121xGigawatts Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 I filed my answer to the suit using the standing defense that Midland has not proven they are the legal owners of the alleged debt. Their attorney P&P, send a Civil Action Interrogatories and Request for Admissions that I need to answer within 30 days. The way they word the request appears to be intentionally misleading. They switch out the Plaintiff (Midland Funding LLC,current assignee, XX, Original Creditor) with the original creditor depending on the question. I assume this is standard practice in an effort to get people to admit the debt is owned by Midland as they list the original creditor under Plaintiff and Midland as current assignee. Most of the questions on the RFA are whether I owe the debt to the original creditor, they list the full account number on each, those I know how to answer, but there is one questions I am not sure how to answer. 1. You agreed to pay attorney's fees in the event the account which is the subject matter of this suit was referred to an attorney for collection? I am guessing this is part of most OC credit agreements, but does this make me liable for any fees going forward in this suit? On the CAI, I am concerned with the following questions: Plaintiff is listed as:Midland funding LLC Current Assignee, (XX, Original Creditor) Do you admit you owe the plaintiff the amount of $6xxx.xx on the account number X as set forth in the plaintiff's complaint?a) If you state that you do not owe the amount set forth in the plaintiff's complaint, set forth the total amount that the defendant admits owing on ( OC listed, not Midland) on account number X.b ) If your answer to this question is in the negative, state fully and in detail your reasons therefore. I know the answer is NO, I do not owe the plaintiff because they have not proven they are the legal owners of the debt. By answering A and B, does that give the original question any validation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racecar Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 If Midland sent you discovery requests post them up leaving out any of your personal information. http://philipstern.com/ He is a NJ attorney read every thing on his sitehttp://philipstern.com/resources.htmlhttp://www.philipstern.com/files/http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:5R25Qxx5r78J:www.judiciary.state.nj.us/rules/r4-22.htm+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racecar Posted September 14, 2013 Report Share Posted September 14, 2013 Do you admit you owe the plaintiff the amount of $6xxx.xx on the account number X as set forth in the plaintiff's complaint? Response: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry was made to respond to plaintiff's discovery request, The information known or readily obtainable by the Defendant is insufficient to enable a response to the request. Defendant denies the request until such time as sufficient information is known to make a different response. Discovery is ongoing and defendant will supplement as additional information becomes available. a) If you state that you do not owe the amount set forth in the plaintiff's complaint, set forth the total amount that the defendant admits owing on (OC listed,not Midland) on account number X. Response: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry was made to respond to plaintiff's discovery request, The information known or readily obtainable by the Defendant is insufficient to enable a response to the request. Defendant denies owing plaintiff any money at all until such time as sufficient information is known to make a different response. Discovery is ongoing and defendant will supplement as additional information becomes available and leaves plaintiff to its proofs. b ) If your answer to this question is in the negative, state fully and in detail your reasons therefore. Response: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry was made to respond to plaintiff's discovery request, The information known or readily obtainable by the Defendant is insufficient to enable a response to the request. Defendant denies owing plaintiff any money at all until such time as sufficient information is known to make a different response. Discovery is ongoing and defendant will supplement as additional information becomes available and leaves plaintiff to its proofs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
121xGigawatts Posted September 20, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2013 If Midland sent you discovery requests post them up leaving out any of your personal information. http://philipstern.com/ He is a NJ attorney read every thing on his sitehttp://philipstern.com/resources.htmlhttp://www.philipstern.com/files/http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:5R25Qxx5r78J:www.judiciary.state.nj.us/rules/r4-22.htm+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=usThanks so much for your response and links! The only thing I received so far was the Interrogatories and Request for Admissions. I just received a letter yesterday too from P&P asking to call their "Legal Resolutions" Team to discuss a possible settlement. Should I file a discovery request now that I submitted an answer? I have seen some information that requesting discovery after filing an answer is not beneficial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
121xGigawatts Posted September 20, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2013 Also, P&P sent me a letter on another account that I sent a DV back on. They just responded with a credit card statement from 2009 and the credit card agreement stating it is sufficient evidence to prove the debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BV80 Posted September 20, 2013 Report Share Posted September 20, 2013 I have seen some information that requesting discovery after filing an answer is not beneficial. @121xGigawatts Usually, you can only make discovery requests after you've filed your answer. Carefully read your court's rules of civil procedure to make sure discovery requests are allowed in your court. If they are allowed, follow the rules to the letter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Amos Posted September 21, 2013 Report Share Posted September 21, 2013 I have seen some information that requesting discovery after filing an answer is not beneficial. I would be very careful of much of the information you see. I would also think that discovery is obviously allowed in your court (since they sent you discovery). I would answer their discovery request to you, and I would want to send Request for Production of Documents of my own, for them to answer. Good Luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Amos Posted September 21, 2013 Report Share Posted September 21, 2013 They just responded with a credit card statement from 2009 and the credit card agreement stating it is sufficient evidence to prove the debt. Most of the time it probably is enough to prove their case. But that is because most people don't object and fight back. You have to become one of the 5% who will fight them every step of the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BV80 Posted September 21, 2013 Report Share Posted September 21, 2013 @121xGigawatts Also, P&P sent me a letter on another account that I sent a DV back on. They just responded with a credit card statement from 2009 and the credit card agreement stating it is sufficient evidence to prove the debt. They validated the debt. According to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo: "Verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed." Other circuit courts of appeals that have addressed the issue have agreed with the Chaudhry ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
debtzapper Posted September 22, 2013 Report Share Posted September 22, 2013 Court discusses what Plaintiff must prove to win a credit card case http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12347089951873888061&q=credit+card&hl=en&as_sdt=4,31&as_ylo=2012 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
121xGigawatts Posted October 1, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 Thank you everyone for the help, My wife is 9 months pregnant and she is due in the next couple weeks, so it is challenging to find the time to do everything. All of your information has been greatly appreciated! I am going to answer their discovery and file my own Request for Production of Documents as Anon Amos suggested. I will post the results one I receive a response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
121xGigawatts Posted October 1, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 @121xGigawatts They validated the debt. According to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo: "Verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed." Other circuit courts of appeals that have addressed the issue have agreed with the Chaudhry ruling. So they only validated the alleged debt exists not their standing to collect the alleged debt right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Amos Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 @121xGigawatts They validated that they have enough to make an allegation and file a suit. They have not validated the alleged debt is correct, or that they have (or can get) ADMISSIBLE evidence to prove it, or that they have standing. They will depend on your help to win their case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BV80 Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 So they only validated the alleged debt exists not their standing to collect the alleged debt right? Outside of a court action, they don't have to prove standing just to collect. IF a consumer decides to pay a JDB, it's up to the consumer to determine if the JDB is the correct party to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
debtzapper Posted October 1, 2013 Report Share Posted October 1, 2013 http://www.philipstern.com/Cases.html See Stern's case "Midland Funding v. Williams" for more about standing to sue 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts