admin

Sample Motions, Forms, Affirmative Defenses

Recommended Posts

In order to stop the repeated requests for the templates which have been posted over and over, I'm just posting them again, in one thread.

USE AT YOUR PERIL!

You need to look up the rules of civil procedure in your state to see if it is proper to file any of these documents and any changes which must be made in order to comply with your state's laws. If you don't follow your state's procedures, you can lose on a technicality.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dismissal of complaint:

=====================

Superior Court of California

County of San Mateo

Superior Court

Case No. XXXXXX

Motion to Dismiss Complaint

Palisades Collections, Inc.

Plaintiff

Vs.

Josephine Debtor

Defendant

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Comes now the Defendant Josephine Debtor, and files this Request for Dismissal of Complaint, as follows:

1. The Causes of Action specified in the complaint filed by the Plaintiff is insufficient as a matter of law.

The complaint does not set forth the True facts upon which Plaintiff seeks a summary judgment. The complaint should be dismissed.

2. Defendant received the Plaintiff's Complaint on or about December 1, 2005. Defendant answered the complaint on or about December 28, 2005.

3. The Plaintiff has failed to provide any contract or agreement bearing the signature of the Defendant, nor any itemized statements or billing of said debts.

4. Plaintiff has failed to provide a detailed list of the debts to the Defendant in the initial debt collection notice as require by the FDCPA and as evidence by case law. Coppola v. Arrow Financial Services, 302CV577, 2002 WL 32173704(D.Conn., Oct. 29, 2002) – Information relating to the purchase of a bad debt is not proprietary or burdensome. Debtor must phrase their request clearly to obtain: The source of a debt and the amount a bad debt buyer paid for plaintiff’s debt, how amount sought was calculated, where in issue a list of reports to credit bureaus, and documents conferring authority on defendant to collect debt.

5. The Plaintiff has failed to provide any proof of a relationship between themselves and the alleged original creditor, specifically the authority of the Plaintiff to collect the debt on behalf of the original creditor.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, Josephine Debtor, respectfully submits that the Court should dismiss the deny the Plaintiff's complaint, filed herein Palisades Collections, Inc. and prays for Dismissal of the complaint by the Plaintiff.

Defendant's Request submitted this ___________ day, of __________ 20__

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Motion to Dismiss Summary Judgment

=============

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF <YOUR STATE>

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF <YOUR COUNTY>

Case No._____________________

<Collection Agency>

Plaintiff

Vs.

Joseph Consumer

Defendant(s)

MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Comes now the Defendant, XXXXXXX, and files this REPLY AND OPPOSITION TO PLANTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT in response to Motion For Summary Judgment And Supplement filed herein by Plaintiff, <Your Plantiff>, Inc., as follows:

1. The Motion For Summary Judgment filed by the Plaintiff is insufficient as a matter of law.

A party moving for summary judgment has the responsibility of informing the court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.

Plaintiff has failed to discharge this responsibility in the Motion for Summary Judgment and Supplemental Motion filed with the Court. The Motion does not set forth the True facts upon which Plaintiff seeks a summary judgment. Rather the Motion states only “That there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law with regard to all Counts.” Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied.

2. Defendant received the Plaintiff's Summons on <Date upon which You received Summons>. Defendant answered the request on <Date which you answered Summons>.

3. Trial was set for <Date on which trail was set for>.

4. Motion for discovery was filed on <date the motion was filed>. Documents requested from plaintiff included any documentation of relationship between plaintiff and RSC, the alleged original plaintiff, any payment history, and any breakdown of the sum requested by plaintiff. Defendant cannot make a legitimate defense on claims by the Plaintiff that are incorrect, untrue, and undocumented.

[The appeals court overturned the default summary in Spears vs. Brennan

Court of Appeals, 745 N.E.2d 862; 2001 Ind. App. LEXIS 509; because the collection agency lawyer did not meet the rules of the FDCPA 15 U.S.C. § 1692g

(B) Validation of Debts.]

5. The Plaintiff has failed to provide any contract, an agreement bearing the signature of the Defendant or any itemized statements or billing of said debts which would constitute intimate knowledge of the creation of the debt. Even if such documents were available, a purchasing/assignee’s plaintiff would be unable to swear to the authenticity of the originating or source documents of a credit transaction because they do not have personal knowledge of the events which transpired at that period of time in the life of the credit agreement. The original cardholder agreement, any correspondence, and monthly statements issued by the original credit grantor are not admissible as the purchasing plaintiff's business records, as the purchasing plaintiff has no personal knowledge of how those records were created or maintained.

6. Defendant alleges that this action is time-barred under § 735 ILCS 5/13-204- 735 ILCS 5/13-206 under Illinois’s civil code (statute of limitations for open accounts is 5 years). Per the Plaintiff’s own summons, date of last payment was 10/07/2000. Date of summons was 10/31/2005.

7. Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff's Complaint and each cause of action therein fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the Defendant for which relief can be granted.

8. Plaintiff has failed to provide a detailed list of the debts to the Defendant in the initial debt collection notice as require by the FDCPA and as evidence by case law. Coppola v. Arrow Financial Services, 302CV577, 2002 WL 32173704(D.Conn., Oct. 29, 2002) – Information relating to the purchase of a bad debt is not proprietary or burdensome. Debtor must phrase their request clearly to obtain: The source of a debt and the amount a bad debt buyer paid for plaintiff’s debt, how amount sought was calculated, where in issue a list of reports to credit bureaus, and documents conferring authority on defendant to collect debt.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, XXXXXXXXXX, respectfully submits that the Court should deny the Plaintiff's Motion and Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment, filed herein by National Check Bureau and prays for Dismissal of the complaint by the Plaintiff for damages of $983.73 and any further relief this court deems just and proper.

Defendant's motion for dismissal of summary judgment submitted this ___________ day of Dec 9, 2005.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Affirmative Defenses

These can be included in your motions, but again, you need to read your state's rules of civil procedures to see if this is proper. It should be included IN ADDITION to written answers you will provide to interrogatories (questions directed at you by the people filing the suit and which related to your personal information and the lawsuit itself.) .

Pick among these, your case may not relate to some of them below. This is only a template

As and for a First Defense

Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff's Complaint and each cause of action therein fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the Defendant for which relief can be granted.

As and for a Second Defense

Defendant alleges that this action is time-barred under §<insert the law which states SOL> of the laws of <name of your state>.

As and for a Third Defense

Plaintiff admits to purchasing the defaulted debt allegedly owned by the Defendant, causing Plaintiff's injury to its own self, therefore Plaintiff is barred from seeking relief for damages.

As and for a Fourth Defense

Plaintiff's Complaint 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 Complaint 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.

As and for a Fifth Defense

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.

As and for a Sixth Defense

Defendant claims Lack of Privity as Defendant has never entered into any contractual or debtor/creditor arrangements with the Plaintiff.

As and for a Seventh Defense

Defendant alleges that the Complaint includes references to alleged agreements made outside of the alleged written contract, violating the Parole Evidence Rule.

As and for an Eighth Defense

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to allege a valid assignment and there are no averments as to the nature of the purported assignment or evidence of valuable consideration.

As and for a Ninth Defense

Plaintiff's complaint 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.

As and for a Tenth Defense

Plaintiff's Complaint 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.

As and for an Eleventh Defense

The Plaintiff is not an Assignee for the purported agreement and no evidence appears in the record to support any related assumptions.

As and for a Twelfth Defense

Defendant claims Accord and Satisfaction as Defendant alleges that the original creditor accepted payment from a third party for the alleged debt, or a portion of the alleged debt, or that the original creditor received other compensation in the form of monies and/or credits.

As and for an Thirteenth Defense

Defendant invokes the Doctrine of Unclean Hands as the Defendant alleges that the Plaintiff or the person or entity that assigned the alleged claim to Plaintiff acted in a dishonest or fraudulent manner with respect to the dispute at issue in this case.

As and for a Fourteenth Defense

Plaintiff is not authorized or licensed to advertise or solicit, either in print, by letter, in person or otherwise the right to collect or receive payment of a claim for another, nor to seek to make collection or obtain payment of a claim on behalf of another. The Complaint fails to allege any exception or exemption to these requirements. The Plaintiff is not any of the following: an attorney at law; a person regularly employed on a regular wage or salary in the capacity of credit men or a similar capacity, except as an independent contractor; a bank, including a trust department of a bank, a fiduciary or a financing and lending institution; a common carrier; a title insurer or abstract company while doing an escrow business; a licensed real estate broker; an employee of a licensee; nor a substation payment office employed by or serving as an independent contractor for public utilities.

As and for a Fifteenth Defense

Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's Complaint, and each cause of action therein is barred by the Doctrine of Estoppel, specifically Estoppel in Pais.

As and for a Sixteenth Defense

Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's actions are precluded, whereas Plaintiff's demands for interest are usurious and violate state and federal laws.

As and for a Seventeenth Defense

Defendant alleges that Plaintiff or the person or entity that assigned the alleged claim to the Plaintiff is not entitled to reimbursement of attorneys' fees because the alleged contract did not include such a provision, and there is no law that otherwise allows them.

As and for an Eighteenth Defense

Defendant invokes the Doctrine of Laches as the Plaintiff or the person or entity that assigned the claim to the Plaintiff waited too long to file this lawsuit, making if difficult or impossible for the Defendant to find witnesses or evidence or that evidence necessary to provide for Defendant's defense has been lost or destroyed.

As and for a Nineteenth Defense

Plaintiff has no Fiduciary Duty.

As and for a Twentieth Defense

Plaintiff has failed to name all necessary parties.

As and for a Twenty-first Defense

Plaintiff's alleged damages are the result of acts or omissions committed by non-parties to this action over whom the Defendant has no responsibility or control.

As and for a Twenty-second Defense

Plaintiff's alleged damages are the result of acts or omissions committed by the Plaintiff.

As and for a Twenty-third Defense

Defendant alleges that the granting of the Plaintiff's demand in the Complaint would result in Unjust Enrichment, as the Plaintiff would receive more money than plaintiff is entitled to receive.

As and for a Twenty-fourth Defense

Plaintiff's alleged damages are limited to real or actual damages only.

As and for a Twenty-fifth Defense

Defendant invokes the doctrines of Scienti et volenti non fit injuria (a person who knowledgeably consents to legal wrong has no legal right) and Damnum absque injuria (harm without injury).

As and for a Twenty-sixth Defense

<Have you sued these folks before and won? If so, include this defense>

Since under collateral estoppel, once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision may preclude relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case, plaintiff’s claims are barred. We cite case XXXX-XXXX September 2004.

As and for a Twenty-seventh Defense

Since a court will not grant a judgment or other legal relief to a party who has not acted fairly by having made false representations or concealing material facts from the other party, <insert others here>, we maintain that equitable estoppel bar plaintiff’s claims.

As and for a Twenty-eight Defense

Defendant reserves the right to amend and/or add additional Answers, Defenses and/or Counterclaims at a later date.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF <YOUR STATE>

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF <YOUR COUNTY>

Case No._____________________

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT

Plaintiff

Vs.

Joseph Consumer

Defendant(s)

COMES Now Defendant, xxxxxxx, and files this MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY, and requests the Court to grant such Motion based on facts stated below:

1. Defendant served Discovery Requests by certified U.S. Mail to Plaintiff's attorney, xxxxxxxx, on April 18, 2005. A copy of the certified mail receipt is attached hereto as Exhibit "A."

2. Defendant faxed a Good Faith letter to Plaintiff's attorney xxxxxx on May 18, 2005, requesting Discovery answers and documents, or for Plaintiff to request an enlargement of time to answer Discovery. A copy of the faxed letter is attached as Exhibit "B."

Respectively, 12 O.S. Section 3237 E.:

"FAILURE OF PARTY TO ATTEND AT OWN DEPOSITION OR SERVE ANSWER TO INTERROGATORIES OR RESPOND TO REQUEST FOR INSPECTION. If a party fails:

2. To serve answers or objections to interrogatories submitted under Section 3233 of this title, after proper service of the interrogatories;

The court, in which the action is pending on motion, may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just, and among others it may take any action authorized under subparagraphs a, b and c of paragraph 2 of subsection B of this section."

CONCLUSION

Defendant has made good faith efforts to remind the Plaintiff of his responsibilities to answer Discovery, and as of this date, no documents are forth coming nor has he communicated any request for extention. Plaintiff's lawsuit and Motion for Summary Judgement is based on documents and facts that they allegedly possess. Defendant has repeatedly requested these documents and proofs of facts, but has been denied.

Respectfully submitted this _________ day of May, 2005.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OBJECTION TO COMPLAINT

This is a pretty powerful tool, and a good preemptive strike. Most states allow it.

=================

Joe Blow

Address 1

City, State ZIP

Phone (555) 555-1212

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF NEVADA

Case No.: XXXXXX

OBJECTION TO COMPLAINT

Investment Retrievers Inc.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Joe Blow,

Defendant

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

INTRODUCTION

Comes now the Defendant Joe Blow, and files this Objection to Complaint, per California Civil Code Chapter 4 Section 430.30.

FACTS

1. Defendant received the Plaintiff's Complaint on or about December 1, 2005. Defendant answered the complaint on or about December 28, 2005.

2. On or about January 17, 2006, Defendant filed a motion to strike because nearly all of the complaint contained false information (motion to strike complaint California Civil Code of Procedure 436 (a)).

We claim the false information based on the following facts:

(a) The Plaintiff has failed to provide any contract or agreement bearing the signature of the Defendant, nor any itemized statements or billing of said debts.

(B) Plaintiff has failed to provide a detailed list of the debts to the Defendant in the initial debt collection notice as require by the FDCPA and as evidence by case law. Coppola v. Arrow Financial Services, 302CV577, 2002 WL 32173704(D.Conn., Oct. 29, 2002) – Information relating to the purchase of a bad debt is not proprietary or burdensome. Debtor must phrase their request clearly to obtain: The source of a debt and the amount a bad debt buyer paid for plaintiff’s debt, how amount sought was calculated, where in issue a list of reports to credit bureaus, and documents conferring authority on defendant to collect debt.

© The Plaintiff has failed to provide any proof of a relationship between themselves and the alleged original creditor, specifically the authority of the Plaintiff to collect the debt on behalf of the original creditor.

3. On or about Feb 1, 2006, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Defendant’s motion to strike. The hearing for the motion to strike was set for Feb 15, 2006.

STANDARD OF REVIEW AND APPLICABLE LAW

4. The Defendant, in addition to the motion to strike, would like to file an objection to the original complaint based on California Civil Code of Procedure 430.10. The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds:

430.10 (B) The person who filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to sue.

430.10 (d) There is a defect or misjoinder of parties.

In regards to Section 430.30 (B), Incapacity to sue exists when there is some legal disability, such as infancy or lunacy or a want of title in the plaintiff to the character in which he sues. In this case, as stated in the motion to strike, the plaintiff has failed to provide a definitive relationship between themselves and the alleged original creditor of the alleged debt.

In regards to Section 430.30 (d), The legal definition of misjoinder of parties is the “joining as plaintiffs or defendants, persons, who have not a joint interest”. In this case, as stated in the motion to strike, the plaintiff has failed to provide a definitive relationship between themselves and the alleged original creditor of the alleged debt.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, XXXXXXXXXX, respectfully submits that the Court should dismiss or deny the Plaintiff's complaint, filed herein Palisades Collections, Inc. The Defendant prays for Dismissal of the complaint by the Plaintiff.

Defendant's Request submitted this ___________ day, of __________ 20__

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This answer to a summons/interrogatory could be considered overkill, but it provides a wide variety of ideas for responses, defenses and counterclaims. Some of it is specific to Oregon Civil Code of procedure.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

FOR THE COUNTY OF DESCHUTES

Case No._____________________

MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT

Plaintiff

Vs.

FIRST AMENDED ANSWERS, DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS

<Your Name>

Defendant(s)

Defendant, appearing pro se, for its reply to the Complaint of Midland Credit Management (hereafter "Midland") states as follows: All Answers correspond to the numbered paragraphs of the Complaint. All allegations of the Complaint are denied unless expressly admitted herein.

ANSWERS

1. In response to paragraph #1, the Defendant disputes the alleged debt, as solicited in paragraph #1 of the complaint.

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.

DEFENSES

5. As and for a First Defense

Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff's Complaint and each cause of action therein fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the Defendant for which relief can be granted.

6. As and for a Second Defense

Defendant alleges that this action is time-barred under § O.S. 12-95-2 of the laws of Oklahoma.

7. As and for a Third Defense

Plaintiff admits to purchasing the defaulted debt allegedly owed by the Defendant, causing Plaintiff's injury to its own self, therefore Plaintiff is barred from seeking relief for damages.

8. As and for a Fourth Defense

Plaintiff's Complaint 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 Complaint 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.

9. As and for a Fifth Defense

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.

10. As and for a Sixth Defense

Defendant claims Lack of Privity as Defendant has never entered into any contractual or debtor/creditor arrangements with the Plaintiff.

11. As and for a Seventh Defense

Defendant alleges that the Complaint includes references to alleged agreements made outside of the alleged written contract, violating the Parol Evidence Rule.

12. As and for an Eighth Defense

Plaintiff's Complaint fails to allege a valid assignment and there are no averments as to the nature of the purported assignment or evidence of valuable consideration.

13. As and for a Ninth Defense

Plaintiff's complaint 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.

14. As and for a Tenth Defense

Plaintiff's Complaint 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.

15. As and for an Eleventh Defense

The Plaintiff is not an Assignee for the purported agreement and no evidence appears in the record to support any related assumptions.

16. As and for a Twelfth Defense

Defendant claims Accord and Satisfaction as Defendant alleges that the original creditor accepted payment from a third party for the alleged debt, or a portion of the alleged debt, or that the original creditor received other compensation in the form of monies and/or credits.

17. As and for a Thirteenth Defense

Defendant invokes the Doctrine of Unclean Hands as the Defendant alleges that the Plaintiff or the person or entity that assigned the alleged claim to Plaintiff acted in a dishonest or fraudulent manner with respect to the dispute at issue in this case.

18. As and for a Fourteenth Defense

Plaintiff is not authorized or licensed to advertise or solicit, either in print, by letter, in person or otherwise the right to collect or receive payment of a claim for another, nor to seek to make collection or obtain payment of a claim on behalf of another. The Complaint fails to allege any exception or exemption to these requirements. The Plaintiff is not any of the following: an attorney at law; a person regularly employed on a regular wage or salary in the capacity of credit men or a similar capacity, except as an independent contractor; a bank, including a trust department of a bank, a fiduciary or a financing and lending institution; a common carrier; a title insurer or abstract company while doing an escrow business; a licensed real estate broker; an employee of a licensee; nor a substation payment office employed by or serving as an independent contractor for public utilities.

19. As and for a Fifteenth Defense

Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's Complaint, and each cause of action therein is barred by the Doctrine of Estoppel, specifically Estoppel in Pais.

20. As and for a Sixteenth Defense

Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's actions are precluded, whereas Plaintiff's demands for interest are usurious and violate state and federal laws.

21. As and for a Seventeenth Defense

Defendant alleges that Plaintiff or the person or entity that assigned the alleged claim to the Plaintiff is not entitled to reimbursement of attorneys' fees because the alleged contract did not include such a provision, and there is no law that otherwise allows them.

22. As and for an Eighteenth Defense

Plaintiff failed to comply with normal and accepted business practices.

23. As and for a Nineteenth Defense

Plaintiff’s claim is in violation of federal statute.

24. As and for a Twentieth Defense

Defendant invokes the Doctrine of Laches as the Plaintiff or the person or entity that assigned the claim to the Plaintiff waited too long to file this lawsuit, making if difficult or impossible for the Defendant to find witnesses or evidence, or that evidence necessary to provide for Defendant's defense has been lost or destroyed.

25. As and for a Twenty-first Defense

Plaintiff has no Fiduciary Duty.

26. As and for a Twenty-second Defense

Plaintiff has failed to name all necessary parties.

27. As and for a Twenty-third Defense

Plaintiff's alleged damages are the result of acts or omissions committed by non-parties to this action over whom the Defendant has no responsibility or control.

28. As and for a Twenty-fourth Defense

Plaintiff's alleged damages are the results of acts or omissions committed by the Plaintiff.

29. As and for a Twenty-fifth Defense

Defendant alleges that the granting of the Plaintiff's demand in the Complaint would result in Unjust Enrichment as the Plaintiff would receive more money than plaintiff is entitled to receive.

30. As and for a Twenty-sixth Defense

Plaintiff's alleged damages are limited to real or actual damages only.

31. As and for a Twenty-seventh Defense

Defendant invokes the doctrines of Scienti et volenti non fit injuria and Damnum absque injuria.

32. As and for a Twenty-eighth Defense

Defendant reserves the right to amend and/or add additional Answers, Defenses and/or Counterclaims at a later date.

COUNTERCLAIMS

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Statement of Facts

33. February 2, 2004, Defendant sent Midland, by way of certified mail, request for validation of alleged debt, including a questionnaire about said debt and a request for documentation. Request noted their agent, xxx, P.C. (hereafter “xxx”) was given notice of same.

34. Similar letters and request for validation were sent to Midland by way of certified mail on March 1, 2004 and March 22, 2004.

35. Up until the date of this filing, no attempt at validation was received from Midland, yet through their agent, xxx, continued to collect on alleged debt.

Statement of Claim

36. In the entire course of its action, Plaintiff willfully and/or negligently violated provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (hereafter “FDCPA”) in the following respects:

(a) by failing to cease collection of an alleged debt after the Defendant notified Plaintiff in writing that the alleged debt was disputed, therefore violating 15 USC 1692g(B).

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Statement of Facts

37. Defendant repeats and re-alleges each allegation in paragraphs 33-36 with like effect as if fully repeated herein.

38. Defendant received notice from xxx dated December 16, 2004 stating Midland’s account had been turned over to their office for collection. Said notice contained the statement: “Unless you, within 30 days after receipt of this notice, dispute the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, we will assume the debt to be valid. If you notify this law firm, xxx, P.C., in writing, within the 30 day period, that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, our law firm, xxx, P.C., will obtain verification of the debt and mail a copy of the verification to you. Upon your written request within the 30 day period, our law firm, xxx, P.C., will also provide you with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor. This is a communication from a debt collector. This communication is an attempt to collect a debt and any information obtained from this communication will be used for that purpose.”

39. Defendant received notice from xxx entitled “NOTICE – PAYMENT DUE” dated January 2, 2004, which stated a payment of $50.00 was due on the 15th of each month.

Statement of Claim

40. In the entire course of its action, Plaintiff willfully and/or negligently violated provisions of the FDCPA in the following respects:

(a) by making a demand for payment by the 15th of the month, Plaintiff instilled a false sense of urgency of payment. Since payment date was within the 30 day period, Plaintiff overshadowed Defendant’s right to request validation within 30 days, violating 15 USC 1692g(a)

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Statement of Facts

41. Defendant repeats and re-alleges each allegation in paragraphs 33-36 and 38-40 with like effect as if fully repeated herein.

42. On January 6, 2004, Defendant sent xxx a notice of dispute and request for validation of alleged debt. Defendant also enclosed a questionnaire regarding the same.

43. Defendant received a notice from xxx, dated January 29, 2004, stating they had completed the questionnaire and if Defendant wanted to resolve the account, to contact the offices or they would proceed. Said questionnaire was completed and included in communication.

44. On February 4, 2004, Defendant sent xxx a second request for validation and documentation regarding alleged debt.

45. Defendant received notice from xxx, dated April 5, 2004, entitled “Midland Credit vs. Defendant” and stating general information about alleged debt. Stapled to said notice was an Affidavit which appeared to have been filed with the San Diego County Clerk. It stated “Midland Credit Management Inc., Plaintiff, vs. Defendant, Defendant.” A file number had been handwritten at the top.

46. As of the date on said notice, no case had been filed in San Diego County Court or otherwise pertaining to alleged debt or between Midland Credit Management Inc and Defendant.

Statement of Claim

47. In the entire course of its action, Plaintiff willfully and/or negligently violated provisions of the FDCPA in the following respects:

(a) by using deceptive or misleading representation for collection of the alleged debt and therefore violating 15 USC 1692e

(B) by falsely representing the legal status of the alleged debt and therefore violating 15 USC 1692e(2)(A)

© by sending written communication which falsely simulated a court-issued document and therefore violating 15 USC 1692e(9)

(d) by falsely representing a document as legal process and therefore violating 15 USC 1692e(13)

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Statement of Facts

48. Defendant repeats and re-alleges each allegation in paragraphs 33-36, 38-40 and 42-47 with like effect as if fully repeated herein.

49. Defendant’s previously stated notice from xxx, dated December 16, 2003, noted a Balance of $3,000.

50. Defendant’s previously stated notice from xxx, dated January 2, 2004, noted a Balance of $3,500.

Statement of Claim

51. In the entire course of its action, Plaintiff willfully and/or negligently violated provisions of the FDCPA in the following respects:

(a) By falsely representing the amount of the alleged debt and therefore violating 15 USC 1692e(2)(A)

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Statement of Facts

52. Defendant repeats and re-alleges each allegation in paragraphs 33-36, 38-40, 42-47 and 49-51 with like effect as if fully repeated herein.

53. Defendant had asked for documents concerning alleged debt as validation on three occasions.

54. Defendant received a notice from xxx, dated April 27, 2004, stating LBN was awaiting the arrival of the file associated with alleged debt and that xxx would forward a copy to Defendant upon its arrival. xxx did not send said file to Defendant.

