Prosay Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 Help me out here folks .. is this language sufficient ?"SWORN DENIAL" (RE: JDB'S)SCUM SUCKERS, INC (PLAINTIFF) VSNOT A LEAST SOPHISTICATED CONSUMER, (DEFENDANT)The DEFENDANT (whomever), in this cause of action, case number ( actual case number) submits my/our SWORN DENIAL for the reasons stated below:THE DEFENDANT DENIES THAT THIS ACCOUNT IS MINE, AND IF IT IS MINE, WE SUBMIT:(1) PLAINTIFF HAS NOT SUBMITTED PROOF OF ANY ASSIGNMENT FROM THE ORIGINAL CREDITOR., AND THEREFORE NOT PROVEN THIS ACCOUNT TO BE VALID. I.E. PLAINTIFF HAS NOT SUBMITTED A VALID, PROPERLY EXECUTED, DOCUMENTED ASSIGNMENT BEARING THE SIGNATURES AND/ OR AUTHENTICATION FROM THE ORIGINAL CREDITOR in this ALLEGED ACCOUNT.FURTHERMORE, THE PLAINTIFF HAS NOT SHOWN THAT THE ORIGINAL CREDITOR IS EVEN AWARE OF THIS ASSIGNMENT, OR THAT ANY SUIT HAS BEEN FILED.(2) PLAINTIFF HAS NOT SHOWN A "VALID CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF SHOULD BE GRANTED" :I.E.... PLAINTIFF HAS NOT SHOWN "VALUABLE CONSIDERATION" PAID FOR THIS ''ALLEGED ACCOUNT" , AND THEREFORE NOT ESTABLISHED ANY ACTUAL DAMAGES OR INJURY WHICH CAN BE RE-DRESSED IN THIS COURT.THEREFORE, THE DEFENDANT PRAYS THIS COURT WILL CONSIDER THIS MATTER AND AMOUNT SHOWN ($xxxxxxxx.xx) BE CONSIDERED CONJECTURAL, HYPOTHETICAL, AND WITHOUT FOUNDATION.THE DEFENDANT( NAME) HEREBY SUBMITS MY SWORN DENIAL OF THIS CLAIM FOR THE REASONS SO STATED.DEFENDANT_____________________/ DATE:_________/____________/2011NOTARY: SIGNATURE:__________________/DATE___________/___________,2011NOTARY SEAL*************************************Folks, I realize this form is not what we are used to seeing, but a new twist might be in order !Comments will be appreciated ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BV80 Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) THE PLAINTIFF HAS NOT SHOWN THAT THE ORIGINAL CREDITOR IS EVEN AWARE OF THIS ASSIGNMENT, OR THAT ANY SUIT HAS BEEN FILED."Or that any suit has been filed" is not necessary. You know the OC sold the debt. You want that to be the case, because it's much harder for a JDB to prove ownership. Therefore, since the OC sold the debt, the OC does not have to be aware a suit has been filed. If an OC is aware a suit has been filed, then the OC is part of it.(2) PLAINTIFF HAS NOT SHOWN A "VALID CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF SHOULD BE GRANTED" :I.E.... PLAINTIFF HAS NOT SHOWN "VALUABLE CONSIDERATION" PAID FOR THIS ''ALLEGED ACCOUNT" , AND THEREFORE NOT ESTABLISHED ANY ACTUAL DAMAGES OR INJURY WHICH CAN BE RE-DRESSED IN THIS COURT.The above can be 2 different things. Proving a debt is owed is one thing. Proving how much is owed is another. Isn't there a TN statute regarding how much a JDB paid for a debt?If it were me, damages and "valuable consideration" would be #3. Also, I'd include the TN statute with it. Edited March 21, 2011 by BV80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosay Posted March 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 "Or that any suit has been filed" is not necessary. You know the OC sold the debt. You want that to be the case, because it's much harder for a JDB to prove ownership. Therefore, since the OC sold the debt, the OC does not have to be aware a suit has been filed. If an OC is aware a suit has been filed, then the OC is part of it.The above can be 2 different things. Proving a debt is owed is one thing. Proving how much is owed is another. Isn't there a TN statute regarding how much a JDB paid for a debt?If it were me, damages and "valuable consideration" would be #3. Also, I'd include the TN statute with it.Thanks BV !Actually I posted this as a generic form, not any given State code specific. But yes, the state of Tenn does have statutes in this regard, and defendants in other states should quote their own state code.I appreciate your posts, you are well informed ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts