Jump to content

Coming from debt consolidation to a summons


Recommended Posts

In 2009, before I had my 1st daughter, I had over $40,000 in credit card bills from the time I was in undergrad, graduate school, and charged basic necessities, etc. I decided to start with a debt consolidation company and entered 4 different credit cards into the debt management company. Over the last 2 years, I made payments of over $800/mo to set aside for this company to negotiate a "settlement" with these companies. The first two were settled, as was the third. I have now received a "summons" from the fourth company and my answer is due in 15 days. The forums I have read here have been very helpful, but I am concerned that because my debt settlement company has already tried to contact this JDB since the summons was received and received a "joke" of an offer (basically the entire amount), will the same responses that have been effective for other individuals be continue to be applicable to my situation?

Here is the info requested:

1. Plaintiff: Persolve

2. Law Firm: Attorney: xxxxxxx

3. Amount: under $20,000

4. Original creditor: US Bank

5. I know I was sued because of a summons

6. Someone handed it to someone who lives in my house as he was leaving for work

7. I believe this is legal in CA

8. I did not personally have correspondence with Persolve

9. CA, San Bernardino County

10. Account last paid in Feb 2009

11. I don't think this is out of SOL

12. Status of the case: court date was given

13. I have not yet disputed this debt with anyone

14. I did not submit a debt validation request

Again, the forums have been helpful, but I want to make sure that how i answer this summons will still be okay since I have had my debt consolidation company call them. Also, since the debt consolidation company can no longer really do much for me in terms of "negotiating" anything, should I end the relationship with the company and pull the little money that I have saved in my special account back out of the program? Thank you!!

Edited by Kelela510
wanted to make the names less specific and the title more specific
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure others will chime in with a lot more knowledge then I, but I do have a question regarding your situation.

You mentioned that the last payment was in February of 2009. In California the SOL (Statute of Limitations) is 4 years; however, some here argue that if your credit card agreement has a "choice of law" provision, it usually says that their home state's law applies. Now, if the "choice of law" is Delaware, then the SOL is three years and you would be beyond the SOL.

I'd be interested in hearing what those who know a lot more than I have to say about this issue.

Good luck, these people here are very helpful,

rt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That does not surprise me, Persolve will only ever take 75% of the balance plus interest (usually a ridiculous amount) and fees.

Per`solve´

v. t. 1. To pay wholly, or fully.

Can you post what you said in your answer? You should be okay, I believe (and someone can correct me if I am wrong) that trying to settle in the past can not be used against you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure others will chime in with a lot more knowledge then I, but I do have a question regarding your situation.

You mentioned that the last payment was in February of 2009. In California the SOL (Statute of Limitations) is 4 years; however, some here argue that if your credit card agreement has a "choice of law" provision, it usually says that their home state's law applies. Now, if the "choice of law" is Delaware, then the SOL is three years and you would be beyond the SOL.

I'd be interested in hearing what those who know a lot more than I have to say about this issue.

Good luck, these people here are very helpful,

rt

There was just a ruling in Oregon regarding choice of law. Expect JDBs to be citing the case often now because it makes matters much murkier after the debt has changed hands. This case is the subject of an article on insideARM, so the industry is acutely aware of it.

Oregon Court of Appeals says consumers with unpaid credit-card debt aren't off the hook unless six years have passed and no lawsuits are filed | OregonLive.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was just a ruling in Oregon regarding choice of law. Expect JDBs to be citing the case often now because it makes matters much murkier after the debt has changed hands. This case is the subject of an article on insideARM, so the industry is acutely aware of it.

Oregon Court of Appeals says consumers with unpaid credit-card debt aren't off the hook unless six years have passed and no lawsuits are filed | OregonLive.com

Very informative, so JDB actually got something good from the FDCPA. It only applies to JDB not OC since they could sue you where the contract was made and that is the state of the choice of law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was just a ruling in Oregon regarding choice of law. Expect JDBs to be citing the case often now because it makes matters much murkier after the debt has changed hands. This case is the subject of an article on insideARM, so the industry is acutely aware of it.

