Questions on Discovery states OC name not JDB?

[resse4JC]

So, I was in the process of answering the plaintiff’s interrogatories, admissions, and production of documents request when I realized that all of their questions listed the OC name. For example, in one of the interrogatories it asks, "State the approximate date you opened the revolving charge account with OC."

However, when I looked at the complaint again, it states the JDB as an assignee and purchaser. I know they cannot be both, but can I just object to all the questions based on the fact that the plaintiff of this case is the JDB and not the OC? Any help will be appreciated.

Resse4JC

[isa430]

assignee and purchaser would be correct. As I understand it, debt is 'assigned' by the OC to a CA. Often initially the CA is collecting on behalf of the OC but the OC can also sell the debt to a JDB at a later date.

I would think that what you should request from the plaintiff is evidence to show a clear chain of custody from the OC to the current JDB (presumably the plaintiff). If the plaintiff cannot produce said evidence then you have a strong case.

I'm no expert though and in pretty much the same situation myself.

[Recovering Attorney]

the real question is, did you owe the OC?

[resse4JC]

the real question is, did you owe the OC?

I understand where you are going with that question, but the OC is not suing me, the JDB is. So shouldn't their questions be more like, "Do you owe JDB on account #1111? They are stating they are the owners of the debt and they do not have a copy of my original agreement, statements, or anything that states I owe them. They don't have any documentation that states they are the legal owners of the alleged debt in order to sue me.

Also, to actually answer your question, I may have had a card with the OC, but it was over 5 years ago and I was overly swamped with debt and trying to finish graduate school. Since they don't know, I don't know.

Resse4JC

[sunshine46]

That is the same thing on mine it is the JDB then on served papers it had the OC but when they used their wonderful affidavit, I was able to prove them incorrect by the date by OC was 1 month after compared to CR which I was able to show proof by Inquiry date, and OC address which was a payment center not orignal creditor address as I had other accounts by them all paid off, so I knew plus it states on CR too. Then I check to see if there authorized agent was authorzied by license it wasn't all they had was some man said he was authorized when he wasn't. Shot that one right into the garbage with there affidavit and apparently no other paperwork yet either except a papers with terms for a credit card agreement which means nothing to me unless they have title to it, or a sign contract by me which they don't. The account can be bought and sold all day long.

[nascar]

So shouldn't their questions be more like, "Do you owe JDB on account #1111?

No, not necessarily. Once they establish through your admission that you had an account with the original creditor, all they have to allege is that they now own the account. Slam dunk, you lose.

[sunshine46]

Dear Mr. Nascar,

I had several accounts by the OC, so now I am automatically quilty? That answer is a sham if it holds true if that was the only account one had.

[nascar]

Dear Mr. Nascar,

I had several accounts by the OC, so now I am automatically quilty? That answer is a sham if it holds true if that was the only account one had.

This thread has nothing to do with you, does it? The only thing you're guilty of is not knowing what you're doing.

[resse4JC]

No, not necessarily. Once they establish through your admission that you had an account with the original creditor, all they have to allege is that they now own the account. Slam dunk, you lose.

I agree that if they are able to establish through my admission that I had an account with the OC, I lose. However, my mama didn't raise no fool .

In my answer to the complaint I DENIED. In their discovery requests, I DENIED. For all my denials, I asked for strict proof from them. They have yet to produce any type of documents that state that I owed the OC or if the JDB purchased or was assisgned this account. From my little knowledge of CA Code of Civil Procedures, they gotta do better than just say I owe. So, they will not have a quick victory from me.

Resse4JC

[nascar]

So, they will not have a quick victory from me.

[sunshine46]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunshine46

Dear Mr. Nascar,

I had several accounts by the OC, so now I am automatically quilty? That answer is a sham if it holds true if that was the only account one had.

This thread has nothing to do with you, does it? The only thing you're guilty of is not knowing what you're doing.

__________________

Yes, I am learning but not as dumb as one thinks or quick to slam dunk me either. I can read in between the lines like most. This is a great place to learn from the wiser ones. Touche:wink: