Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'tx'.
Found 4 results
Question: Can I call them to start the conversation and indicate that I want to settle? Understanding that all must be in writing from them before payment/etc. Texas resident. I am trying to figure out my best next steps. I have two accounts in collections from 2013/14 when I was unemployed. I let my fear and shame rule me, so I did not talk to my creditors at the time, and have since then been at a complete loss as to how to proceed. I am now determined to get ahead of these. My finances are now back to where I can make payments and can Dave Ramsey-style pay off all my credit card debt. I received a letter from a collections attorney firm last week that states a Notice of Intent to File Civil Law Suit for the $5000 debt. I called the OC and they confirmed the amount and that the debt had been charged off and the phone number for the new contact person matches the number in the letter. I see conflicting information here in the forums re: whether or not calling the CA is appropriate. I understand not making payment or trusting a deal until it's in writing. But my first priority is preventing a law suit. I do not deny the debt to the original creditor. I cannot afford an attorney to represent me in court. I would rather settle this before it gets to that stage. Can I call them to start the conversation and indicate that I want to settle?
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?
I would like to write a Motion for Sanctions so I could point out to the Court how Midland was providing them with false information. Does anyone have any suggestions as how to do that? Do I just list what they have lied about (when they rcvd my Motion, the fact that they DO arbitrate with AAA, etc?) It was suggested that it might be an FDCPA violation that they suggested we couldn't arbitrate. Does anyone know if that is correct? Any help is greatly appreciated.