Oregon Court of Appeals says consumers with unpaid credit-card debt aren't off the hook unless six years have passed and no lawsuits are filed | OregonLive.com

Well that's too bad... Let's all hope what happens in Oregon STAYS in Oregon... 8-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

US Bank appears to be US Bancorp in Minnesota, where the SOL is 6 years. This is a student credit card type of company. These are the hardest to defend; an OC who is going to come to court and say they fronted you XXXX so you could complete your education, now you don't want to pay. What is your defense? Are you working?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are the specifics of the summons. Can you please tell me if my "answer" is appropriate and what should be changed?

Complaint for money based on:

1) Open Book Account

2) Common Counts; and

3) Account Stated

Principal Damages Claimed: $xx,xxx.xx (< $20,000)

Plaintiff xxxxx, doing business as xxxxxxx, complains and alleges as follows:

First Cause of Action

(Open Book Account Against all Defendants)

1. At all times mentioned herein xxxxx was, and is, a limited liability company formed and maintained under and pursuant to the laws of the State of Delaware, and at all times herein mentioned, xxxx has complied with the fictitious business name laws and is doing business under the fictitious name of xxxxxxxxx duly authorized and licensed to do business in Los Angeles County

2. At all times herein mentioned Plaintiff has complied with all licensing requirements as a licensed collection agency as authorized by the laws of the State of CA

3. Prior to the commencement of this action, the plaintiff's assignor, xxxxxx, the successor in interes to xxxxxxx, for valuable consideration, assigned, transferred, and set over to Plaintiff, the within indebtedness of the defendants and Plaintiff is now the holder of the assigned rights in its chose in action of said claims

4. This cause of action is being brought in this jurisdiction and venue due to the fact that defendant(s) currently reside(s) here

5. the true names and capacities of defendants DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff at this time, who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each Defendant names as a DOES is responsible for each and every obligation hereinafter set forth

6. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each Defendant named in this Complaint, was at all times herein mentioned, and now is, the agent and employee of each of the other Defendants herein, and was at all such times acting within the course and scope of said agency and employment

7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that at all times herein mentioned, the Defendant(s), and each of them, is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that the Plaintiff's damages, as hereinafter alleged, were proximately caused by the acts of such Defendant(s), and each of them.

8. The within action is not subject to the provisions of Section 2981, et seq.. (Rees-Levering Act) and Section 1801, et seq., (Unruh Act) of the Civil Code of the State of CA

9. Within the last four years, defendants and each of them, became indebted to xxxx on an open book account per California Code of Civil Procedures section 337a, in the sum of $xx,xxx.xx

10. No part of said sum has been paid since on or about xxxxx 2009, although demand of full payment has been made. There is now due and owing to Plaintiff, by virtue of the assignment alleged in paragraph 3 of the complaint, the unpaid sum of $xx,xxx.xx, together with interest thereon at the legal rate of 10% per annum from the charge off date of xxxxx 2009.

Second Cause of Action

(Common Counts Against all Defendants)

11. Plantiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations for paragraphs 1 through 10, inclusive, as though set forth at length herein

12. Within the last four years, Defendants, and each of them became indebted to XXXX in the principal amount of $xx,xxx.xx for money advanced, lent, paid, laid out and/or expended to said Defendants, and each of them, and/or for the benefit of Defendants, and each of them, at the specific request and/or direction of Defendants, and each of them.

13. No part of said sum has been paid since on or about xxxxx 2009, although demand for full payment has been made. there is now due and owing to the Plaintiff, by virtue of the assignment alleged in paragraph 3 of this Complaint, the unpaid sum of $xx,xxx.xx, together with interest thereon at the legal rate of 10% per annum from the charge off date of xxxxxx 2009.

Third Cause of Action

(Account Stated Against all Defendants)

14. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates herein by this reference all allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 13 inclusive, as though set forth at length herein.

15. Within the last four years, an account was stated by and between xxxxxxxx and Defendants, and each of them, and it was agreed that the principal sum stated of $xx,xxx.xx was due and owing.

