Next step help, please?

[sandycheeks]

1. Who is suing you? Frederick J Hannah & Associates

2. For how much? roughly $2600, which includes interest and att fees

3. Who is the original creditor? Citi

4. How do you know you are being sued? Received a summons

5. How were you served? Were you served? By a sheriff at home

6. What was your correspondence (if any) with the people suing you before you think you were being sued? I received a dunning from Unifund. I sent a DV, they responded with 2 bank statements from before the account was charged off. A few months later, I was served.

7. Where do you live? Georgia

8. When is the last time you paid on this account? late 2004

9. What is the status of your case (if anything has been opened)? You can find this by a) calling the court or looking it up online (many states have this information posted daily). I filed my answers and I am awaiting a trial date

10. Have you disputed the debt with the credit bureaus (both the original creditor and the collection agency?) The OC was removed from my CRs last year after I disputed. None of the CAs have appeared on my CR (Unifund is the 5th CA to have this account)

11. Did you request debt validation before the suit was filed? If not, don't bother doing this now. Yes

12. Does your summons require a response? (Look hard!) If you don't get a questionnaire with your summons, you are still probably required to answer it in writing. If you don't respond to the lawsuit notice you will lose automatically. In 99% of the cases, they will require you to answer the summons, and each point they are claiming. We need to know what the "charges" are. Please post what they are claiming. Did you receive an interrogatory (questionnaire) regarding the lawsuit?

I filed my answers already. They are claiming I owe I owe them the $2600, that principal and interest are past due, and that I am refusing to pay.

13. What evidence did they send with the summons? An affadavit? A statement from the OC? Anything else they attached as exhibits? The only exhibit was an unsigned card agreement copyrighted 2006 (my account with OC was opened in 1999 and closed in 2001). I'm not sure why they didn't include the statements they sent me as validation.

14. What is the SOL on the debt? To find out: 4 yrs in GA

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/rebu...itations.shtml

If you are inquiring about a the best way to sue someone, you need to answer the following questions (as much as possible):

I'm not sure about countersuits. I prepared my answers before reading here, and now I think I may have them on a couple of violations. I'll get back to you on this one!

1. Who are you suing?

2. How old is the debt?

3. If the person harrassing you about the debt is a collection agency, Is the debt being reported on your credit report?

4. Have you disputed the debt with the credit bureaus (both the original creditor and the collection agency?) This means you wrote or called Experian, Equifax and TransUnion.

5. Has the collection agency sent you a letter, called you on the phone? How did you learn about the collection?

6. What state are you in?

7. What kind of debt is this? (credit car, auto loan, student loan)

8. What kind of violations do you THINK the collection agency has committed? What section of the FDCPA do you think has been violated...

By answering these questions, you will really get more help. If other people have more suggestions for questions, let me know.

Other details:

At this point, I'm pretty sure the debt is within SOL, but I included that in my answers anyway, just in case. My problem is that in their validation letter, Unifund claims to have purchased the debt from a CA named AUC Silver. In one part of the summons, Hannah claims Citibank assigned the debt to Unifund. Later in the summons, there is a document that shows that the account was placed with Hannah & Associates Collections. It all seems so convoluted, almost like a shell game.

The account was charged off in 2005 in the amount of $985. It was closed in 2002, and I made sporadic payments (was in college), but it was never reopened.

I thought I had an understanding of a lot of this stuff, but now I see I'm in over my head. I am willing to hire an attorney (I filed my answers pro se), but I still want to be able to make sense of all of this.

Also of note (maybe): I have the dunning letters of the CAs who had this account before it got to Unifund, as well as a copy of the DV I sent to one of them (they sold it again, rather than answer my DV). Will these be of use?

Thank you in advance for reading this. Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated!

[nascar]

Wow, with that many assignments, they're going to have a hard time establishing chain of title!

[sandycheeks]

Wow, with that many assignments, they're going to have a hard time establishing chain of title!

Do you think that should be my main defense?

[sandycheeks]

Bump! Does anyone have any thoughts or advice? I'd even take a lecture right now. I'm just so down about this. I need someone to talk to about it.

[Amerikaner83]

Do you think that should be my main defense?

Absolutely. He was hinting that that most DEFINATELY should be the main defense. Best defense = good offense.

The only exhibit was an unsigned card agreement copyrighted 2006 (my account with OC was opened in 1999 and closed in 2001). I'm not sure why they didn't include the statements they sent me as validation.

2006? Sounds like they might have the wrong person. Even if you filled out a credit app in 06, it is not attached to this alleged debt, right?

Edited to add: The whole thought process behind "chain of title" is this: They need to establish the path this debt took all the way from the OC, including each step along the way. They need to prove not only that it IS collectable, they need to prove THEY have the right to collect it. They also need to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence that the AMOUNT they are sing for is what they're truly entitled to.

What was your answer to the Summons? Did they send interrogatories? If so, have you answered those too?

[sandycheeks]

Absolutely. He was hinting that that most DEFINATELY should be the main defense. Best defense = good offense.

2006? Sounds like they might have the wrong person. Even if you filled out a credit app in 06, it is not attached to this alleged debt, right?

Edited to add: The whole thought process behind "chain of title" is this: They need to establish the path this debt took all the way from the OC, including each step along the way. They need to prove not only that it IS collectable, they need to prove THEY have the right to collect it. They also need to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence that the AMOUNT they are sing for is what they're truly entitled to.

What was your answer to the Summons? Did they send interrogatories? If so, have you answered those too?

Thank you for your response! You too, Nascar!

In answer to your question, that "terms and agreement" copy is the only thing they sent. No contract (impossible, since the card was opened over the phone), or anything else with my signature.

And you are absolutely right...they haven't shown me any proof that I owe THEM, or that the amount I allegedly owe is what they say it is.

I haven't received any interrogatories yet.

Here are my affirmative defenses:

II. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

(1)

Plaintiff’s cause of action and complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

(2)

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

(3)

Plaintiff is not the real party in interest and Plaintiff has failed to name all necessary parties.

(4)

Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each cause of action therein; is barred by the Doctrine of Estoppel, specifically Estoppel in Pais and Estoppel by Silence

(5)

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 was not in writing and signed by Defendant or by some other person authorized by Defendant and who was to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another person.

(6)

Plaintiff is barred under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, herinafter called FDCPA, from collecting attorney fees, interest, collection fees, and any amount not specifically provided for by agreement.

(7)

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; 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.

(8)

Plaintiff's complaint further 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.

(9)

Plaintiff’s Complaint includes references to alleged agreements made outside the alleged written contract, violating the Parole Evidence Rule.

(10)

Defendant reserves the right to plead other affirmative defenses that may become applicable and/or available at a later time.

I checked Naca.net and I have a consult with an attorney on Monday. I checked her out online, and she has had plenty of experience going against these scumbags, so that's great news for me!

[Amerikaner83]

nice! pretty good answers for a Pro Se'r