55. On October 24, 2004, Defendant was served with Summons concerning alleged debt.

Statement of Claim

56. In the entire course of its action, Plaintiff willfully and/or negligently violated provisions of the FDCPA in the following respects:

(a) by failing to cease collection of an alleged debt after the Defendant notified xxx in writing that the alleged debt was disputed, therefore violating 15 USC 1692g(B).

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Statement of Facts

57. Defendant repeats and re-alleges each allegation in paragraphs 33-36, 38-40, 42-47, 49-51 and 53-56 with like effects as if fully repeated herein.

58. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s agent’s acts as described above were deceptive trade practices and unfair trade practices and therefore violated the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act.

59. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s agent’s acts as described above were done in bad faith and therefore violated the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act.

60. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s agent’s acts as described above were unconscionable and therefore violated the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act.

NOW THEREFORE, DEFENDANT PRAYS FOR THE FOLLOWING RELIEF:

PRAYER FOR RELIEF:

61. A. For Defendant’s First Cause of Action

1) Punitive damages as specified in 23 O.S. Supp. 1995 §9.1 in the amount of $5,000 or as so deemed by judge or jury ;

2) Statutory damages as specified in 15 USC 1692k in the amount of $1,000;

B. For Defendant’s Second Cause of Action

1) Punitive damages as specified in 23 O.S. Supp. 1995 §9.1 in the amount of $5,000 or as so deemed by judge or jury;

2) Statutory damages as specified in 15 USC 1692k in the amount of $2,000;

C. For Defendant’s Third Cause of Action

1) Punitive damages as specified in 23 O.S. Supp. 1995 §9.1 in the amount of $20,000 or as so deemed by judge or jury;

2) Statutory damages as specified in 15 USC 1692k in the amount of $4,000;

D. For Defendant’s Fourth Cause of Action

1) Punitive damages as specified in 23 O.S. Supp. 1995 §9.1 in the amount of $5,000 or as so deemed by judge or jury;

2) Statutory damages as specified in 15 USC 1692k in the amount of $1,000;

E. For Defendant’s Fifth Cause of Action

1) Punitive damages as specified in 23 O.S. Supp. 1995 §9.1 in the amount of $5,000 or as so deemed by judge or jury;

2) Statutory damages as specified in 15 USC 1692k in the amount of $2,000;

F. For Defendant’s Sixth Cause of Action

1) Statutory damages as specified in 15 O.S. Supp. 1999 §761.1 in the amount of $16,000;

G. Actual damages in an amount to be determined by judge or jury;

H. Exemplary relief in an amount to be determined by judge or jury;

I. Injunctive relief;

J. Declaratory relief;

K. Any attorney fees if applicable;

L. costs;

M. That any and all contracts having balances owed to the Plaintiff by the Defendant be declared null and void.

FURTHER, sayeth naught.

62. As a result of the above violations of the Oregon Consumer Protection Act, Plaintiff’s and Plaintiff’s agent’s acts were unconscionable and Plaintiff is therefore liable to the Defendant for damages in the amount of Sixteen Thousand Dollars (Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000) per violation.)

63. Therefore, Defendant prays judgment in Defendant’s favor and asks relief in the total amount of Twenty-Four Thousand Dollars ($24,000) plus any applicable attorney’s fees.

63. That any and all contracts having balances owed to the Plaintiff by the Defendant be declared null and void.

FURTHER, sayeth naught.

Dated: December 2, 2004

by

<Your Name>

<Your Address>

TO: xxx, P.C.

<Collection Agency’s Name>

<Collection Agency Address>

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have any that are specific to Maricopa County, Arizona?

And where would one find them? Is there a website that hosts them somewhere? I haven't been able to find anything in Arizona.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you have any that are specific to Maricopa County, Arizona?

And where would one find them? Is there a website that hosts them somewhere? I haven't been able to find anything in Arizona.

There are Court forms and examples on most Court websites. For your county, check these out:

http://clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/faxondemand/CATALOG.htm

Even if you can't find the exact form for consumer law, sometimes you can take another form and customize it with your own wording to fit your situation. For instance, when I fought the lawsuit by CITIBANK, I utilized old custody motions and just changed the wording. If you really have to have the exact wording for a consumer lawsuit, you'll have to go down to your local Law Library and find a lawsuit you can use for an example.

Good luck.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a specimen Motion to Vacate a Default Judgment. It is tailored for NYS, but teh priciples should hold nonetheless: you should be able to show a reasonable excuse for not answering the complaint AND a meritorious defense to the action. Before you make a motion, you need to get the court file. Pull a copy of the complaint, the affidavit of service, and the affidavit of regularity signed by the lawyer asking teh court to enter a default. They will be helpful exhibits.

THEM

VS.

YOU

XXXXXXXX, being duly sworn, deposes and says that:

1. I am the defendant in this action. This is a motion to vacate a judgment. This affidavit supports the motion. I make this affidavit based on my personal knowledge and recollection of the material facts and circumstances herein.

2. THEM took a default judgment against me on xx/xx/xxxx, which is within one year from this date.

3. I have a reasonable excuse for not answering the complaint and a meritorious defense to the action.

4. I did not answer the complaint in the time allowed by law because:

a. I never received service of process;

b. (set forth your reasons; you need the affidavit of service to dispute things like address, mailing, type of service and the like ) On teh attached affidavit of service, sworn to on xx/xx/xxxx, the process server says he nailed and mailed a copy at xxx Easy Street. I do not now nor have I ever lived at that address, it is not my dwelling or usual place of abode, I do not have mail sent there. At all relevant times I lived at xxxxxxxxxxx. I never received a copy of the summons and complaint by mail as the affdiavit says.

5. I have a meritorious defense to the action, to wit:

a. Because I was never served in this action, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over me. I would have an affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction.

b. I do not know THEM. I deny owing any money to them. They fail to state a cause of action against me.

c. Following that, I believe the Statute of Frauds would bar the action.

d. On information and belief, the action would be barred by the Statute of Limitations ( based on the dates in the complaint). use if appropriate

6. I attach a proposed answer to the complaint. ( you will need the complaint for this)

7. I only learned about this when my bank told me a restraint had been placed on my account ( see attached).

8. Though I believe I should be able to defend the action, it will be futile if them is allowed to seize my money and my assets. Therefore, I ask the Court for an order per CPLR 5240:

a. enjoining them and anyone acting through them, including the City Marshal or County Sheriff, from employing any enforcement procedure pending the outcome of this motion, and

b. lifting any restrain on my bank account #_____________ at ____________; and

c. any money in the hands of the Marshal, Sheriff or THEM seized from my account be paid in to court according to law.

9. I ask for such other, different and further relief as the Court finds proper here. I have not asked the court for similar relief before.

_____________________

Sign name

Print name

Sworn to and Subscribed before me

On __________________

__________________________

Notary Public

EDITED BY DIVEMEDIC TO REMOVE NAME OF "THEM"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is a specimen Motion to Vacate a Default Judgment. It is tailored for NYS, but teh priciples should hold nonetheless: you should be able to show a reasonable excuse for not answering the complaint AND a meritorious defense to the action. Before you make a motion, you need to get the court file. Pull a copy of the complaint, the affidavit of service, and the affidavit of regularity signed by the lawyer asking teh court to enter a default. They will be helpful exhibits.

Excellent!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<<<<<<<<SAMPLE FEDERAL COMPLAINT>>>>>>>

This complaint is a copy of one that I filed in the federal court in Orlando, it never went to trial, but was settled. It is 19 pages long. The names have been changed to hide identities, as part of the settlement included non disclosure. Use at your own risk.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ORLANDO DIVISION

Plaintiff,

vs.

John’s Apartments, MANAGING Realty,

Collection Agency Inc., Mark Cruz,

Lisa Majors, Mona Donald, Geoff Abrams,

Defendants.

_________________________________________)

Case Number:

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT, THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT, THE FLORIDA CONSUMER COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT, THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT, THE FLORIDA RESIDENTIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, and DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL and INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

COME NOW, the PLAINTIFF, Your Name, pro se, respectfully requests this Court to issue Declaratory Judgment, Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief and Damages. In support thereof, Plaintiff shows unto the Court as follows:

This is a civil action whereby Plaintiff seeks Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief enjoining Defendants, COLLECTION AGENCY, Inc., (hereafter “CA”), Mark Cruz, John’s Apartments, Lisa Majors, Mona Donald, Geoff Abrams and other conspirators, agents, servants and employees and those acting in active concert and with actual notice thereof, from engaging in further violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681 et. seq. (hereafter “FCRA”)), the Fair Debt collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692 et. seq. (hereafter “FDCPA”)), the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (ss 559.72 (hereafter “FCCPA”)), and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (ss 501.201 et. seq. (hereafter “FDUTPA”)). An actual controversy exists between the parties, in that the challenged actions of the DEFENDANTS have caused and will continue to cause the PLAINTIFF substantial harm unless the requested relief is granted.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction of this court arises under 15 U.S.C. § 1681p and 1692k(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Declaratory relief is available pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201.

2. Venue is proper, because many of the relevant events occurred within Osceola and Orange Counties in the State of Florida, which is located within this District.

3. Plaintiff’s Federal and State Law claims against the Defendants derive from a common focus of operative fact and are of such character that Plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try them in one judicial proceeding. Consequently, this court has pendent jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s State law claims against the Defendants.

4. This is an action brought by a consumer for violations of the above named Acts in connection with a purported debt appearing on Plaintiff’s consumer reports, the defendants’ collection tactics in attempting to collect it, and the defendants’ refusal to remove or correct inaccuracies regarding it, despite written correspondence specifying the inaccuracies and providing information that would facilitate a reasonable reinvestigation of the matter. Thus, the plaintiff seeks damages and, to the extent possible, injunctive and declaratory relief.

PARTIES

5. The Plaintiff is a natural person residing within Orange County, in Florida.

6. The Defendant Collection Agency, Inc. is a business that is uses instruments of interstate commerce to facilitate the collecting of debts owed or asserted to be due another.

7. The Defendants Mark Cruz and Geoff Abrams are employees of the Defendant Collection Agency Inc., and were at all times relevant to this complaint using instruments of interstate commerce to facilitate the collection of debts owed or asserted to be due another on behalf of both Collection Agency Inc., and John’s Apartments.

8. The Defendant MANAGING Realty was the property management agency for the John’s Apartments during the period inclusive of Fall 2004 to May 2006.

9. The Defendants Lisa Majors and Mona Donald were employees of John’s Apartments and MANAGING Realty during the period extending from September 2005 through May 2006, and acted as the duly authorized agents for their employers.

10. All Defendants are considered a “person”, under Florida Statute 559.72.

FACTS

11. Plaintiff rented an apartment from John’s Apartments during a period extending from August of 2003 to August of 2005. This apartment was located at 200 Paul Drive, Apartment 103 (hereafter “the apartment”)

12. Plaintiff is therefore a “tenant,” as defined by Florida Statute 83.43(4).

13. When the Plaintiff took possession of the apartment, he complained about damages to the apartment to the manager of the apartment complex, a Ms. Amy Bock. Ms. Bock informed the plaintiff that the damages could not be repaired unless the Plaintiff agreed to delay his moving in to the apartment for at least two days. Since this was not possible, the Plaintiff agreed to move in anyway, and the manager agreed to note the damages in the Plaintiff’s file.

14. More damages were sustained to the apartment during the hurricanes of 2004, and the subsequent repair activities carried out by the landlord. These damages included, but were not limited to, water damage, roof leakage, and damage to windows and screens caused by roofing material thrown down by roofing contractors.

15. Sometime during the Plaintiff’s tenancy, after the damage caused by Hurricane Charley, the management of John’s Apartments changed to the current management company, MANAGING Realty, and some time thereafter, Lisa Majors was named as manager of the property.

16. The Plaintiff vacated the apartment August 12, 2005, after giving 60 days notice of intent to vacate, in accordance with the lease agreement. Upon moving out, the Plaintiff turned over the keys to the apartment in an envelope, along with a letter detailing the Plaintiff’s forwarding address.

17. The security deposit of $200 was not returned within 15 days, nor was the Plaintiff notified within 30 days by certified mail at his last known address, that the landlord intended to impose a claim against this security deposit, as required by Florida State Statute 83.49(3).

18. On September 30, 2005, the defendant Collection Agency, Inc., sent a dunning letter to the Plaintiff, claiming a debt of $838.45.

19. The purported account is a “debt”, as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a (5) and as defined by Florida Statute 559.55 (1).

20. The Plaintiff sent a dispute and request for validation to Collection Agency Inc. on October 7, 2005. This notice was sent certified mail, return receipt requested. It was received and signed for at the offices of Collection Agency Inc., on October 12, 2005.

21. A return letter was sent from Defendant Mark Cruz at the offices of Collection Agency Inc. on October 12, 2005. Included with this letter was a statement from the John’s Apartments specifying $1,038.45 in damages, rents and fees, minus the $200 security deposit, leaving a balance due of $838.45. This letter came along with an inspection form that read “no inspection on file” and then listed fees for damages to the apartment in the amount of $585. The form was signed by Mona Donald and was not dated.

22. Mr. Cruz sent another letter demanding payment to the Plaintiff on October 27, 2005. In this letter, Mr. Cruz accused the Plaintiff of ignoring “previous requests for payment in full” of his “seriously delinquent account.”

23. The Plaintiff responded to the dunning letter by sending another, more detailed dispute of the claims made by CA and John’s Apartments, specifically disputing the charges placed on the account as they related to damages. The letter was signed for at the offices of CA on November 2, 2005.

24. At no time did CA or Mr. Cruz inform the Plaintiff that this dispute was frivolous or irrelevant, nor did they inform him that more information was needed to investigate the dispute.

25. On November 2, 2005, CA placed a tradeline in the Plaintiff’s credit bureau reports, claiming a balance of $838. This tradeline did not contain any indication that it was disputed by the consumer.

26. On November 15, 2005, Mr. Cruz sent another demand for payment by U.S. mail, stating that they had made repeated attempts to contact the Plaintiff by telephone and mail, and further accusing the Plaintiff of failing to respond to their attempts at contact.

27. In December of 2005, the Plaintiff disputed the tradeline that had been placed on his Equifax credit report by CA. The results of the reinvestigation that was completed January 12, 2006, indicated that CA verified to Equifax that the tradeline was complete and accurate, even though the tradeline now appeared twice on the Plaintiff’s Equifax Credit report.

28. On January 27, 2006, another dispute was sent certified mail, return receipt requested, to the offices of CA.

29. On February 3, 2006, the Plaintiff received a revised bill from the John’s Apartments, asserting that the amount due was $438.45, in response to a conversation with Defendant Lisa Majors. In that conversation, Ms. Majors stated that she did not work at John’s Apartments during the time in question, and had no personal knowledge of the account. She did agree to remove the charges for damage to the carpet.

30. Ms. Majors also stated that the certified letter required by Florida Statute 83.49(3) was sent to the Plaintiff’s previous address at the apartment. In light of the fact that the Polos Apartments had his current address, this was clearly done to deny the plaintiff his right to dispute the seizure of his security deposit.

31. On March 7, 2006, CA again confirmed to Equifax, in response to a reinvestigation request, that the balance was being reported correctly at $838, despite the revised bill.

32. On March 14, 2006, CA also responded to a reinvestigation request from Experian by reporting that the account was complete and accurate as reported, even though the past due amount was still being incorrectly reported as $838.

33. On April 25, 2006, Ms. Majors conceded that the amount due was $288.45, and the Plaintiff agreed to pay this amount, if the tradeline could be removed from his credit reports. Ms. Majors refused to agree to remove the tradeline, stating that she was not going to reward people for not paying their bills. When the Plaintiff pointed out that it was errors on the part of the Defendants that resulted in the non-payment in the first place, she still refused to remove the tradeline.

34. On April 28, 2006, Mr. Cruz sent an updated bill to the Plaintiff in the amount of $250.50 by fax, along with an offer of settlement. Along with these documents, Mr. Cruz sent a copy of a letter from Ms. Majors that requested that CA update their account records with a new balance of $288.45.

35. The Plaintiff again agreed to pay the $250.50 if CA would agree in writing to delete the erroneous tradelines from his credit reports. Mr. Abrams then faxed over an agreement on May 2, 2006 which still did not contain the written promise to delete the tradeline.

36. Mr. Abrams then told the Plaintiff that they would not remove the tradeline, and that it was the policy of his company not to remove any tradelines from credit reports. He then accused the Plaintiff of having him on “speaker phone” and refused to talk to him unless he removed him from “speaker phone,” and then hung up.

37. On May 9, 2006, CA again verified the tradeline on the Plaintiff’s Equifax credit file as being complete and accurate, although the tradeline still listed the past due balance as $838 and the tradeline still appeared twice on the credit file.

38. Even though CA, Mr. Cruz, and Mr. Abrams had actual knowledge that the amount they were trying to collect was false, they still conspired to damage the Plaintiff’s reputation for credit worthiness by reporting a tradeline that was not complete and accurate, even though they had received multiple reinvestigation requests from the consumer, and from the credit reporting agencies Equifax and Experian.

39. CA, Mr. Cruz, and Mr. Abrams reported this tradeline which they knew to be reasonably disputed to the credit reporting agencies, without notifying the agencies about the existence of the dispute.

40. Ms. Majors, Ms. Donald, Mr. Cruz, and Mr. Abrams, while acting in their capacities as representatives of their employers, did conspire to attempt to enforce a debt when they had sufficient knowledge to know that the claim was not legitimate.

COUNT 1- VIOLATION OF THE FAIR

DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

41. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 40 of this Complaint are realleged and incorporated by reference.

42. The defendants Collection Agency Inc., Mark Cruz and Geoff Abrams are debt collectors, as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

43. The defendants Collection Agency Inc., Mark Cruz and Geoff Abrams violated the FDCPA by:

44. Multiple violations of § 1692e (2)(a) and 1692e(10) for the false representation of the character, amount, or legal status of any debt

45. Violations of § 1692e (8) communicating information which is known to be false

46. The foregoing violations of the FDCPA are among the Defendants’ standard procedures and practices towards consumers such as the Plaintiff, for which the Defendants are motivated by enhanced profits.

COUNT 2- VIOLATIONS OF THE

FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT

47. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 40 of this Complaint are realleged and incorporated by reference.

48. Collection Agency Inc., regularly and in the course of business, furnishes information to one or more consumer reporting agencies about their transactions or experiences with any consumer.

49. Collection Agency Inc., did not notify the plaintiff at any time that the dispute was considered frivolous or irrelevant, or that plaintiff had failed to provide sufficient information to investigate the disputed information.

50. Collection Agency Inc., failed to review all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agencies, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681i (a)(2), and as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(B)(1)(B).

51. Collection Agency Inc., failed to adequately conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information, as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(B)(1) after the Plaintiff’s notice of dispute was received at the offices of Collection Agency.

52. Collection Agency Inc., failed to report the results of the investigation findings to the consumer reporting agencies that the information provided by such person was incomplete or inaccurate, as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(B)(1)(D).

53. Collection Agency Inc., failed to report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agencies, as required 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(B)(1)©.

54. Collection Agency Inc., in response to the notices of reinvestigation from the Credit Reporting Agencies, verified that the disputed information was accurate and complete on four different occasions, even though they were in possession of information which showed that the tradelines were inaccurate, and even though the tradelines did not contain the notice of dispute, as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(3). The fact that this was done in response to multiple reinvestigation requests from multiple Credit Reporting Agencies and the Plaintiff is evidence of willful noncompliance on the part of Collection Agency Inc.

COUNT 3- VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA

CONSUMER COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

55. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 40 of this Complaint are realleged and incorporated by reference.

56. Collection Agency Inc., violated Florida Statute 559.72 (3), by telling the Plaintiff that they had disclosed to the credit reporting agencies information affecting the plaintiff's reputation for credit worthiness without also informing the plaintiff that the existence of the dispute would also be disclosed.

57. Collection Agency Inc., violated Florida Statute 559.72 (5), by disclosing to Equifax information affecting the plaintiff's reputation, whether or not for credit worthiness, with knowledge or reason to know that information was false.

58. The Defendants Lisa Majors, and Mona Donald, violated Florida Statute 559.72 (5), by disclosing to information affecting the Plaintiff's reputation, whether or not for credit worthiness, with knowledge or reason to know that information was false.

59. The Defendants John’s Apartments and MANAGING Realty, violated Florida Statute 559.72 (5), as evidenced by the fact that Ms. Majors and Ms. Donald, while acting as authorized agents for their employers, each disclosed information affecting the plaintiff's reputation, whether or not for credit worthiness, with knowledge or reason to know that information was false.

60. John’s Apartments and MANAGING Realty failed to enact reasonable rules, policies, procedures, or training to prevent their agents and employees from carrying out such destructive and deleterious actions.

61. The Defendants each separately and individually violated Florida Statute 559.72 (6), by disclosing information concerning the existence of a debt known to be reasonably disputed by the Plaintiff without disclosing that fact.

62. The Defendants each separately and individually violated Florida Statute 559.72 (9), by claiming, attempting, or threatening to enforce a debt when they each knew or had reason to know that the debt was not legitimate.

COUNT 4- VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE

AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT

63. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 40 of this Complaint are realleged and incorporated by reference.

64. The actions stated herein and carried out by the defendants were violations of Florida State and Federal Law, and are therefore unfair and/or deceptive trade practices as defined by state statute 501.203 (3).

65. Unfair and/or deceptive trade practices are a violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act pursuant to 501.204 (1).

COUNT 5- INTENTIONAL INFLICTION

OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

66. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 40 of this Complaint are realleged and incorporated by reference.

67. The Defendants intended to and did inflict severe emotional distress upon Plaintiff by engaging in actions that intended to harass, belittle, confuse, mislead and threaten the Plaintiff, the purpose of which was to intimidate and coerce the Plaintiff into paying a debt which was not legitimately owed, and conspired to systematically deny the Plaintiff his right to dispute the legitimacy and validity of a claimed debt.

68. The Defendants attempted to take advantage of a consumer reasonably unable to protect his interests because of an assumed ignorance and an inability to understand the legal issues and other factors involved, and therefore acted with unconscionable intent.

COUNT 6- VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA

RESIDENTIALLANDLORD AND TENANT ACT

69. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 40 of this Complaint are realleged and incorporated by reference.

70. The Defendant John’s Apartments failed to notify the Plaintiff written notice by certified mail to the Plaintiff's last known mailing address of his intention to impose a claim on the deposit and the reason for imposing the claim, in violation of Florida Statute 83.49(3).

71. Under that statute, if the landlord fails to give the required notice within 30-days, he or she forfeits the right to impose a claim upon the security deposit.

REQUESTED RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests relief as follows:

(A) For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, enjoining all of the named Defendants and other conspirators from engaging in further violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Debt collection Practices Act, the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

(B) For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, enjoining all of the named Defendants and other conspirators from:

1. Selling, transferring, reporting, or otherwise assigning the above named account to any other collection agency, debt collector, reseller or Credit Reporting Agency.

2. Attempting to place the Plaintiff on any “deadbeat list,” or attempting in any way to impugn the Plaintiff’s reputation as a tenant or as a consumer in connection with any and all transactions carried out or related to the aforementioned debt.

© For an order awarding actual damages in the following amount:

1. Against John’s Apartments, in the amount of $200.

(D) For an order awarding statutory damages in the following amounts:

1. Against Collection Agency, for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, in the amount of $1,000; for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, in the amount of $4,000; for violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, in the amount of $1,000.

2. Against Mark Cruz, for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, in the amount of $1,000, for violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, in the amount of $1,000.

3. Against Geoff Abrams, for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, in the amount of $1,000, for violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, in the amount of $1,000.

4. Against Lisa Majors, for violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, in the amount of $1,000.

5. Against Mona Donald, for violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, in the amount of $1,000.

6. Against MANAGING Realty, for violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, in the amount of $1,000.

7. Against John’s Apartments, for violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, in the amount of $1,000, and for violations of the Florida Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, in the amount of $200.

(E) For an order awarding punitive damages as follows:

1. Against Collection Agency, in the amount of $15,000.

2. Against Mark Cruz, in the amount of $2,500.

3. Against Geoff Abrams, in the amount of $1,000.

4. Against Lisa Majors, in the amount of $1,000.

5. Against Mona Donald, in the amount of $500.

6. Against MANAGING Realty, in the amount of $2,000.

7. Against John’s Apartments, in the amount of $2,500.

And for such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper under the circumstances.

Please take notice that the Plaintiff demands trial by jury in this action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Debt settlement letter

PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF DISMISSAL PER C.R. 41(A)(1)(a)

Plaintiff hereby dismisses this action with prejudice and at its costs.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

This Settlement Agreement and Release is made and enetered into between Discover Bank, issuer of the Discover Card, by its attorney <Attorney Name>, and <Defendant Name>, together, the "Parties."

WHEREAS, a dispute arose between the Parties involving the a credit-card account, and

WHEREAS, on or about mm/dd/yy, Discover Bank filed suit against <Defendant Last Name> in the <Court Name> and

WHEREAS, the Parties wish to resolve any and all disputes between them;

NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, and with the intent to be legally bound, the Parties hereby agree as to the following:

1. The term, "Discover Bank," as used in this Settlement Agreement and Release, shall refer

to Discover Bank, issuer of the Discover Card, by its Servicing Agent Discover Financial Services, LLC, including its parents, divisions, subsidiaries, partners, affiliates, successors, and assigns, as well as its respective offices, directors, stockholders, employees, representatives, agents, attorneys, insurers, heirs, executors, and estates.

