dial001

Common Counts OC Citibank California, can I still win???

Recommended Posts

I am being sue base on Common Counts $5700. Base of the following information & facts from discovery responses, do you think OC can still prove the alleged account in court:

a-OC do not have original application bearing defendant signature. They admit destroyed.

b-OC do not have charge or purchase slip bearing defendant signature at the time of purchase. They admit destroyed.

c-OC had only one minimum payment of a check from an unknown individual not in relation with defendant from another city. I believe the payment was to keep account current until another purchase max out the available credit, then defaulted.

d-OC do not have proof of mailing statements to defendant. Unless they pull a CCP98 right before trial.

Your comments are welcome, and thanks for reading.

Dial001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and yes they are going to dump a ccp98 on at the 30 day mark. The cool thing is you can see what they usually send and tailor your ccp98 to that and dump it on them at the 33 day mark.

read the chiquita55 threads and look at the posts in my signature this will help you get ready.

the payment is an attempt to reage the account before they sell it. These mysterious payments appear out of no where I believe because they credit some money to the account and make it appear like a payment.

so get ready and follow the timeline. If you lose track of the days before trial you will lose chances to goose them procedurally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome...!

Are you certain you are being sued by the oc? Frequently junk debt buyers will make it sound like, they are the original creditor (but are not).

In response to your question, I know of at least a couple of members here (one in CA) that fought an original creditor and won. :mrgreen: It all depends on the circumstances of the case. For example, how old the debt is, what kind of proof they offer, who is representing the plaintiff, if it's limited civil case, or unlimited, etc. Which original creditor it is can also be important. Some OC's will fight and fight HARD. While others, seem to not be as vested in these cases, and don't hire the greatest legal support. Again, it depends....

Original creditors frequently keep and/or maintain better records than junk debt buyers. But it isn't always the case.

Edited by tigger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Welcome...!

Are you certain you are being sued by the oc? Frequently junk debt buyers will make it sound like, they are the original creditor (but are not).

Original creditors frequently keep and/or maintain better records than junk debt buyers. But it isn't always the case.

*** Yeah you right, the OC is Citibank, N.A. who offer CC through Zales as claim by Hunt & Henriques said they represent them, of course when ask for standing Hunt & Henriques claim privacy of client-privilidge information. Sometimes I really wornder how do we really know it is not Hunt & Henriques who is the junk buyers debt from Citibank,N.A. for little money then sue. From reading material in the forum, we can't really make them prove it because I read most judge will believe counsel when they say they represent Citibank, N.A. no proof needed.

*** Well the good news in my case is they finally admit to not having documents I requested because it is destroyed, and they only admit that after we press for it with Meet and Confer letters, else they just will us a bogus run around answer in regard to Regulation Z. Anyhow I was curious to see original application and charge slip with signature, so that we could show the judge my wife signature and license which probably show completely different person signing it since she did not sign up any account with them. Anyway I am not pressing the issue since they admit destroyed already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's try this another way. Does Hunt & Henriques "allege" they own the debt or are they alleging they are hired to collect on behalf of Citibank?

Type out exactly word for word what is says for Plaintiff.

Part of your post will sound like this is a junk debt buyer and then the next sentence will sound like it's an original creditor suing. I can't tell and how you fight is like night and day depending on if this is a junk debt buyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's try this another way. Does Hunt & Henriques "allege" they own the debt or are they alleging they are hired to collect on behalf of Citibank?

*** Per phone conversation, Hunt & Henriques said they are hired to collect on behalf of Citibank. So far all discovery responses are from somebody working for Citibank name Pam Kline. I already requested Pam Cline information in my discovery request, but no answer yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for providing a bit more detail than before. It's helpful. :mrgreen:

Ok, it sounds like you are not being sued by the Original Creditor. The suit was initiated by Hunt and Henriques who have purchased your debt from Citibank.

In answer to your original question, yes--Hunt and Henriques can be beat.

The Pam Kline employee of Citibank is called an affiant. In other words, an alleged witness who was allegedly employed by Citibank who can attest to the preparation and validity of any records they provide.

But we may be getting ahead of ourselves in even discussing that information w/you. Cases have a very specific timeline and an order of steps one must take during the course of the case. You can not skip steps, or leave steps out. Court is rules and protocol. Any failure or deviation from those rules and protocol only hurts you and your case.

For example:

1. you get a summons.

2. Then you file a response to the summons, w/the court clerks--sending copies to the plaintiff and their attorneys, etc.

3. Then as the defendant, you ask for discovery.

I'm concerned because you are asking questions pertaining to discovery, but we have no idea where are you in terms of the timeline of your case. If you've even filed an answer, yet? Forgive me if you have already and just haven't shared. I'm also concerned because you were not aware who was suing you (the oc versus a junk debt buyer) and this is information you need to be aware of, in terms of how you handle your case.

Also, my reasoning in asking these questions is this is all information we need to know to be able to best assist you, with your case. You can ask for evidence immediately after obtaining a summons--but depending on how you respond, you could hurt your case.

If you can, please clarify and share thorougly. Please be specific.

If you haven't already, please review this link. It's information members here need to best assist you...

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/forums/there-lawyer-house/242744-qs-answer-when-posting-forum-please-read.html

:mrgreen:

Edited by tigger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hunt & Henriques is a law firm, not a junk debt buyer. It appears that they are suing on behalf of Citibank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My case got dismissed without prejudice today 30 days prior to trial.

I want to thanks those that read my thread and contributed in helping with discovery and my learning the law along the way.....AGAIN THANKS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our favorite creditor gave up. Watch out, they can file again or sell this to a jdb. Ya never know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My case got dismissed without prejudice today 30 days prior to trial.

I want to thanks those that read my thread and contributed in helping with discovery and my learning the law along the way.....AGAIN THANKS

Make sure you request your costs. You are entitled to recover your filing fee, etc. Here is the form: 2031.230. http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/mc010.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.