Jump to content

Texas JDB Suit/Summons - Answer Verification

Guest TexasPadawan

Recommended Posts

Guest TexasPadawan



I've read several of the topics on the forums and have an idea of what to do for the initial answer to a summons, but because there are more experienced people here I wanted to verify (even scrapping my answer and starting anew if need be) with you all.  I know there are two Texas folks here (@texasrocker and @TomnTex) that are pretty familiar and popular in the forums so I'm hoping they have some input on this.


This is not for me, but for a family member.  The original creditor had contacted us previously and verbally stated that they would give us a year to pay up (they closed the account), but then they ended up selling it off a few months later anyway (no evidence but the JDB's word) so it took a lower priority - realizing now that it should be dealt with early on.


The jurisdiction is Texas (District Court 18).  I've scanned and redacted the entire packet (cover, return, original petition, requests, interrogatory) and am attaching them here.  It's word for word (san personal information/specifical account details) for a few others here and even the same plaintiff).  I took one of the responses that had left the area of change highlighted in red (the exact wording from the original petition under Facts) to reflect what this original petition stated.  I'll post it as well.


It was brought over by a neighbor (nobody signed for it I guess) with 1-5-2015 at the top right (the served date I guess), which means the deadline for filing it should be Monday after 20 days (the 25th) -> 2015 01 26.


Again, if I need to just scrap the response and copy a new one, that's fine.  I'm no expert :-)


I do have one question concerning the responses that have been posted..  the 2nd paragraph under 1 of Special Exception to Account Stated, I'm assuming it's correct, but to verify, it says "Count 1" of the Original petition fails to provide fair notice...  In the other cases I saw on the forums with the same answer letter Count 1 was Breach of Contract and Count 2 was Account Stated as is this one.  I just wanted to make sure that it's Breach of Contract that the line is referring to (and not something that was missed and meant to point to Count 2).


Thank you in advance for any assistance.



p.s.  the amounts that were whited outed all matched and were 1x,xxx.xx (in the 10-19k range) in case anyone was wondering.

OriginalSummons_FULL_REDACTED - Copy.pdf

SummonsAnswer - Copy.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In your summons, Account Stated was Count 2, so you would need to change your answer to reflect that.

Yeah, that's what I had thought as well which prompted my question.  I was a bit confused because a couple of other examples (including the one I copied the summons) it was the same as mine (Account Stated was Count 2, but in the answer it said "Count 1".  I don't know if texasrocker meant that or if it was something that had been missed.


EDIT: Here's an example. In the original summons Account Stated was Count 2, but it still said Count 1 in the answer that was posted.  That one kind of confused me, and I figured that I just wasn't understanding it properly - that it was actually referring to Count 1/Breach of Contract.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laziness will just cause problems.  You need to proofread and edit templates to fit the wording of your specific case.


Check you private message.  I will provide you with first set of discovery to send to Rausch, Sturm, Israel, Enerson & Hornik along with their copy of your Original Answer.  Also, you must answer their first set of discovery within 30 days of when you were served. 


After filing your answer on time your top priority is to learn the rules and procedures.  Read this forum extensively and see how we beat these idiots and learn how to look up and analyze case law; merely copy/pasting is not going to get you very far.  You need to devote every hour you are awake and not at your job to this for the next couple of months.  Anything less than that and you could easily come out on the losing end.   Order this book and study it as if you were cramming for a final exam-


  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awesome...thanks texasrocker..


Yeah, I definitely agree on the proofreading, That's how I caught the "Count 1" issue (the last question in my original post). This petition has the two counts in the same order as the linked thread (second post from me), but it looks like that guy did not catch that it said "Count 1".


So just to clarify before I make the change, based upon what you and misbehvn have stated, this line:

"Count 1" of the Original petition fails to provide fair notice as to how The Plaintiff can avoid this express contract in favor of an account stated. 


should read:

"Count 2" of the Original petition fails to provide fair notice as to how The Plaintiff can avoid this express contract in favor of an account stated. 


and the version in this thread http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/323350-new-portfolio-recovery-suit-in-texas/in response to the OP's summons (which has the two counts in the same order as the one I posted) should have stated been Count 2 as well?


Thank you much...

Link to comment
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.

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.


  • 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.