents submitted in the future in accordance with Rule 1:38-7( . My responses: FORM A X (6) Other – Set forth any other reasons why you believe money is not owed to the plaintiff(s). (You may attach more sheets if you need to.) Plaintiff provided no documentation to support the charges alleged in the complaint, therefore defendant denies all allegations. FORM A (State whether you agree or disagree with each paragraph of the plaintiff’s complaint. If additional room is needed, attach a separate sheet.) 1. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint as Defendant is, at this time, without information or knowledge sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth and accuracy of alleged assignments and entitlements and lacks information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Paragraph 1. 2. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint as the Defendant lacks information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Paragraph 2. 3. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint as the Defendant is, at this time, this request calls for admission of matter defendant has denied and thus it is improper. 4. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint as the Defendant, at this time, lacks information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Paragraph 4. 5. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint as the Defendant is, at this time, without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth and accuracy of the Plaintiff's allegations or entitlements as Plaintiff has not entered into record nor has he supplied the Defendant the alleged contract which substantiates these claims. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES: Lack of Standing. Plaintiff has failed to prove ownership of the alleged account with standing to sue.
  6. In the attachment you will find my NJ answer, demand for docs, request for admission, affirmative defenses and motion to dismiss. This is a New Jersey Special Civil case. Please, if anyone would like to review my documents recently filed and can offer advice on how to proceed next, I'd greatly appreciate it!! I am not an attorney. I am acting pro se. DEBTORSBOARD NJ CREDITOR ANSWER DEMAND FOR DOC REQUEST FOR ADMISS AND MOTION TO DISMISS.doc
  7. I just had a motion hearing in Bergen County (Special Civil - Small Claims) Amount $1,300.00 I am the defendant in a lawsuit vs Midland Funding. Represented by Pressler and Pressler. LLC. Today's motion hearing was in regard to a set of an Initial Interrogatories dated June 6, 2014. There were 3 questions in the Interrogatories. The claim made by the defendant was: "The answers that you provided to all of Plaintiff's Initial Interrogatories are non-responsive because they are devoid of the information requested in those Interrogatories." The 3 Interrogatories were: 1. Set forth with specificity all facts in support of each defense and/or claim which the defendant has in the above-entitled matter including dates, places, names and addresses of persons present or involved in any actions and /or conversations. 2. Attach copies of all writings, documents or any other records which relate to said account or in any way support any defenses or claims, including but not limited to, correspondence, contracts, agreements, notices, monthly statements, applications, and any letters sent to or received in connection with the subject account. 3. Attach any documentation evidencing defendant' mailing address(es) between 5/18/06 to 11/24/10, which should include but is not limited to, copies of energy or water bills, telephone bills, leases and /or deed(s)/mortgage(s) and drivers license(s). If said documentation is not in the possession of the defendant, please list each address at which the defendant received mail during the time period requested. To all three I answered. "Defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth or accuracy of Plaintiff's claim, and based on that denies generally and specifically Plaintiff's claim." How should I have answered? At today's motion hearing the judge asked all cases involving Pressler and Pressler to go out into the hallway to meet with their attorney individually. About seven clients, including myself waited in the hallway. When it came to my turn, I stated based on the mood of the judge and how all other clients had been treated that "I am open to discussing a settlement, but I need to receive all the documents that I requested first." I was asked 2 questions about the account and said I am not familiar with the information and that is why I need all of the documents to verify. Then I brought up the option to "dismiss with prejudice the case if they are not able to provide the documents before our trial date". The attorney said that will be a possibility that she will discuss with her client. She gave her business card and asked for my phone number. To quote her, "This is something we can discuss and do before we go to trial on Wednesday. She would not be able to request this motion today. However this is something we can discuss up and to before the trial date (Wednesday July 30, 2014). Here is where I think I made my mistake. We then went back before the judge and the motion was just for how I answered the 3 Interrogatories. The judge was upset with everyone before him today. He is just horrible. He looked at my replies and said that "you can not answer these this way. This looks like something you just looked up on the internet and filled some space." Motion To Strike was in favor of Pressler and Pressler. Our trial date is now Wednesday, July 30 2014 8:45AM. So with my motion to strike granted to them, is it now as if I did not answer and therefore the court can grant automatic default judgment? Very worried here. What options, if any do I have at this time? What motions or filings can I file at this time (if any)? Did Pressler and Pressler just sand bag me? Thank you for your time in reading this. I look forward to replies and possible solutions.
  8. I am pretty sure i am too late but i would like some advise on what to object against in my non-binding arbitration case coming up in a day. Cach LLC bought a BoA cc debt. The initial complaint showed an affidavit that they bought the account from BoA, the account number also happened to change, there was only a screen shot from what appears to be an account balance page, with my name and the new account number. There is no purchase agreement between BoA and Cach LLC showing the new account number. They just wrote in the complaint that the account number changed. I answered the complaints, followed the request for admissions and interrogatories examples i saw on this site. I received an arbitration memo from cach llc lawyers stating that i didn't dispute the facts that i merely stated that they needed to prove their case. At this point it looks like i am going to lose but I am looking for advise on general proceedings. I intend to object on the grounds that cach llc is collecting on two different accounts, providing a screenshot with my name and a different account number does not prove that both accounts are connected. Any advice will be appreciated.
  9. NOTE: THIS IS LENGTHY, AND I'VE TRIED TO FIND ANSWERS TO THE ISSUES I'M FACING ON THIS FORUM TO NO AVAIL. PLEASE BEAR WITH ME! I PROMISE THIS WILL MAKE FOR GOOD READING Hello, I received a summons from Midland in December. Shortly after they filed the lawsuit, the notorious NJ DC law firm, I'll just call them "P", called me and told me if I set up a payment arrangement, the lawsuit would "go away." At the time, I agreed to the payment arrangement. A couple of days later, they sent me a letter, dated December 26, 2013, saying I had to sign and return the agreement BY MAIL no less, by December 29, 2013, or else they would "have to continue with collection efforts." Mind you this is only 4 DAYS from the time they MAILED IT, not from when I received it! When I got the notice, I decided not to sign it, because I had no idea what a consent judgment was at the time, and it that phrase didn't sound anything like the payment arrangement I thought I was agreeing to. I timely filed an answer with the court, and on the same day, hand delivered a copy to P a couple of days later. Someone suggested that I also mail a copy of everything to P just to make sure they got it. I did this, but a couple of weeks later (several weeks of bad weather). I should also note that I filed a FDCPA counterclaim based off of the payment arrangement/consent judgment, since they didn't tell me I was agreeing to a CJ on the phone, said that the payment arrangement would make the lawsuit go away, and tried to put me under "duress" by only allowing me a day or two to sign and return the CJ by mail. I also submitted a motion to allow discovery, since we are only limited to 5 interrogs, and submitted requests for admissions, the 5 dogs, and requests for documents. A couple of days after I dropped off the documents to P, I received a letter dated the same day I dropped everything off trying to confirm our "agreement" to the consent judgment. I wrote on the letter stating that I did not agree to a consent judgment, and sent a certified copy of this to them and to the court. Later in time, can't remember the date, they called me stating that they wanted to discuss my answer. I simply said I was advised not to speak to them and hung up. Mind you, I am going at this alone so far, thanks to this awesome forum and all of the extremely useful resources provided by Mr. Phil Stern's website. On February 14, P filed an answer to my counterclaim, denying the allegations - typical failure to state a claim, and also that the claim was frivolous. When what I assumed to be the deadline for discovery passed, February 20, 2014, I sent them a letter saying I hadn't received their responses to the interrogatories. However, I failed to state the 10 day rule - one of many mistakes I've made so far. I sent certified to court and to P. P responded by saying that they never received any docs I hand delivered, that they didn't get notice of any documents or answers or counterclaims (by mail) until February 12, that they only received notice from JEFIS on February 10, so they had until March 14 to respond to discovery. However, they submitted answers to my RFA's and of course objected most claiming I didn't define certain terms so they refused to answer. They also stated they were objecting my motion for discovery and advised me that the motion was premature because discovery hadn't closed yet. I did not receive any responses to my discovery request by March 14, even though this is the date they themselves decided was appropriate. I didn't receive anything yesterday either! CAN I DO SOMETHING WITH THIS FACT? So I am confused - how do they object my motion to permit discovery, yet submit answers to my RFA's? The judge was supposed to rule on this motion on the 14th. The docket has not been updated yet. On Thursday, I received a pretty thick packet from P and P. It was their own requests for discovery. They also submitted 35 interrogatories and 39 requests for admissions! Since they opposed my motion to permit discovery, are they allowed to turn around and do this? Do I have to answer them even though I submitted the motion to permit? Also, if I have 30 days to respond, and trial is set for April 17, should I wait until the last possible day to respond? I received this packet from them on Thursday, March 13, 2014. P also included ANOTHER answer to my counter claim in this packet. They used the same defense and time barred???? I am not sure what they were referring to or what they meant, they didn't cite any law/rule. I thought you had a year to file an FDCPA claim. They also requested dismissal, and opposed my motion for summary judgment, claiming that it was premature because discovery was not over, and that I had not asserted a factual basis that allows me relief. My other mistake was submitting the court forms for the msj, but I did not attach a statement stating why it should be granted. However, after receiving the requests for admissions, and nothing else, I wrote them a letter defending a discovery end date of February 20, 2014, and told them that claiming they didn't get the paperwork would not relieve them of this deadline. I don't know how I will be able to prove this, but I went ahead and filed a motion to dismiss for failure to answer discovery. I also asserted they should not be allowed to use stalling tactics to gather documents that they should have had together before they filed the lawsuit. I asked the judge to rule that the close date was Feb. 20, and dismiss because they had not complied. Another mistake - I didn't explicitly say they had 10 days when I sent the reminder, so I'm not sure if the reminder will be enough to back this up. Miscellanous facts, I have seen "signatures" from 4 different attorneys on this claim. One filed the lawsuit, tried to get me to agree to consent judgment, one filed the answer to my counterclaim, and now this douche bag I've been corresponding with here lately. The RFA's they sent included reference to certain exhibits for me to confirm or use to answer my questions. The exhibits included two affidavits from Debt Collectors about an assignment of accounts - chain of title docs; a bill of sale for each subsequent assignment, and one exhibit in the first assignment sequence, labeled a statement of accounts, but all of the info was blacked out. Also, in the second assignment, the bill of sale made specific references to certain portfolios, but these were black out as well. lastly, they attached a credit card statement from June 2011, but it doesn't appear to be the last bill they sent on the account. there aren't even any late fees on it for that billing period!!! It actually looks a little shady and I would be interested to know what an actual last periodic billing statement looks like. is there a certain format or certain information that a last billing statement must include? So, now that I've walked you through the lengthy details of where I am so far, I am at a loss as to what I should do next! PLEASE HELP!!!!! Is it too late to amend my MSJ? Or even my counterclaim? Can I file another motion to dismiss for failing to answer rogs? Can I use the exhibits they attached to the RFA's against them to argue that they have no evidence that they own the account? Can I file a motion to strike the affidavits, even though I am not sure they have even handed them to the court yet? Do I have grounds to attack these? I saw someone make reference to this before but didn't find an answer, why would Midland make an inquiry to the credit bureau a couple of weeks before filing a lawsuit against me? Are they allowed to do this? Also, I have a question I would like to ask someone off forum, so if someone would please allow me to pm them, I'd be grateful! Additional Info: The case is in NJ. Special Civil Part. Breach of Contract. Less than $2,500 cc account Within SOL. - 6 years Did not send DVR before lawsuit. Can't remember any correspondences pre-lawsuit. Not saying it didn't happen lol! This debt has been disputed with the credit bureaus. Can't remember last payment. The bill they sent is from May 2011. They made reference to a payment I made in 2010. Currently awaiting trial with no jury, 4/17.