tiredofdebt10 Posted October 15, 2010 Report Share Posted October 15, 2010 So, I am currently being sued by a JDB on a debt that I believe is outside the SOL provided it goes by the current date and doesn't date back to the beginning of the claim (last payment was in Feb. 2007 and SOL is 3 years but case was filed in Feb as well). They have provided me with a signed statement of the last payment on the account which is the only thing that I have that shows the last payment on the account because the cc is not on my credit report, but the JDB's account is on my credit report. I denied all admissions, interrogatories, and production of documents. JDB's attorney responded with a notice of motion and motion to complel with the court stating that I have failed to respond to their requests and wants the court to force me to provide documents (which I don't have) and admit that I know about the account because they sent me old credit card statements of the alledged account. I am not sure what do if they grant the motion. How do I continue to deny something if they are trying to force me to admit that I did have an account? (FYI, I am also going to send my own interrogatories on Monday.) I stated in my answer to the interrogatories that plaintiff provide proof of ownership and that the account is within the statue of limitations. Plaintiff also claims that I am trying to prolong this matter when they are the ones that have requested a continuance two times! I just want to go to court and get this over with but I am fearing that they will win or I will say something to hurt myself. As in, how can I defend that this account is outside of the SOL if I am denying the debt? Do I wait for them to provide proof and then hit them with the SOL? Just want to make sure I don't mess myself up but I am so annoyed and really want to give up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massive Posted October 15, 2010 Report Share Posted October 15, 2010 How are you required to admit something when they haven'y even provided proof they own the alleged debt? Send them your own request for admissions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest usctrojanalum Posted October 15, 2010 Report Share Posted October 15, 2010 So, I am currently being sued by a JDB on a debt that I believe is outside the SOL provided it goes by the current date and doesn't date back to the beginning of the claim (last payment was in Feb. 2007 and SOL is 3 years but case was filed in Feb as well).The case is most likely within the SOL it that case. The case needs to be *filed* before the SOL expires. If you made a payment February 15, 2007and they filed the summons February 14, 2010, a SOL defense would not be viable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orakle Posted October 15, 2010 Report Share Posted October 15, 2010 Is the JDB even the real party in interest? I bet they don't even have standing to bring the lawsuit against you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VADebtor Posted October 17, 2010 Report Share Posted October 17, 2010 Denying you owe the debt isn't the same as swearing unbder oath (in a deposition, interrogatory or at trial) that you don't owe the debt or know nothing about it, if in fact you do. When I was in litigation represented by counsel, we answeredf the complaint, count by count, with something like "Defendant (was a corporation) denies the allegation and leaves the plaintiff to their proof".When responding to requests for admissions or interrogatories, if they ask you to admit that you owe the debt, I think you could still say you deny it, but leave it to more knowledgable folkd to say for sure. The request for admissions is being used to narrow the issues at trial.The interrogatory is more like testimony in a deposition or at trial. There's no protection against self incrimination as there is in a criminal trial, so they can ask you "do you owe this debt"? You need to look at rules of evidence because the question may not be properly formed, no foundation is laid, etc. You can object on those sort of grounds to amnswering the question and the judge will have to rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massive Posted October 17, 2010 Report Share Posted October 17, 2010 Once again, without authenticated evidence that the Plaintiff owns the debt on the record, the Defendant lacks sufficient information to enable him to admit or deny Plaintiff's request(s). Once again, a debt buyer, with little or no evidence that they own the debt, would like to force you to do their work for them. They then attempt to get hostile when an informed debtor turns the tables on them, requesting that they, the entity that brought suit, PROVE THEIR CLAIM. lol The same goes for original creditors, I make them prove that they own the alleged debt also, which they haven't been able to prove in any case that I've encountered recently. Law firms handling these "original creditor" suits have been mystified when they haven't been able to get by simply by pleading that the original creditor is the owner of the debt. They must actually prove that the original creditor owns the debt when properly challenged in a court of competent jurisdiction. They would rather run away from the action that they brought forth to be litigated rather than provide authenticated evidence of ownership. That has been my experience since implementing these "tactics" involving defending credit card suits in parts unknown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiredofdebt10 Posted October 18, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2010 @ Massive, thank you for the info that you sent me in a private message (I am not able to send private messages yet.) I think that I am making them mad because I am refusing to provide them information which I in fact do not have anything about this alleged account and that I am not admitting to the debt. They even switched attornies when I responded with my answer (at the same law firm, but still different ones). The motion that they filed is the only thing that has me concerned because if the court or judge tries to force me to provide documents that I don't have, I don't know what I can do. That's what kind of got me a little worried. We'll see how they will respond to the admissions that I send them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recovering Attorney Posted October 18, 2010 Report Share Posted October 18, 2010 normally it's because they haven't anything. Just remember, judges hate it when you show up and they ask " Do you owe this?" and you answer " They haven't proved I owe it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poorbloke Posted October 31, 2010 Report Share Posted October 31, 2010 the suit im in they are requesting motion to compel also and want me to pay 200$ FOR IT! i hate these laywers that represent JDB.. i feel sick to my stomach everytime i get a letter from these jerks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massive Posted October 31, 2010 Report Share Posted October 31, 2010 the suit im in they are requesting motion to compel also and want me to pay 200$ FOR IT! i hate these laywers that represent JDB.. i feel sick to my stomach everytime i get a letter from these jerks.They shouldn't be demanding anything if they haven't proven that they own the alleged debt. They are trying to intimidate you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poorbloke Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 They shouldn't be demanding anything if they haven't proven that they own the alleged debt. They are trying to intimidate you.i just feel so overwhelmed about this. its like anyone can say you owe them money then next thing youn doomed in court trying to prove you dont owe it somehow, and have to jump thru all these hoops any old laywer sends your way in a timely manner. or your doomed.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts