stardam Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 I was served a summons last night for an old credit card. I last paid on this card in Nov. 05 but circumstances since then have prohibited me from being able to pay. Still, they are within SOL to proceed.My husband received the letter in the mail about a month ago letting us know of the impending lawsuit, and he called them but since we still don't have the means to set up a payment plan, he didn't do anything other than decide to wait for the lawsuit. He is self employed and thought we would be in a better situation by the time the suit happened. Of course, we are not. Since they notified us before and we spoke with them, have we acknowledged the debt and therefore, have no leg to stand on in going to court? I have no knowledge on this other than reading these forums and since each case is so different, I don't know what applies to me. There was an attachment to fill out to answer the summons, should I do that and also appear in court?Any help would be appreciated. I have found more info on this site than anywhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admin Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 You need to file an answer. There is some excellent info in the stickies above on how to do that. If you have more questions after reading it and customizing one of our templates above, let me know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merrybucks Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 Are you being sued by the OC or a JDB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stardam Posted July 24, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2008 The summons came from a local lawyer representing LVNV Funding? The OC is named in the suit.My biggest question is this. I know LVLN is famous as a junk debt collector. There are alot of cases of people saying the debt is not thiers. This is an old account of mine and I'm not denying that. On my credit report though, it is written as a charge off from the OC and LVLN is nowhere on my CR. If I pay LVLN, my CR stays the same and the original OC is still on my CR as a charge off. Do I HAVE to make a deal with LVLN? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
montanatim Posted July 24, 2008 Report Share Posted July 24, 2008 If you received the summons a month ago, you may be too late to file an answer. In most cases the defendant has 20 or 30 days in which to respond. Re-read the summons and see if there is a deadline for answering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stardam Posted July 25, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2008 I rec'd the summons this week. A letter was sent to me to let me know they were filing the suit about a month ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stardam Posted July 28, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 Does anyone know if in TX, I can use the defense that LVLN admitted they purchased the debt, therefore causing injury to themselves? I have my answers ready to submit to court today, I am having trouble verifying this.thanks to everyone so far, I don't know what I would have done without your help! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admin Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 Does anyone know if in TX, I can use the defense that LVLN admitted they purchased the debt, therefore causing injury to themselves?Yep, and it's one of my favorites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stardam Posted July 28, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 Thank you!! I have to say, as much a pain as this is, I have had a small sense of empowerment reading and creating my answer to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smalt Posted August 10, 2008 Report Share Posted August 10, 2008 I am in a similar situation. Got a summons from Chase being represented by Zwicker. How did you answer? Did you deny anything? What was your defense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nascar Posted August 10, 2008 Report Share Posted August 10, 2008 Regarding the CA's purchase of already delinquent debt as a defense;Yep, and it's one of my favorites. If you could refer me to some cases where debtors prevailed on this theory, I'd like to read them. The concept of plaintiffs being the proximate cause of their own damages is a defense typically reserved for negligence actions. Since the purchase of a delinquent receivable is in fact the purchase of an asset, I don't think it applies in debt collection actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts