Jump to content

Any adivice on Portfolio suit?


Recommended Posts

Received letter from PRC for an alleged debt a little over 3k. I've read a few other posts on the sam

PAGE 1.jpg

PAGE 4.jpgPAGE 5.jpg

 

 

 

Found this on another thread.. I received almost the exact letter from this company...link to the thread below...

 

This  is my answer....good idea or no?  and if does anyone have any further advice?  Thank you

 

NOTE: I believe this account was closed in 2012 and no payment since.

 

Plan to respond with ...............

 

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC       §                                     IN THE JUSTICE COURT

 

                       §

 

Plaintiff                                              §

 

                                                                                    §                      PR 4 PL 1

v.                                                                                 §

                                                                                    §

 

                     §

 

Defendant                                           §          DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

 

                                                                                    §

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER, PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION

 

AND SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS

 

 

 

ANSWER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Defendant generally denies, pursuant to Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, each and every, all and singular, of The Plaintiff's allegations.

 

 

 

Defendant asserts that the interest rates charged by the original creditor are usurious.

 

 

 

PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION

 

 

 

Grounds for Dismissal for Lack of Standing

 

This is a lawsuit arising out of an alleged consumer credit card debt. Plaintiff, is not a financial institution, original creditor, lender, or issuer of any credit card. Instead, Plaintiff alleges "On or about... added my own info here" See Plaintiff's Original Petition under "Facts" paragraph 6. There is no allegation or statement as to who was the seller, and there is no way from these pleadings to determine if Plaintiff purchased the account from anyone in the chain of title, and no way to determine what rights, if any, the Plaintiff has to bring suit.

 

A plaintiff who seeks to sue based on rights acquired by an assignment must plead and prove up the assignment. Ceramic Tile Intern., Inc, v. Balusek, 137 S.W3d 722, 724 (Tex. App, – San Antonio 2004, no pet.); Delaney v. Davis, 81 S.W.3d 445, 448-49 (Tex. App, – Houston [14th district] 2002, no pet.). Plaintiff has not done either.

 

If Plaintiff is the assignee and rightful owner of the debt, this should be very easy for Plaintiff to allege and prove, yet Plaintiff avoids and dodges the issue, when such issues cannot wait until trial. Without a pleading of an assignment and admissible evidence of the assignment, there is no subject matter jurisdiction and this case must be dismissed. Whether plaintiff has standing to bring this lawsuit is a threshold issue that should be resolved at the onset, and the instant plea to the jurisdiction is a proper means by which to address this threshold question.

 

 

 

Legal Standards for a Plea to the Jurisdiction

 

The purpose of a plea to the jurisdiction is to dismiss a cause of action without regard to whether the underlying claim has merit. Bland ISD v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000). The plea challenges the court's power to adjudicate the subject matter of the controversy. Texas DOT v. Arzate, 159 S.W.3d 188, 190 (Tex.App. – El Paso 2004, no pet.), Axtell v. University of Texas, 69 S.W.3d 261, 263 (Tex.App. – Austin 2002, no pet.).

 

Standing is a basic requirement of the judicial system and goes directly to the court's subject matter jurisdiction over a case. It may be raised at anytime and, unlike a challenge to a party's capacity to sue, cannot be waived or presumed. Nootsie Ltd. v. Williamson County Appraisal District, 925 S.W.2d 659, 661-662 (Tex. 1996), Continental Coffee Products v. Cazarez, 937 S.W.2d 444 n.2 (Tex, 1996). A plea to the jurisdiction is the proper way to challenge a party's lack of standing. Waco ISD v. Gibson, 22 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. 2000).

 

The plaintiff must come forward with sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there is at least an issue of fact as to the existence of jurisdiction. Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 227-228 (Tex. 2004). The court should grant defendant's plea to the jurisdiction because on the face of the petition, it is clear that the plaintiff is not the original creditor, which therefore puts standing at issue and it is certain that this Plaintiff will not come forward with admissible evidence of standing to bring the lawsuit.

 

 

 

SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ACCOUNT STATED

 

 

 

1. Credit Card Cases Are Based on Express Contracts and Cannot Be Brought On Implied Contract Theories Like Account Stated.

 

 

 

The Texas Supreme Court made clear in Truly v. Austin 744 S.W. 2d 934, 936 (Tex. 1988) that a plaintiff may not avoid the terms of its express contract by seeking recovery on an implied contract theory if the damages claimed are covered by the express contract. Credit card cases brought on an account stated theory violate this Supreme Court holding. Credit Card arrangements are governed by express contracts. The only viable cause of action for breach of a credit card is breach of contract. Implied or quasi-contractual causes of action like an account stated cannot be brought on a credit card debt without violating Truly v. Austin.

 

 

 

Texas courts will not imply the existence of contract where an express contract already exists. Fortune Production Co. v. Conoco, Inc.,52 S.W.3d 671 684 (Tex. 2000), Woodard v. Southwest States, Inc., 384 S.W.2d 674 (Tex 1964), Musick v. Pogue, 330 S.W.2d 696, 699 (Tex. Civ App.- San Antonio 1959, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The reason for this rule, as described by the Supreme Court in Fortune Production, is that parties should be bound by their express agreements. When a valid agreement addresses the matter, a party should not be able to recover more than is provided for in the agreement. Id., 52 S.W.3d at 684. "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.

 

 

 

The principle that a plaintiff should not be able to use an implied contractual theory to recover more than his contract authorizes is particularly applicable to credit card cases. Credit card fees and interest rates are heavily regulated. Federal Law mandates comprehensive disclosures of these terms when the account is opened and when the account is amended. See e.g. 15 U.S.C. § 1637©(1)-(7), 12 C.F.R. 225.5-225.16. Credit card plaintiffs should be able to produce these disclosures or otherwise prove the interest rates and fees that their customers agreed to pay. Using an account stated theory to imply an agreement to pay the interest and fees would improperly relieve plaintiff from establishing the amount of interest and fees that were required to be disclosed to the defendant under Federal law, and must have been included in the terms of its alleged express agreement with the defendant.

 

 

 

2. A Credit Card Account Is Not an Account Stated

 

 

 

A credit card account is not an "account" as that term has been used in the common law governing suits on account. A credit card account does not arise out of a course of dealing between two parties engaging in transactions in goods. A credit card account is a multiparty arrangement. Each transaction involves ata minimum, the debtor, a merchant, the merchant's bank, a clearing organization such as Visa, Mastercard, American Express, the card issuing bank and the card issuing bank's credit card processing unit. Every transaction brings a new merchant and merchant bank into the web of transactions that make up the account, with the result that over the term of a credit card account, hundreds of parties may be involved, not just two as envisioned for a common law account. Moreover, the transactions in a credit card account are not merely sales of goods. The account issuer does not sell goods to the account holder: instead, it makes extensions of credit to the account holder or to third party merchants on the account holder's behalf. For these reasons the cause of action for account stated does not apply to credit cards.

 

 

 

An account stated is merely an open account that has been closed because the party charged has agreed that the account is correct. Whittlesey v. Spofford 47 Tex. 13, (Tex. 1877), Wroten Grain & Lumber v. Mineola Box Mfg. Co., 95 S.W. 744 (Tex Civ. App.-1906), Padgitt Bros. Co. v. Dorsey, 194 S.W. 1124, 1126 Tex Civ. App.- El Paso 1917, no writ). An open account is an implied claim that arises from the course of dealing between two parties who engage in a series of transactions in which title to goods passes from one to the other. McCamant v. Batsell, 59 Tex. 363, 367-369 (Tex 1883), Livingston Ford Mercury, Inc. v. Haley, 997 S.W.2d 425, 427 (Tex App.----Beaumont 199, no writ).

 

 

 

Over a century ago in McCamant v. Batsell, 59 Tex. 363, 1883 WL 9175 (Tex. 1883), a case that has never been overruled, The Supreme Court construed the word “account” as it is used in this context as limited to suits arising out of relationships in which title to goods was transferred from the plaintiff to the defendant and further excluding suits in which the rights of the parties were defined by a written agreement.

 

 

 

In McCamant, a suit on a promissory note, the plaintiff sought to make use of the then existing statute governing suits on account, which like current Rule 185, set up abbreviated procedure for resolving disputes involving such suits. Unlike the current rule the statute did not enumerate the kinds of action that could be brought as suits on account. The Supreme Court construed the meaning of the term “account” in the statute as being consistent with the common law meaning of the term:

 

 

 

“As used in the statutes of this state, in the act referred to, we believe that the word “account” is used in its popular sense, rather than in a technical sense, and that it applies to transactions between persons in which, by sale upon one side and purchases upon the other, the title to personal property passes from one to the other, and the relation of debtor and creditor is thereby created by general course of dealing.”

 

 

 

The Court also ruled that the plaintiff’s suit against the maker of a note and his sureties could not be brought as a suit on account or an open account because it did not arise out of the course of dealings between a buyer and seller, but was based upon a written agreement in which all the terms were fixed and certain. Id., 1883 WL 9175 at 6.

 

 

 

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the holding of McCamant in Meaders v. Biskamp, 316 S.W.2d 75 (Tex. 1958), in which The Court distinguished a suit on an account from a suit based upon an express contract for purposes of awarding attorney’s fees. The then applicable language of Tex. Civ. Stat. Art. 2226, the predecessor to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ch. 38 permitted an award of attorney’s fees for a suit upon a sworn account but did not include the present language authorizing fees in a breach of contract case. The Meaders court, citing McCamant held that a suit founded upon a written contract for the drilling of an oil well was not a suit on account because the relationship of debtor and creditor did not arise from a course of dealing but from a contract. Id., 316 S.W.2d at 78

 

 

 

The classic statements of the elements of the account stated cause of action expressly draw a distinction between suits that grow out of a course of dealing and suits that grow out of an express agreement. For example, in Central Nat. Bank of San Angelo v. Cox, 96 S.W.2d 746, 748(Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1936, writ dismissed), the court said:

 

 

 

“The cases are legion on what constitutes an account stated. In general the essential elements involved are: Transactions between the parties which give rise to an indebtedness of one to the other; an agreement, express or implied, between them fixing the amount due; and a promise, express or implied, by the one to be charged, to pay such indebtedness. 1 Tex.Jur. p. 371 et seq.; 1 C.J. 678; 1 Am.Jur. 272; 1 C.J.S., Account Stated, p. 693.”

 

 

 

The first and defining element of the claim is existence of a debtor-creditor relationship that arises from a series of transactions—from a course of dealing, not a contract. This element is identical across all suits on account, whether open, sworn or stated. While the other elements of the claim do reference an agreement, the subject matter of the agreement is not the creation or terms of the debtor-creditor relationship, but the acknowledgement, after the transactions that gave rise to the relationship have occurred, of the amount due and the obligation to pay.

 

 

 

Recent court of appeals decisions allowing a stated account on a credit card have overlooked these Texas Supreme Court authorities and instead are based upon mere dicta from a footnote in a decision out of the Dallas court of appeals. In a footnote in that case, Dulong v. Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., 261 S.W.3d 890 (Tex.App.----Dallas 2008) the court stated that a sworn account requires the passage of title and is thus not a proper tool for a credit card case but noted that it differs from an account stated in this regard. But neither that decision nor any of the other appellate decisions that have followed it have explained how they reached this conclusion. These decisions are utterly devoid of any analysis or legal authority on the issue, and none of them discuss McCamant v. Batsell. These decisions are simply contrary to Texas Supreme Court authority.

 

 

 

PRAYER

 

 

 

Wherefore, premises considered, Defendant prays that the Court grant his Plea to the Jurisdiction, grant his Special Exceptions, enter judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff, that Plaintiff take nothing, that the Court assess costs against Plaintiff and award Defendant all other relief to which he is entitled.

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

 

 

 

Signed_________________________________

 

Name:

 

Address:

 

Phone:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 

 

 

 

 

I do hereby certify that I will mail a true and correct copy of this Original Answer to the Plaintiff on the _____ day of ____________________, 20____.

 

 

 

Signed____________________________________

 

 

 

Name:

 

Address:

 

Phone:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

 which show almost the exact same information. Is it best to answer with this?

 

Mine

 

Case No. 

 

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC       §                                     IN THE JUSTICE COURT

 

                       §

 

Plaintiff                                              §

 

                                                                                    §                      PR 4 PL 1

v.                                                                                 §

                                                                                    §

 

                     §

 

Defendant                                           §          DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

 

                                                                                    §

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER, PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION

 

AND SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS

 

 

 

ANSWER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Defendant generally denies, pursuant to Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, each and every, all and singular, of The Plaintiff's allegations.

 

 

 

Defendant asserts that the interest rates charged by the original creditor are usurious.

 

 

 

PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION

 

 

 

Grounds for Dismissal for Lack of Standing

 

This is a lawsuit arising out of an alleged consumer credit card debt. Plaintiff, is not a financial institution, original creditor, lender, or issuer of any credit card. Instead, Plaintiff alleges "On or about... (put my own info here). See Plaintiff's Original Petition under "Facts" paragraph 6. There is no allegation or statement as to who was the seller, and there is no way from these pleadings to determine if Plaintiff purchased the account from anyone in the chain of title, and no way to determine what rights, if any, the Plaintiff has to bring suit.

 

A plaintiff who seeks to sue based on rights acquired by an assignment must plead and prove up the assignment. Ceramic Tile Intern., Inc, v. Balusek, 137 S.W3d 722, 724 (Tex. App, – San Antonio 2004, no pet.); Delaney v. Davis, 81 S.W.3d 445, 448-49 (Tex. App, – Houston [14th district] 2002, no pet.). Plaintiff has not done either.

 

If Plaintiff is the assignee and rightful owner of the debt, this should be very easy for Plaintiff to allege and prove, yet Plaintiff avoids and dodges the issue, when such issues cannot wait until trial. Without a pleading of an assignment and admissible evidence of the assignment, there is no subject matter jurisdiction and this case must be dismissed. Whether plaintiff has standing to bring this lawsuit is a threshold issue that should be resolved at the onset, and the instant plea to the jurisdiction is a proper means by which to address this threshold question.

 

 

 

Legal Standards for a Plea to the Jurisdiction

 

The purpose of a plea to the jurisdiction is to dismiss a cause of action without regard to whether the underlying claim has merit. Bland ISD v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000). The plea challenges the court's power to adjudicate the subject matter of the controversy. Texas DOT v. Arzate, 159 S.W.3d 188, 190 (Tex.App. – El Paso 2004, no pet.), Axtell v. University of Texas, 69 S.W.3d 261, 263 (Tex.App. – Austin 2002, no pet.).

 

Standing is a basic requirement of the judicial system and goes directly to the court's subject matter jurisdiction over a case. It may be raised at anytime and, unlike a challenge to a party's capacity to sue, cannot be waived or presumed. Nootsie Ltd. v. Williamson County Appraisal District, 925 S.W.2d 659, 661-662 (Tex. 1996), Continental Coffee Products v. Cazarez, 937 S.W.2d 444 n.2 (Tex, 1996). A plea to the jurisdiction is the proper way to challenge a party's lack of standing. Waco ISD v. Gibson, 22 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. 2000).

 

The plaintiff must come forward with sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there is at least an issue of fact as to the existence of jurisdiction. Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 227-228 (Tex. 2004). The court should grant defendant's plea to the jurisdiction because on the face of the petition, it is clear that the plaintiff is not the original creditor, which therefore puts standing at issue and it is certain that this Plaintiff will not come forward with admissible evidence of standing to bring the lawsuit.

 

 

 

SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ACCOUNT STATED

 

 

 

1. Credit Card Cases Are Based on Express Contracts and Cannot Be Brought On Implied Contract Theories Like Account Stated.

 

 

 

The Texas Supreme Court made clear in Truly v. Austin 744 S.W. 2d 934, 936 (Tex. 1988) that a plaintiff may not avoid the terms of its express contract by seeking recovery on an implied contract theory if the damages claimed are covered by the express contract. Credit card cases brought on an account stated theory violate this Supreme Court holding. Credit Card arrangements are governed by express contracts. The only viable cause of action for breach of a credit card is breach of contract. Implied or quasi-contractual causes of action like an account stated cannot be brought on a credit card debt without violating Truly v. Austin.

 

 

 

Texas courts will not imply the existence of contract where an express contract already exists. Fortune Production Co. v. Conoco, Inc.,52 S.W.3d 671 684 (Tex. 2000), Woodard v. Southwest States, Inc., 384 S.W.2d 674 (Tex 1964), Musick v. Pogue, 330 S.W.2d 696, 699 (Tex. Civ App.- San Antonio 1959, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The reason for this rule, as described by the Supreme Court in Fortune Production, is that parties should be bound by their express agreements. When a valid agreement addresses the matter, a party should not be able to recover more than is provided for in the agreement. Id., 52 S.W.3d at 684. "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.

 

 

 

The principle that a plaintiff should not be able to use an implied contractual theory to recover more than his contract authorizes is particularly applicable to credit card cases. Credit card fees and interest rates are heavily regulated. Federal Law mandates comprehensive disclosures of these terms when the account is opened and when the account is amended. See e.g. 15 U.S.C. § 1637©(1)-(7), 12 C.F.R. 225.5-225.16. Credit card plaintiffs should be able to produce these disclosures or otherwise prove the interest rates and fees that their customers agreed to pay. Using an account stated theory to imply an agreement to pay the interest and fees would improperly relieve plaintiff from establishing the amount of interest and fees that were required to be disclosed to the defendant under Federal law, and must have been included in the terms of its alleged express agreement with the defendant.

 

 

 

2. A Credit Card Account Is Not an Account Stated

 

 

 

A credit card account is not an "account" as that term has been used in the common law governing suits on account. A credit card account does not arise out of a course of dealing between two parties engaging in transactions in goods. A credit card account is a multiparty arrangement. Each transaction involves ata minimum, the debtor, a merchant, the merchant's bank, a clearing organization such as Visa, Mastercard, American Express, the card issuing bank and the card issuing bank's credit card processing unit. Every transaction brings a new merchant and merchant bank into the web of transactions that make up the account, with the result that over the term of a credit card account, hundreds of parties may be involved, not just two as envisioned for a common law account. Moreover, the transactions in a credit card account are not merely sales of goods. The account issuer does not sell goods to the account holder: instead, it makes extensions of credit to the account holder or to third party merchants on the account holder's behalf. For these reasons the cause of action for account stated does not apply to credit cards.

 

 

 

An account stated is merely an open account that has been closed because the party charged has agreed that the account is correct. Whittlesey v. Spofford 47 Tex. 13, (Tex. 1877), Wroten Grain & Lumber v. Mineola Box Mfg. Co., 95 S.W. 744 (Tex Civ. App.-1906), Padgitt Bros. Co. v. Dorsey, 194 S.W. 1124, 1126 Tex Civ. App.- El Paso 1917, no writ). An open account is an implied claim that arises from the course of dealing between two parties who engage in a series of transactions in which title to goods passes from one to the other. McCamant v. Batsell, 59 Tex. 363, 367-369 (Tex 1883), Livingston Ford Mercury, Inc. v. Haley, 997 S.W.2d 425, 427 (Tex App.----Beaumont 199, no writ).

 

 

 

Over a century ago in McCamant v. Batsell, 59 Tex. 363, 1883 WL 9175 (Tex. 1883), a case that has never been overruled, The Supreme Court construed the word “account” as it is used in this context as limited to suits arising out of relationships in which title to goods was transferred from the plaintiff to the defendant and further excluding suits in which the rights of the parties were defined by a written agreement.

 

 

 

In McCamant, a suit on a promissory note, the plaintiff sought to make use of the then existing statute governing suits on account, which like current Rule 185, set up abbreviated procedure for resolving disputes involving such suits. Unlike the current rule the statute did not enumerate the kinds of action that could be brought as suits on account. The Supreme Court construed the meaning of the term “account” in the statute as being consistent with the common law meaning of the term:

 

 

 

“As used in the statutes of this state, in the act referred to, we believe that the word “account” is used in its popular sense, rather than in a technical sense, and that it applies to transactions between persons in which, by sale upon one side and purchases upon the other, the title to personal property passes from one to the other, and the relation of debtor and creditor is thereby created by general course of dealing.”

 

 

 

The Court also ruled that the plaintiff’s suit against the maker of a note and his sureties could not be brought as a suit on account or an open account because it did not arise out of the course of dealings between a buyer and seller, but was based upon a written agreement in which all the terms were fixed and certain. Id., 1883 WL 9175 at 6.

 

 

 

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the holding of McCamant in Meaders v. Biskamp, 316 S.W.2d 75 (Tex. 1958), in which The Court distinguished a suit on an account from a suit based upon an express contract for purposes of awarding attorney’s fees. The then applicable language of Tex. Civ. Stat. Art. 2226, the predecessor to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ch. 38 permitted an award of attorney’s fees for a suit upon a sworn account but did not include the present language authorizing fees in a breach of contract case. The Meaders court, citing McCamant held that a suit founded upon a written contract for the drilling of an oil well was not a suit on account because the relationship of debtor and creditor did not arise from a course of dealing but from a contract. Id., 316 S.W.2d at 78

 

 

 

The classic statements of the elements of the account stated cause of action expressly draw a distinction between suits that grow out of a course of dealing and suits that grow out of an express agreement. For example, in Central Nat. Bank of San Angelo v. Cox, 96 S.W.2d 746, 748(Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1936, writ dismissed), the court said:

 

 

 

“The cases are legion on what constitutes an account stated. In general the essential elements involved are: Transactions between the parties which give rise to an indebtedness of one to the other; an agreement, express or implied, between them fixing the amount due; and a promise, express or implied, by the one to be charged, to pay such indebtedness. 1 Tex.Jur. p. 371 et seq.; 1 C.J. 678; 1 Am.Jur. 272; 1 C.J.S., Account Stated, p. 693.”

 

 

 

The first and defining element of the claim is existence of a debtor-creditor relationship that arises from a series of transactions—from a course of dealing, not a contract. This element is identical across all suits on account, whether open, sworn or stated. While the other elements of the claim do reference an agreement, the subject matter of the agreement is not the creation or terms of the debtor-creditor relationship, but the acknowledgement, after the transactions that gave rise to the relationship have occurred, of the amount due and the obligation to pay.

 

 

 

Recent court of appeals decisions allowing a stated account on a credit card have overlooked these Texas Supreme Court authorities and instead are based upon mere dicta from a footnote in a decision out of the Dallas court of appeals. In a footnote in that case, Dulong v. Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., 261 S.W.3d 890 (Tex.App.----Dallas 2008) the court stated that a sworn account requires the passage of title and is thus not a proper tool for a credit card case but noted that it differs from an account stated in this regard. But neither that decision nor any of the other appellate decisions that have followed it have explained how they reached this conclusion. These decisions are utterly devoid of any analysis or legal authority on the issue, and none of them discuss McCamant v. Batsell. These decisions are simply contrary to Texas Supreme Court authority.

 

 

 

PRAYER

 

 

 

Wherefore, premises considered, Defendant prays that the Court grant his Plea to the Jurisdiction, grant his Special Exceptions, enter judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff, that Plaintiff take nothing, that the Court assess costs against Plaintiff and award Defendant all other relief to which he is entitled.

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

 

 

 

Signed_________________________________

 

Name:

 

Address:

 

Phone:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 

 

 

 

 

I do hereby certify that I will mail a true and correct copy of this Original Answer to the Plaintiff on the _____ day of ____________________, 20____.

 

 

 

Signed____________________________________

 

 

 

Name:

 

Address:

 

Phone:

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure because it was my husband's account and he didn't keep all of his information. He remembers that the last payment made was in 2012 but I'm not positive about when it was closed.  What's the SOL on that .. do you know?

 

The suit is dated mid March 2016 and was mailed as they couldn't serve him personally as he was never home.. after a few attempts to serve him personally,  an "order for substitute service" was signed by the judge during the last week of April.  When the server would come by she would never leave the papers with me or anyone else nor would tell me what it was about. That's strange to me because on the "order for substitute" it states that they attempted to leave the order with him or someone older than 16 yet weren't able. He received it in the mail with envelope dated May 4. 

 

In any case, is this a good answer to send them?

 

Thanks for your response!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Scarlett said:

What's the SOL on that .. do you know?

4 years in Texas.  If his last payment was anytime after the date they filed in March it is timely and you can't use that defense. 

Check his credit report and see what the original creditor is reporting as the date of last payment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Citibank N A ( according to credit report)

 

Letter of suit states  "CITIBANK, N.A. (THE HOME DEPOT)

 

credit report states last payment was made on Oct.1 , 2013 .. shows acct. closed but doesn't show the date closed. 

 

Letter of suit states the account was closed due to nonpayment on or about June 2014. .. info on credit report doesn't show date closed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a CC agreement for home depot. https://www.homedepotmeasures.com/docs/THDFinanceTermsAndConditions.pdf 

It has provisions for JAMS Arbitration.  I find this is the fastest way to make them go away, but Texas Rocker likes the good old fashioned way, and you certainly could follow his threads and probably get thru it. 

You can answer the suit using the stuff above, or you can motion to dismiss/compel arbitration.  study each, and we cna help you on the next step.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

I"ve been reading some of Texas Rocker's posts and found one which may be (hoping) what you're talking about. It's all of what I 've posted above yet I left out  a section found on another thread.

Quote:

SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO QUANTUM MERUIT

The Defendant specially excepts to Paragraph 6 Quantum Meruit.

Quantum Meruit it is an implied contact theory where an express contract already exists. In addition, in order to establish a quantum meruit claim a plaintiff must establish that it provided services or goods directly to the defendant.  See Vortt Exploration Co. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 787 S.W.2d 942, 944 (Tex. 1990)

REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

Pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 194, Defendant requests that Plaintiff disclose within 30 days of the service of this request, the information or material described in Rule 194.2(a) through (l).

Wherefore, premises considered, Defendant prays that the Court grant his Plea to the Jurisdiction, grant his Special Exceptions, enter judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff, that Plaintiff take nothing, that the Court assess costs against Plaintiff and award Defendant all other relief to which he is entitled

 

Unquote

 

Should I add this in and if so, where? I'm guessing at the end before the "PRAYER"... or should I take the "PRAYER"  out if I add this.. ?..

 

Thanks for everyone's help, I need to get this done ASAP..

 

Scarlett

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be nice to get an opinion/help from him.   I've read many posts here but I'm not a lawyer and doing the best I can with what I'm reading.  This is what I've gotten so far. So I'll send what I posted above and add the other part from Texas Rocker's post on the other thread. I'm not sure if this "Answer" is the good old fashioned one but I'm HOPING IT IS. :cool:

 

If Texas Rocker has an opinion or information otherwise which might help me that would be great! If he's never lost a case in Texas. I'd love and would 

appreciate any advice from him.

 

Thanks to all of y'all!

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did not plead Quantum Meruit  so leave it out.  Also omit the Request for Disclosure  portion since this is in a JP Court.   Some courts have been known to consider this as discovery and the JDB's are starting to figure that out so don't give them a chance to bring it up.

Get your answer filed and then your top priority will be to obtain the court's approval to begin discovery.  When you submit your answer ask the clerk how they prefer you go about requesting approval.    Let me know when this has been granted and I will PM you first set of discovery to deliver to the plaintiff.

  • Like 1
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.

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.

 Share

×
×
  • 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.