16. No part of said sum has been paid since on or about xxxx 2009, although demand for full payment has been made. There is now due and owing to Plaintiff, by virtue of the assignment alleged in paragraph 3 of this complaint, the unpaid sum of $xx,xxx.xx, together with interest thereon at the legal rate of 10% per annum from the charge off date of xxxxx 2009.

Wherefore, the Plaintiff prays for judgment agains Defendants, and each of them, as follows

As to all causes of action:

1. For damages in the principal sum of $xx,xxx.xx;

2. For interest thereon at the legal rate of 10%, from the charge off date of xxxxx 2009

3. For reasonable attorney's fees according to contract and/or estate

4. For costs of suit incurred herein; and

5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

My answer is included in the next post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Defendant, appearing pro se, for its Response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Request for Admissions and Interrogatories states as follows: All Answers correspond to the numbered paragraphs of the Complaint. All allegations of the Complaint are denied unless expressly admitted herein.

REQUEST ONE DENIED - INTERROGATORY ONE: Defendant at this time does not have sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation contained therein, and leaves the Plaintiff to provide proof. Defendant demands strict proof thereof.

REQUEST TWO DENIED - INTERROGATORY ONE: Defendant at this time does not have sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation contained therein, and leaves the Plaintiff to provide proof. Defendant demands strict proof thereof.

REQUEST THREE DENIED - INTERROGATORY THREE: Defendant is at this time without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation contained therein, and leaves the Plaintiff to provide proof. Defendant demands strict proof thereof.

REQUEST FOUR ADMITTED

REQUEST FIVE DENIED - INTERROGATORY FIVE: This request calls for admission of matter defendant has denied and thus it is improper.

REQUEST SIX DENIED - INTERROGATORY SIX: This request calls for admission of matter defendant has denied and thus it is improper.

REQUEST SEVEN DENIED - INTERROGATORY SEVEN: This request calls for admission of matter defendant has denied and thus it is improper.

REQUEST EIGHT DENIED - INTERROGATORY EIGHT: This request calls for admission of matter defendant has denied and thus it is improper

.

REQUEST NINE DENIED - INTERROGATORY NINE: This request calls for admission of matter defendant has denied and thus it is improper.

REQUEST TEN DENIED - INTERROGATORY TEN: Defendant at this time does not have sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation contained therein, and leaves the Plaintiff to provide proof. Defendant demands strict proof thereof.

REQUEST ELEVEN DENIED - INTERROGATORY ELEVEN: Defendant at this time does not have sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation contained therein, and leaves the Plaintiff to provide proof. Defendant demands strict proof thereof.

REQUEST TWELVE DENIED - INTERROGATORY TWELVE: Defendant at this time does not have sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation contained therein, and leaves the Plaintiff to provide proof. Defendant demands strict proof thereof.

REQUEST THIRTEEN DENIED - INTERROGATORY THIRTEEN: Defendant at this time does not have sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation contained therein, and leaves the Plaintiff to provide proof. Defendant demands strict proof thereof.

REQUEST FOURTEEN DENIED - INTERROGATORY FOURTEEN: This request calls for admission of matter defendant has denied and thus it is improper.

REQUEST FIFTEEN DENIED - INTERROGATORY FIFTEEN: This request calls for admission of matter defendant has denied and thus it is improper.

REQUEST SIXTEEN DENIED - INTERROGATORY SIXTEEN: Defendant at this time does not have sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation contained therein, and leaves the Plaintiff to provide proof. Defendant demands strict proof thereof.

WILMA FLINSTONE

By: _______________________________

Wilma A. Flinstone, Defendant

1000 Rubble Street

Bedrock, St. 10001

999-999-99999

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the above documents were served on all parties in the above cause by depositing an original and one copy in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, in an envelope addressed to: LAW OFFICES address to law office etc…. Wilmington, Delaware 00000, on 1/1/00.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was alittle surprised that they were not trying to collect above 10% and then I remember that Persolve is being sued for trying to collect high interest. I believe everything in your answer is good....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.