Help Please - Need to turn in today.

[wmcl]

Greetings, as like many wonderful families here in America we have debt climbing and companies not willing to work with its customers in payment plans. I am filling out the answer papers which need to be turned in today. Here is the Information, then follow with a question:

Question 2

That Defendant opened a credit card account with (xxxx card services, inc.) on (Date), and used their credit card and made purchases, and there is now due and owing for purchases the sum of ($xxxx). That the last payment made on the account was (date). This account was later purchased by (xxxxx affiliates) and assigned to (xxx Collectors Agency) for collection.

This is how we answered:

Admit in part. I did have an account with (xxxx card services, inc.). Deny in part, I have been presented no evidence that the account I had with (xxxx card services, inc.) is the same account as the debt alleged in this complaint.

My Question is, should we at all admit to anything? Does anyone have a better legal way6 to answer this. I am so ashamed firstly in actually having this happen, but scared too with the onset of a new arrival to my family -- my adorable son. And for them to threaten to take my only vehicle or to freeze my assets which I live by weekly. Thank you so much for your time and assistance. This forum has been an awesome help just for research.

Thank you Again

Sincerely Bewildered, stressed and scared

P.S> Where in the World does one also put PRO SE and exactly what does that mean? Is that what I put? Thanks again...

Edited November 5, 2010 by wmcl

[BV80]

We need some more information.

Who is suing you?

Is the debt within the SOL?

What "evidence" have they sent to you?

I assume from what you've written that you're being sued by a junk debt buyer?

[wmcl]

Its a weird situation. They say HSBC was the card then was purchased by CARDEZ CREDIT AFFILIATES LLC and assigned to Xpress collectors Agency. The lawyers address and Xpress are one and the same and though not easy at all to find anything on CARDEZ it also affiliates the Lawyer representing this summons as either owner or some interest. There was no information at all given by document. They did put down a date this supposedly started and again the suppossed last payment date. Then they purchased. Which then says 12 percent interest is due from 10/2008 until now. If the credit card company had this agreement and they sold it how can this still carry such an interest rate? Since the last payment was suppossedly in 2008 yes, this would fall within Idahos 5 year law if I signed anything or 4 years if Verbal. The person William R Dalling is Suing me. They have sent me no evidence just the complaint (summons).

Edited November 6, 2010 by wmcl

[BV80]

First things first. You must answer and file the Complaint. Read your state's rules for civil procedure. The rules will guide you on filing, sending copies to the attorney, etc. They'll also provide information of Admissions, Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents.

Since they haven't sent any documentation to you, you can keep your answer to Question 2 the way it is, or you can say something like "Defendant cannot admit or deny since Plaintiff has provided no documentation relating to the alleged account."

Since the last payment was suppossedly in 2008 yes, this would fall within Idahos 5 year law if I signed anything or 4 years if Verbal.

You said supposedly. Do you know the date of your last activity on the account?

There are samples of answers to complaints on this site. They may provide you with some useful information. Here's the link:

http://www.debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/forums/showthread.php?t=252142

[wmcl]

Thank you so kindly. We just went ahead and filed it yesterday and sent with certified mail and receipt return to the lawyer. But why in the world would this lawyer go out of his way to make it look like these separate identities owned it and like he was not involved until the legal recourse?

[donqII]

Thank you so kindly. We just went ahead and filed it yesterday and sent with certified mail and receipt return to the lawyer. But why in the world would this lawyer go out of his way to make it look like these separate identities owned it and like he was not involved until the legal recourse?

I am finding this is very much becoming a normal thing for them to do.

It is a somewhat scare tactic because the more names floated out

there on as having anything to do with a single account does tend

to frighten off a lot of pro se's and they end up getting default judgments

because of this.

Possible has something to do with avoiding a fraud charge.

This may help you out when you get into the discovery end of things, as you will be able to phrase questions on the complete assignment of this account and will be able to show this fact at that point.

One admission I especially like in defendants requests to the plaintiff is...

Third admission: Admit or deny that officers of (Plaintiff bank or CA) know

and understand that attorneys who purchase evidence of debt and then file lawsuits in the

name of the original maker of the debt are committing felony fraud.

Admitted____

Denied____

So, I suspect that the attys who purchase debt, then set use a subsidiary, for lack of a better word, as the plaintiff, are striving to avoid this, otherwise

they would be naming the CC as the plaintiff.