2. The term, <Defendant Last Name> as used in this Settlement Agreement and Release, shall refer to <Defendant First Last Name> including his partners, affiliates, successors, and assigns, as well as his respective employees, representatives, agents, attorneys, insurers, heirs, executors, and estates.

3. The term "Parties," as used in this Settlement Agreement and Release, shall refer to Discover Bank, as that term is defined in Paragraph 1 above, and <Defendant Name> as that term is defined in Paragraph2 above.

4. The Parties agree that no provision of this Settlement Agreement and Release shall be construed as an admission by any party of any liability or unlawful conduct.

5. Discover Bank represents and warrants that it will dismiss, with prejudice, all outstanding complaints, charges, or claims for relief against, including but not limited ti Discover Bank, issuer of the Discover Card by its v. <Defendant> Case No. Discover Bank, by its attorney <Attorney Name> agrees to complete and submit to the Court the Notice of Dismissal, dismissing the case with prejudice and without costs or attorney's fees as to any party.

The Parties hereby acknowledge that <Defendant Last Name> has paid the total sum of $amount

6. , representing full settlement of all claims and charges, asserted or unasserted, that may have had or could have against under any state or federal law, including any attorny's fees and costs, concerning Discover Card Account No.

7. Excepts as to the obligations set forth in this Agreement, Discover Bank, by its attorney <Atty. Name> hereby fully, forever, irrevocably and unconditionally releases from any and all claims, charges, complaints, demands, actions, causes of action, suits, rights, debts, sums of money, costs, accounts, reckonings, covenants, contracts, agreements, promises, doings, omissinos, damages, executions, obligations, liabilities, and expenses (including attorney's fees and costs), of every kind and nature, known or unknown, which it has or claims to have, or which is previously had or claimed to have, or whihc it ever may have or claim to have against <Defendant>, occuring prior to the execution date of this Settlement Agreement and Release.

8. This Settlement Agreement and Release shall be governed by the law of Ohio and may be amended or modified only in writing executed by the Parties. Should any provision be declaired by any court to be invalid, the validity of the remaining provisions shall not be affected, and the invalid provision(s) shall be deemed not a part of this Settlement Agreement and Release. The language of all parts of this Settlement Agreement and Release shall be construed as a whole, according its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against either Party.

9. This Settlement Agreement and Release shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of <Defendant>, his heirs, administrators, executors, representatives, successorsm and assigns, and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of Discover Bank, its heris, administrators, executors, representatives, successors and assigns.

10. This Settlement Agreement and Release supersedes any and all prior and/or written agreements between Parties, and sets forth the entire agreement between the Parties.

11. The Parties represent that they each have had an opportunity to discuss this Agreement with their respective attorneys; that they have read and understand the provisions herein; that they are not relying on promises or other representations not set forth above as inducement to enter this Settlement Agreement.

12. This Settlement Agreement and Release may be signed in counterparts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an answer wit counterclaim vs. a JDB. The counterclaim was suing without validating, mischaracterizing the debt and calling a third party. For illustration only!!!!

CACV OF COLORADO LLC LLC.

Plaintiff

Vs.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Defendant

xxxxxxxxxx, by his attorney xxxxxxxxxxxxx., answers the complaint by stating and showing that:

1. ADMITS the allegations of paragraph 2.

2. DENIES having information and knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations at paragraphs 1

3. DENIES having information and knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of so much of paragraph 3 as alleges CACV purchased credit card accounts from Fleet Bank and DENIES the remaining allegations of paragraph 3.

4. DENIES the allegations of paragraphs 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.

5. DENIES every other allegation not previously admitted, denied or controverted.

AS AND FOR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

6. Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action against the defendant.

7. Plaintiff, as the defendant is informed and believes, lacks the legal standing to bring and maintain this action.

8. The action is barred by the Statute of Frauds.

9. The action is barred by the Statute of Limitations.

10. The court would unjustly enrich the plaintiff by granting the relief sought herein.

AS AND FOR A COUNTERCLAIM

11. Defendant resides in xxxxxxxxxxxx and is a consumer as that term is defined by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 15 USC 1692 et seq ( “FDCPA”)

12. Upon information and belief, CACV OF COLORADO LLC (“CACV”) is a foreign limited liability Company authorized to do business in New York; that CACV’s principal business is the collection of debts from others; that CACV regularly collects debts; that CACV uses the instruments of interstate commerce and the mail to collect debts.

13. CACV and its agent xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx are “debt collectors” as the term is defined by the FDCPA.

14. The alleged credit card account is a “debt” as that term is defined by the FDCPA, that the alleged account was meant to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes

15. On or before xxxxx, at a time best known to it, CACV engaged BM to collect this alleged debt from defendant; at all times xx was acting for and under the direction of CACV.

16. On xxx, xx sent defendant a letter demanding he pay CACV. The letter also had a validation notice per 15 USC 1692g. A copy of the letter is attached.

17. In response thereto, defendant sent xx a letter on xx which xx received on xxxxx, wherein he disputed the debt and asked xx and CACV to provide validation, per 15 USC 1692g. A copy of the letter and tracking notice are attached.

18. Instead of answering the letter, on or about xxxx, CACV had xx commence this action.

19. To date, neither CACV nor xx has sent defendant validation of the disputed debt.

20. CACV‘s act to bring this action without validating the debt was intentional and, on information and belief, persistent and frequent.

21. CACV has violated the FDCPA by bringing this action before validating the debt, and defendant is injured thereby.

AS A SECOND COUNTERCLAIM

22. Defendant restates and realleges the matter in paragraphs 1 through 21.

23. On xxxx and xxxx , xxxxxx of xx communicated the debt to a third person by calling defendant’s mother, without xxxxxx prior consent or court order, in violation of 15 USC 1692c(B) and 15 USC 1692d, and defendant has been injured thereby.

AS A THIRD COUNTERCLAIM

24. Defendant restates and realleges the matter in paragraphs 1 through 23.

25. The letter CACV had xx send on 6/12/06:

a. was false, misleading and deceptive, in that it mischaracterized the debt, in violation of 15 USC 1692e ,

b. Unfairly and unconscionably sought amounts not authorized by agreement or permitted by law, in violation of 15 USC 1692f,

c. and the defendant has been injured thereby.

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 $1000 per 15 USC 1692k,

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.

DATED: November 19, 2006

_______________________________

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jary

SAMPLE MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

I recieved this from the MA Law Library Tought I should post it here.

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff, pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 37(a), moves the court to enter an order compelling Defendant to produce for inspection and copying the documents described in the attached Request, and to assess costs and attorney's fees against Defendant and Defendant's attorney, based on the following grounds:

1. On ________ [Date], Plaintiff served Defendant with Plaintiff's Request for the Production of Documents, a copy of which is attached hereto, together with a certificate of service with respect to the said Request, seeking production of the documents described in the Request.

2. [if applicable] Although more than thirty days have passed, Defendant has failed to serve a response to Plaintiff's Request, notwithstanding Plaintiff's follow-up letter requesting a response, a copy of which is also attached herewith.

3. [if applicable] Defendant refuses to comply with Plaintiff's Requests numbered 1 and 2, asserting that said requests are “irrelevant, inadmissable and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence,” when in fact each of said requests is relevant to the issues in the above action.

4. Defendant's failure to answer Plaintiff's requests remains without substantial justification, thereby entitling Plaintiff to recover his costs and reasonable attorney's fees for preparing this motion and supporting papers and for attending the hearing on this motion.

A certificate of compliance with Superior Court Rule 9C, a brief in support of the motion, and an affidavit concerning costs and attorney's fees are attached.

The Plaintiff,

By its attorneys,

_______________

[signature of Attorney]

_______________

[Attorney's Name]

BBO No. ______________________________

_______________

[Address]

______________________________

_______________

[Telephone Number]

Dated: ________

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jary

SAMPLE DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Also received from MA Law Library

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Defendant, pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 34(B) and Mass.R.Civ.P. 26, hereby responds to Plaintiff's ________ [Date] Request for the Production of Documents as follows:

General Matters and Objections

1. [if applicable] The request is untimely as being served after closure of the discovery period as set by the Tracking Order.

2. [if applicable] The request is improper as being served after the court entered its order staying discovery.

3. [if applicable] The request is insufficient as failing to specify a time, place, and manner of making the inspection and performing related acts, and therefore fails to comply with Mass.R.Civ.P. 34(B).

4. [if applicable] The request is insufficient as failing to describe each requested item and category with reasonable particularity, and therefore fails to comply with Mass.R.Civ.P. 34(B).

5. [if applicable] The request calls for the production of documents outside the scope of discovery permitted under Mass.R.Civ.P. 26(B).

