Recommended Posts

Okay, so here is my second notice to admit which I have to have done before I go away for a month on Friday. Please let me know any feedback.

DO you admit that:

SCREW YOU SHILL

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6. You received monthly statements concerning a Citi Platinum Select Card issued by CITIBANK, NA, Account Number xxxxxxxx specifying previous balance, new purchases, payments, finance charges, minimum payments and new balance?

ANS: Objection. This request is improper as t is overly broad and unduly burdensome.

 

 

How is that broad and overly burdensome? 

 

7. You promised to pay for purchases made on a Citi Platinum Select Card issued by CITIBANK, NA, Account Number xxxxxxxx?

ANS: Objection. This admission is improper as it calls for legal conclusions.

8. You did not contest the amounts reflected on the monthly statements within the 90 days provided by law?

ANS: Objection. This admission is improper as it calls for legal conclusions.

 

 

Those objections are incomplete.  What's the legal conclusion?

 

Also, you failed to include a denial with the above 3 admissions.  If they are to be denied, you need to include something like "without waiving the foregoing objection, defendant denies". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@BV80...1) which one's did I not deny? You have to deny even when you object?

2) I put overly broad and unduly burdensome, frankly because I had to get that reply in there, as P & P had the nerve to write that same response to my very direct, easily answered interrogatory (of which there were but 5). I just wanted the chance to be as annoying as they have been to me. What's a better reply?

3)Same goes for the "Objection. This admission is improper as it calls for legal conclusions". Literally, to my interrogatory "Provide dates constituting proof that the statute of limitations on this debt has not expired", I got the reply "Objection. This interrogatory is improper as it calls for legal conclusions". Additionally, I asked the attorney about there lack of answering that interrogatory when I had my second conference and he said "we don't need to answer that, it's a legal conclusion" (sic), and I replied to him that it's a legal conclusion his firm should have arrived at before commencing a lawsuit against me....so, at least inasmuch as it seems incomplete, it is almost verbatim the entirety of their response, with the one word changed from interrogatory to admission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@
 

 

1) which one's did I not deny? You have to deny even when you object?

 

 

I would deny even when there is an objection because you don't take chances with admissions.
 

 

2) I put overly broad and unduly burdensome, frankly because I had to get that reply in there, as P & P had the nerve to write that same response to my very direct, easily answered interrogatory (of which there were but 5). I just wanted the chance to be as annoying as they have been to me. What's a better reply?

 

 

Overly broad means that the request is not specific.   If one has had a credit card account, unless the OC never sent cc statements, you know what a billing statement looks like.

 

I saw this response from an attorney in response to a similar request:

 

Defendant is searching his records and will respond if any records are located.  Without waiving the foregoing, Defendant has insufficient information to admit or deny and, therefore, denies.

 

3)Same goes for the "Objection. This admission is improper as it calls for legal conclusions". Literally, to my interrogatory "Provide dates constituting proof that the statute of limitations on this debt has not expired", I got the reply "Objection. This interrogatory is improper as it calls for legal conclusions". Additionally, I asked the attorney about there lack of answering that interrogatory when I had my second conference and he said "we don't need to answer that, it's a legal conclusion" (sic), and I replied to him that it's a legal conclusion his firm should have arrived at before commencing a lawsuit against me....so, at least inasmuch as it seems incomplete, it is almost verbatim the entirety of their response, with the one word changed from interrogatory to admission.

 

 

I don't agree with their response to you.  The only way I can see that your request could call for a legal conclusion would be because of the use of the word "proof". 

 

You asked for dates.  Your request could have been more specific by asking for the date of last payment, but I just don't see how it could call for a legal conclusion.

 

Have they provided any credit card statements?  If so, do those statements show any charges and/or payments?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with their response to you.  The only way I can see that your request could call for a legal conclusion would be because of the use of the word "proof". 

 

You asked for dates.  Your request could have been more specific by asking for the date of last payment, but I just don't see how it could call for a legal conclusion.

 

Have they provided any credit card statements?  If so, do those statements show any charges and/or payments?

 

I actually do not disagree with their response. Asking for them to prove that SOL has not past is not their responsibility. SOL is an affirmative defense that the party invoking has to prove. Had the request been to provide documentation evidencing the date of last payment on the account, that would have been acceptable.

 

@ Stick with: After a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with this request the information known or readily obtainable by the defendant is insufficient to enable a response to the request. Therefore, defendant denies the request until such time as sufficient information is known to make a different response. For your responses to 6-8.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Spikey

 

I agree with your assessment.  That's what I meant when I said that the word "proof" could constitute a legal conclusion.  It's also why I said his request could have been more specific by simply asking for the date of last payment.

 

The attorney was probably correct, but it was still snarky.  They could have provided a date.  (It's my opinion that one should be able to object to "snarkiness"  :-) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, guys. I amended my answers with your suggestions.

So, now I have to fashion my own notice to admit.

I am wondering how to write a question/admission that cuts apart the "evidence" they sent me as part of my demand for chain of title. They sent me a "bill of sale and assignment" from OC to JDB1 (they rep JDB2) and it is a pathetic attempt to look official, IMHO. It is supposedly from Citibank, but any idiot (like myself) can look at this document and see it is not created by Citibank. How do I phrase an admission to say, essentially: "this bill of sale and assignment was created by Citibank" (or the inverse). Also, this original bill of sale excludes my name, account number, SS number, amount owed. The thing could well have been written for an apple, for god's sakes. How can I write out a question that gets them to admit their "bill of sale and assignment", supposedly from Citibank, has no identifying information as to link it to myself? I want to make sure they can't object to it because they didn't like the wording.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@

 

Based upon the basic meaning of the term, Bills of Sale are "official".  It's the details that matter.  :-)

 

I'm assuming that you've sent a request for production of documents.  Are you allowed to send a 2nd set?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ If you ask them to admit that their bill of sale is a fake, they're going to just deny. The only way an admission like that pays off for you is if they fail to answer in time and you motion to have them admitted due to their failure to answer. And you might as well just ask them to admit that you don't own them any money as that's a case killer if admitted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@BV80, I've sent interrogatories. I've not yet sent a notice to admit. In NY, one cannot send a demand for bill of particulars at the same time as interrogatories. I did ask for documents within my interrogatories, aka "proof". They (plaintiff) have sent now a 2nd (supplemental) notice to admit. I want them essentially to admit their documents are crap and don't meet the standard for proof of standing. IS a bill of sale "official" if it was created by an entity other than the one selling the item. Aka forgery, aka fraud, aka not very official.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@

 

Unless your rules state otherwise, interrogatories and production of documents are separate request and separate rules apply.

 

An interrogatory requires an answer.  A document request requires a document.

 

If you are still within the time limit (if your rules have a time limit) for discovery, I'd send a request for production of documents.  In those requests, I'd include a request for a credit card billing statement that reflect the last payment allegedy made by Defendant.

 

If you can send a 2nd set of interrogatories, request the date of last payment allegedly made on the account.

 

I want them essentially to admit their documents are crap and don't meet the standard for proof of standing. IS a bill of sale "official" if it was created by an entity other than the one selling the item. Aka forgery, aka fraud, aka not very official.

 

 

They are not going to admit the above.  "Official" is ambiguous unless  your state laws define the term.

 

You can request that they admit that the 2nd bill of sale was not created by the OC, but that's obvious.  Of course, it wasn't created by the OC because the OC didn't sell anything to the 2nd JDB.

 

 

So far, have they provided any credit card statements?  If so, do those statements show any charges and/or payments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They show 3 statements from 2010 (which I think must have been sent to a wrong address because when I moved in 2008 they never got my address going forward), with no payment.

Can I ask in my notice to admit that their affiant (Patricia Hall of Citibank) does not have the "affidavit" notarized. I believe it should be notarized, no? And then I can say something about how it is not notarized, i.e. in my notice to admit "Bill of Sale and Assignment from Patricia Hall is not notarized?" That would be a way to attack how official the document is.

Also, there is a notarized affidavit from someone from JDB2 who says there is no other paperwork having to do with this matter, in so many words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I ask in my notice to admit that their affiant (Patricia Hall of Citibank) does not have the "affidavit" notarized. I believe it should be notarized, no? And then I can say something about how it is not notarized, i.e. in my notice to admit "Bill of Sale and Assignment from Patricia Hall is not notarized?" That would be a way to attack how official the document is.

Also, there is a notarized affidavit from someone from JDB2 who says there is no other paperwork having to do with this matter, in so many words.

 

Why would you want to ask that? They'll just correct the affidavit and send you a new one. If you wait to point out the defect at trial, it's too late for them to cure the deficiency. 

 

Strategy is king here. Don't play your hand too soon.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with @Spikey

 

Why ask them to admit that the affidavit is not notarized if it's obvious that it's not notarized?

 

Unless your state laws or court rules state otherwise, an affidavit has to be notarized.  If not, it's not a valid affidavit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to point it out so I could strike it as evidence. I don't believe they could simply amend it to be notarized, as it is a document from (supposedly from) Citibank, and between Citibank (OC) and the JDB1...there is zero chance they are going to be able to get this woman to sign an affidavit. Id she exists or even works there anymore. But, point well taken about playing my cards to soon.

Anyhoo, I have decided to jump ship with the notice to admit, and instead create a bill of particulars (aka demand for production of documents). Once I am done, I will upload and would love any feedback.

Thanks guys, you da bomb. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to point it out so I could strike it as evidence. I don't believe they could simply amend it to be notarized, as it is a document from (supposedly from) Citibank, and between Citibank (OC) and the JDB1...there is zero chance they are going to be able to get this woman to sign an affidavit. Id she exists or even works there anymore. But, point well taken about playing my cards to soon.

 

Don't test their ability to be creative, given a reasonable amount of time they will "invent" a notarized document.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I hear you...they can lie....but won't that be a problem for them if I can prove they are lying?

I guess that would veto a couple of my questions, but here goes:

Defendant's Demand for Bill of Particulars:

I HAVE MY SHILL LACKEY ATTORNEYS TROLL THIS BOARD TO SUCK BLOOD FROM STONES. MY PARENTS MUST BE SO PROUD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SO I arrived back from a month-long retreat to find that the folks at P&P responded to my bill of particulars by: rejecting and returning it, citing New York CPLR 3130 (which states a bill of particulars not be served with an interrogatory). I am so irritated. The discussion I had with the attorney, where he agreed to send me something which he had not re. the chain of title, also (I guess obviously) he failed to execute.

So, what do I do now?

I would like to send the same darn bill of particulars, simply renamed as "supplemental Interogatories", and ask for a rescheduled court date.

I guess I was wrong in assuming I could send a BOP AFTER sending the interrogs (I thought they could both be done, just not at the same time). Anyone help me with that specific NY info?

And, what to do? What say ye about just retitling the document as supplemental interrogatories and resending?

HELP! (please :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.