Legal Recovery Law Offices - responding to Request for Admsssion

[nojobnomoney]

I am being sued by Legal Recovery Law Offices (Capital One) and am currently answering their "Request for Admission". I'm in California.

The questions are (I typed them exactly as shown):

1. I applied for and received the credit stated in the plaintiff's complaint from.

2. I used the credit stated in the plaintiff's complaint

3. I understood that using the credit, I agreed to the terms and conditions set forth in a written agreement by and between myself and.

4. The credit terms include a provision that the prevailing party in a dispute is entitled to attorney's fees.

5. The credit terms include a provision for calculating interest.

6. I received bill statement from for the account stated in the plaintiff's complaint having last four digits XXXX.

7. The billing statements indicate the amount of interest being charged.

8. I failed to make payments on the account stated in the plaintiff's complaint having the last four digits XXXX in the amount set forth in the plaintiff's complaint.

9. I have made a payment toward the balance owed on the account stated in the plaintiff's complaint having last four digits XXXX within the four years prior to 11/10/2010.

My response is to deny with the following for each question:

"Defendant states that after a reasonable inquiry, the information known or readily obtainable by him/her is insuffient to enable him/her to admit or deny this request, and on that basis denies same".

Will my response be sufficient for all questions?

Thank you anyone that can help. In the last 3 1/2 years I've worked 10 months, trying to keep a roof over my head and get back to work fulltime but this economy is horrible.

Edited April 10, 2012 by nojobnomoney

[admin]

We need more info, but I am assuming you received nada as far as proof of the account.

1. I applied for and received the credit stated in the plaintiff's complaint from.

Objection. Defendant has no way of determining the meaning of "the credit" due to lack of documentation provided. Calls for speculation on the part of Defendant. Request is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible.

2. I used the credit stated in the plaintiff's complaint

Objection. Calls for admission of matter objected to in admission #1.

3. I understood that using the credit, I agreed to the terms and conditions set forth in a written agreement by and between myself and.

Objection. Calls for admission of matter objected to in admission #1.

4. The credit terms include a provision that the prevailing party in a dispute is entitled to attorney's fees.

Objection. Calls for speculation on the part of Defendant who has not seen the "credit terms". Request is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible.

5. The credit terms include a provision for calculating interest.

Objection. Calls for admission of matter objected to in admission #4.

6. I received bill statement from for the account stated in the plaintiff's complaint having last four digits XXXX.

Denied. Plaintiff has failed to provide proof of such delivery of statements.

7. The billing statements indicate the amount of interest being charged.

Objection. Calls for speculation on part of Defendant as Defendant has never seen the referred to statements.

8. I failed to make payments on the account stated in the plaintiff's complaint having the last four digits XXXX in the amount set forth in the plaintiff's complaint.

Denied.

9. I have made a payment toward the balance owed on the account stated in the plaintiff's complaint having last four digits XXXX within the four years prior to 11/10/2010.

Denied.

Again, I am assuming there is a lack of documentation/details in the complaint or documentation.

Edited April 10, 2012 by admin

[nojobnomoney]

Yes, received nothing so far as proof. I believe they are fishing for me to answer with admit so they don't have to do any homework.

Isn't this all about them proving that I have this account and have incurred the costs?

Thank you so much for your response - helps me so much!

[legaleagle]

Admin, your answers to 8 and 9 contradict each other. 8 is a reverse trick question, very effective. Your answer has him denying that he failed to make payments. In other words, he made payments. 9 then has him denying making any payments.

[usagi555]

Admin, your answers to 8 and 9 contradict each other. 8 is a reverse trick question, very effective. Your answer has him denying that he failed to make payments. In other words, he made payments. 9 then has him denying making any payments.

Yes. I would personally admit to that one as well. If they try one of their little gotchya games over that, OP will have to remind them that he has failed to make payments on the attorney's credit card accounts too.

[nojobnomoney]

Thank you, I understand your response for #8 & 9.

[debtorshusband]

In California, Requests for Admissions cannot be compound. That is, they must be just one, single request. In #1, they ask if you "applied" and "received." In my wife's case, the first RfA was very similar, askiing if she "applied" and "opened."

Here was what our attorney put:

Objection: Responding Party objects to this request in that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and burdensome in that it is not limited in time, nor is it limited to the subject matter of this litigation. Responding party further objects on the ground that the request is compound in that it is seeking two separate requests in violation of the Code of Civil Procedure.

My wife's 2nd RfA was, "A MasterCard was issued to you by xxxxx with account number xxxxx.

Attorney's response: Responding party lacks sufficient information and belief in order to admit or deny this request and on that basis denies same.

My wife's 3rd RFA was, "You used the credit card and made charges and made payments to the account."

Attorney's response: Objection. Responding Party objects to this request on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible in that Responding Party has to speculate as to the meaning of "the credit card" and "the account." Responding Party further objects on the ground that it is compound in that it is seeking three separate requests in violation of the Code of Civil Procudure.

It goes on, but nearly every request was objected to. Amongst the terms whose meaning would have to be speculated to were "monthly statements," "on the account," "Cardholder Agreement," "for this account," and "last payment."

If you think this sounds dodgy, wait until you get the plaintiff's response to your Discovery requests!

Good luck,

DH

[Coltfan1972]

If you think this sounds dodgy, wait until you get the plaintiff's response to your Discovery requests!

Exactly, I had to file three motions to compel for this one request.

Please state how long you have been collecting or attempting to collect debts in Arkansas.

Now they were unlicensed, even though they said they did not need a license (you know the law does not apply to them usual argument), but that request took three motions to compel and a very, very angry judge before they would give me a straight answer. Of course that straight answer was an offer to settle.

So I agree, don't feel like you are being evasive, because wait until you get their responses.

[usagi555]

Discussions like this are helpful, and not just for the participants.

Ditto on the evasive responses from the other side. It's like they can't believe that somebody expects them to bother with actually proving their case. When I asked them what procedures they had in place to find and/or correct errors in their records, they objected claiming that I was asking for proprietary and irrelevant information. Gee, whether or not your records are reliable is not relevant? Excellent! I guess nothing will be admissible then!

[nojobnomoney]

Thank you all - my head is spinning with all the terms and responses. I will answer the interrogatories with my own dance of responses. Thanks for all the information, greatful for all of you taking the time to help others.

[Coltfan1972]

USAGI, Got you beat !!! They objected when I asked for a complete chain of custody for the debt, the bill of sales, and the assignments (2nd in line JDB) Drum Roll Please.........

IRRELEVANT !!!

So of course I joined in with them in agreeing they were irrelevant. And if anybody ever wonders why I told the judge I owed every penny, just not to them? I had those gems just dying to whip them out.

I don't think they even read the requests and just start in with the b.s. objections.

[usagi555]

USAGI, Got you beat !!! They objected when I asked for a complete chain of custody for the debt, the bill of sales, and the assignments (2nd in line JDB) Drum Roll Please.........

IRRELEVANT !!!

So of course I joined in with them in agreeing they were irrelevant. And if anybody ever wonders why I told the judge I owed every penny, just not to them? I had those gems just dying to whip them out.

I don't think they even read the requests and just start in with the b.s. objections.

I can't beat that, especially considering that they actually read my requests. They didn't read the definitions though. Go figure.

They also objected when I asked who the natural person who authorized the suit against me was, claiming that it was irrelevant to the core issue. Idiots. That's a potential witness. But, actually answering that question honestly would have likely been tantamount to admitting all sorts of violations of NM law and the FDCPA.

[chrisbbadd]

USAGI, Got you beat !!! They objected when I asked for a complete chain of custody for the debt, the bill of sales, and the assignments (2nd in line JDB) Drum Roll Please.........

IRRELEVANT !!!

So of course I joined in with them in agreeing they were irrelevant. And if anybody ever wonders why I told the judge I owed every penny, just not to them? I had those gems just dying to whip them out.

I don't think they even read the requests and just start in with the b.s. objections.

I know of no time that a junk debt buyer has ever provided a legitimate bill of sale. I'd never tell a judge I owed any entity anything though. The only times I was ever around a junk debt buyer suit, the junk debt buyer did not want to pursue the matter any longer after getting hit with a counterclaim.

[BV80]

I know of no time that a junk debt buyer has ever provided a legitimate bill of sale. I'd never tell a judge I owed any entity anything though. The only times I was ever around a junk debt buyer suit, the junk debt buyer did not want to pursue the matter any longer after getting hit with a counterclaim.

Unfortunately, there is case law in which a JDB's bill of sale was ruled to be sufficient proof of ownership. It's not sufficient in every court, but it has happened.

[legaleagle]

I know of no time that a junk debt buyer has ever provided a legitimate bill of sale.

Apparently you didn' t read my response to this when you brought it up last week. It took me all of three minutes to find a case where a JDB prevailed after providing admissible evidence in the form of a valid bill of sale.

[calawyer]

Admin, your answers to 8 and 9 contradict each other. 8 is a reverse trick question, very effective. Your answer has him denying that he failed to make payments. In other words, he made payments. 9 then has him denying making any payments.

It is actually not a double negative. Think of it this way, do you want to admit that you "failed to make payments"?

The evil in this request (as DH pointed out) is that it is compound. Broadly construed, it actually seeks three admissions:

1. You failed to make payments;

2. The account number XXXX in plaintiff's complaint is your account; and

3. The "amount set forth in plaintiff's complaint" accurately reflects the amount due.

I think DH's objection is a good one. I would only add at the end something like: Based upon the foregoing objections, defendant responds as follows:

DENIED.

Or, sometimes when it is really vague and you can't undestand it, you can say:

Based upon the foregoing objections, and, as defendant understands this request, defendant responds as follows:

DENIED.

[Coltfan1972]

I know of no time that a junk debt buyer has ever provided a legitimate bill of sale.

Apparently you didn' t read my response to this when you brought it up last week. It took me all of three minutes to find a case where a JDB prevailed after providing admissible evidence in the form of a valid bill of sale.

Don't know what thread you are referencing, but in this one-

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/forums/there-lawyer-house/313199-mcm-notice-new-ownership-prelegal-review.html

He/She claimed that under the FDCPA producing proof of ownership is required as part of DV and if not provided is an iron clad FDCPA violation.

Of course when I asked for one case in the whole United States that backed that statement, none was provided.

Any evidence not properly objected can be admissible. I had not only properly objected, but asked for it via discovery, so I had zero chance of being held liable, so I decided to have fun with the other sides attorney.

[legaleagle]

Don't know what thread you are referencing, but in this one-

I posted this in one thread where ChrisBBad challenged you to prove that a JDB ever won a case based on standing, If they would stick to one thread, it would be easier for all of us.