6. [if applicable] The request seeks production of certain attorney-client privileged documents and certain work product documents. Defendant reserves the right to identify such documents and withhold them from production if, and when, actual production of the documents is made and an inspection conducted.

7. [if applicable] Although the request has not specified a time, place and manner for the production, in anticipation of such a request, Defendant submits that any production of documents at this time should be stayed by the court in order to protect the Defendant from annoyance, oppression, undue burden and expense.

(a) Defendant's motion for summary judgment has been filed, briefed and argued to the court. The motion contends, among other things, that the relief sought by Plaintiff is inappropriate, that the Plaintiff lacks standing and is not the real party in interest; and that the Plaintiff's claim is barred by the running of the statute of limitations. In light of the dispositive nature of the motion, the likelihood of the defendant succeeding with the motion, and the annoyance, oppression and undue burden and expense that will be incurred by Defendant in complying with the request, any actual production of documents should await this court's ruling on the pending motion.

(B) The documents sought by the request are numerous and are distributed among many different locations. The requested production would be extremely expensive, time consuming and unnecessary in view of the relatively narrow issues presented before the court, the dispositive nature of the pending motion for summary judgment, and the likelihood of the Defendant securing a dismissal of the plaintiff's claim.

© Many of the specifications in the request would require the production of commercially and competitively sensitive information which should not be produced without the protection of a court order restricting access. As a competitor of Defendant, Plaintiff's interests in obtaining Defendant's internal documentation go beyond the instant litigation. In order to protect Defendant from annoyance, oppression, undue burden and expense, the court should enter an appropriate protective order before any commercially sensitive information is actually produced, and Defendant, pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 26© has so moved.

(d) Plaintiff has already received some or all of the documents identified in the pending request. Therefore, it would be unduly burdensome and expensive to require Defendant to produce these documents which are already in Plaintiff's possession.

8. [if applicable] Defendant objects to the definitions contained in the request to the extent that they would require Defendant to canvass literally hundreds of employees in an effort to locate and determine the responsiveness of documents in numerous locations. Moreover, to the extent that the request's definition of “document” would require the actual production of computer-generated information, Defendant objects on the ground that the request is overly broad and would subject Defendant to annoyance, oppression, undue burden and expense in determining the existence of certain information on computers in its various locations and having the information programmed and printed into hard copy documents.

Specific Responses

Defendant responds to the requests in the order in which they appear in Plaintiff's Request for the Production of Documents.

1) Defendant will produce the requested documents, copies of which accompany this response.

2) Defendant will produce the requested documents, copies of which will be provided within a reasonable time.

3) Defendant is unaware of any such documents. Defendant will seasonably supplement this response pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 26(e).

4) Defendant will produce the requested documents on the date and at the time requested, but, because of the voluminous nature of the items requested, will instead make them available for Plaintiff's inspection at Defendant's offices located at One Industrial Way, Lawrence, Massachusetts.

5) Defendant will produce the requested documents for inspection only. Due to the confidential and/or commercially sensitive nature of the documents requested, Defendant will not permit photocopying or dissemination of same without a court order limiting uses of the copies to this litigation only and for such specific purposes as authorized by the court.

6) Defendant will not produce the requested documents for inspection because the documents are subject to the attorney-client privilege and are therefore beyond the scope of discovery as set forth in Mass.R.Civ.P. 26(B).

7) Defendant will not produce the requested documents for inspection because the documents contain attorney work product and are therefore beyond the scope of discovery as set forth in Mass.R.Civ.P. 26(B).

8) Defendant will not produce the requested documents for inspection because they were prepared in anticipation of litigation and Plaintiff has not shown substantial need of the materials in the preparation of its case and that it is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means.

9) Defendant will not produce the requested documents for inspection because they were prepared in anticipation of litigation by an expert who is not expected to testify and Plaintiff has made no showing of exceptional circumstances.

10) Defendant will not produce the requested documents for inspection because they are irrelevant to the pending action and beyond the scope of permissible discovery as set forth in Mass.R.Civ.P. 26(B).

11) Defendant will not produce the requested documents for inspection because the request is vague, uncertain and confusing, as a consequence of which Defendant is unable to formulate a response and communicate to its employees any uniform criteria for the production of the requested information.

12) Defendant will not produce the requested documents for inspection for the reason that the request is overly broad as requesting “all documents” having “anything to do with the subject of the pending litigation.”

13) Defendant will not produce the requested documents for inspection because the request is vague, uncertain and confusing. Without waiving this objection, Defendant is unaware of the existence of such documents.

Defendant ______________________________ .

[Defendant's Name]

By Its Attorneys,

_______________

[Law Firm's Name]

By: _______________________________

[signature of Attorney]

______________________________ ,

[Attorney's Name]

BBO No.

_______________________________

_______________________________

[Address]

_______________________________

[Telephone Number]

Dated: ________

These are specific to MA but you can change them around to fit your case and state hope that they help you guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another Request for Production of Documents:

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS From Defendant to Plaintiff

1. The alleged credit application from Account Numbers (JDB Acct#) and (OC Acct #) bearing the defendant’s signature;

2. The alleged credit agreement from Account Numbers (JDB Acct#) and (OC Acct #) that states interest rate, grace period, terms of repayment, et cetera;

3. Itemized statements or credit card statements from Account Numbers (JDB Acct#) and (OC Acct #) that demonstrate how the alleged amount of $5552.92 was calculated;

4. A contract, agreement, assignment, or other means demonstrating that Wellington Acquisitions, LP had the authority and capacity, and was legally entitled to collect on the alleged debt from Account Number (OC Acct #);

5. Letter(s) sent to defendant by Wellington Acquisitions, LP, demonstrating an attempt to collect on the alleged debt, Account Numbers (JDB Acct#) and (OC Acct #);

6. A notarized statement, if presently existing or otherwise, by a person with original knowledge of the alleged debt, as it was constituted, and who can testify, or be so interrogated in a deposition, that the alleged debt was incurred legally;

7. Any and all further documents that you believe establish that plaintiff had an outstanding account or debt related to Account Numbers (JDB Acct#) and (OC Acct #);

8. Any further documentation, beyond what has been previously requested, that clearly establishes defendant’s liability and/or responsibility to the alleged debt;

9. Any and all written communication, received by the plaintiff and/or plaintiff’s attorney from the defendant, regarding the reporting of the alleged account to any credit reporting agency, as well as plaintiff’s and/or plaintiff’s attorney accessing of defendant’s credit report(s).

10. Any and all communications from plaintiff and/or plaintiff’s attorney to the defendant explaining why plaintiff and/or plaintiff’s attorney may have reported the alleged debt to any credit reporting agency, as well as obtaining defendant’s credit report(s);

11. Any and all credit report(s) plaintiff and/or plaintiff’s attorney obtained from any credit reporting agency concerning the defendant;

12. Any and all notes, memoranda, or likewise, be they handwritten, computerized, or typed, regularly kept in the normal transaction and business of collecting debts, that relate to the defendant and/or Account Numbers (JDB Acct#) and (OC Acct #);

13. The plaintiff’s Articles of Incorporation;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So for all of my new york people here goes. To see if one of these CA cowards have sneakily put in a judgement against you here is the number

(347) 404-9123 this is to the new york civil court. Just give the clerk your first name and last name and he/she will do a search for you.

For forms for New York, I spoke via email with a NACA lawyer and she sent me a link. The only thing is if you are in need of legal representation this NACA lawyer only represents the very low income (below 250% of the federal poverty level).

I checked the link out and it had forms for New York for all kinds of cases.

www.nedap.org/resources/consumer

I do hope it helps :p.

Mods if this info is in the wrong forum please forgive me and move it where it needs to be.

Many Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just found this website.

It is a blog for Alabama attorneys representing consumers in various lawsuits.

The links on this page download PDF's of the various documents they've filed for their clients.

You can see they've sued some JDB's and CRA's.

Hopefully these might be useful to somebody.

http://www.alabamaconsumer.com/PracticeAreas/Representative-Consumer.asp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey I am still a little legalese illiterate and need some help Can you simplify these three statements for me I would really appreciated it I just want to make sure they apply to my circumstance Thank you

29. As and for a Twenty-fifth Defense

Defendant alleges that the granting of the Plaintiff's demand in the Complaint would result in Unjust Enrichment as the Plaintiff would receive more money than plaintiff is entitled to receive.

16. As and for a Twelfth Defense

Defendant claims Accord and Satisfaction as Defendant alleges that the original creditor accepted payment from a third party for the alleged debt, or a portion of the alleged debt, or that the original creditor received other compensation in the form of monies and/or credits.

5. As and for a First Defense

Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff's Complaint and each cause of action therein fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the Defendant for which relief can be granted. Thanks Again

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.