Being sued by Pofrtfolio Recovery Associates Synchrony Amazon

[Texasgirl2017]

Texasrocfker, please look at this and point me in the right direction.  This is different than what I had with Midland Funding.  I know I need to give my answer to the court within 14 days of being served papers, which I will do.  I am not sure if I should do the same thing I did with Midland Funding OR if this is just comp different.  Any suggestions would be helpful. WOW, I was just now served again from Portfolio Recovery Associates for capital one as well.  Well, here we go, going to have to go to court for both cases.  Well, I will answer and will be in court for both I can promise that much.  It is absolutely the most ridiculous thing ever.  These collection agencies THINK you actually owe them money.  Really?!  I think not.  I will fight both with everything I have. 

 

Thanks you,

 

Portfolio Capital one.pdf

Portfolio Recovery Synchrony Amazon.pdf

Edited January 18, 2019 by Texasgirl2017

[texasrocker]

They are not actually collection agencies they are junk debt buyers and I agree 100% that we do not owe them anything.

The first one was filed in a District Court so you actually have 20 days to submit your answer and 50 days to answer their discovery.  Also since it is not in a JP court you do not to have to petition the court to approve discovery.   The second case is in a JP court so the procedure will be the same as your previous case.

For the first one file a general denial with the court as soon as possible and send a copy to the attorneys' office that filed the lawsuit.  Include the same set of discovery that I provided you for your previous case but change the 30 day time limit to 50 days.

Here are adequate answers to their discovery-

REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

a.  <your name>, Portfolio Recovery Associates.
b.  <your name>, Portfolio Recovery Associates' address and phone number unknown.
c.  This is a lawsuit arising out of an alleged consumer credit card debt.  Plaintiff is not a financial institution, not an
   original creditor, and not a lender or issuer of any credit card.  Instead, plaintiff claims to be the owner through an
   assignment but does not identify who assigned the debt. Plaintiff only vaguely alleged an assignment and has not produced
   any evidence of its alleged ownership of the debt.
 
   Defendant generally denies the allegations contained in Plaintiff's Original Petition and demands that Plaintiff be required
   to appear and provide strict proof of said allegations.

   Defendant asserts that the enforcement of a Card Member Agreement or contract is substantively unconscionable because it is
   grossly one-sided and unfair.  In particular a Card Member Agreement allows the creditor to unilaterally and dramatically
   raise the interest rate while simultaneously lowering the credit limit for virtually any reason or whim, even those having no
   not reasonable bearing upon the consumer's performance, and then charge penalties and fees because the creditor's unilateral
   and arbitrary decisions caused the consumer to be over the credit limits. Such contracts allow the creditor to unfairly
   surprise the consumer to default due to the imposition of impossible and usurious interest rates. Such provisions are grossly
   unfair and unconscionable and should not be enforced by the court.

d. unknown
e. unknown
f. No expert witnesses at this time.
   1- n/a
   2- n/a
   3- n/a
g. unknown

h. unknown

i. unknown

j. n/a

k. n/a

l. unknown

-REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION-

1. Defendant objects to this request as overbroad and as an impermissible fishing expedition.  If plaintiff were in
   fact the rightful creditor it would already have copies of these documents in its possession.

2. Defendant objects to this request as overbroad and as an impermissible fishing expedition.  If plaintiff were in
   fact the rightful creditor it would already have copies of these documents in its possession.

3. Defendant objects to this request as overbroad and as an impermissible fishing expedition.  If plaintiff were in
   fact the rightful creditor it would already have copies of these documents in its possession.

4. Defendant objects to this request as overbroad and as an impermissible fishing expedition.  If plaintiff were in
   fact the rightful creditor it would already have copies of these documents in its possession.

5. Defendant objects to this request as overbroad and as an impermissible fishing expedition.  If plaintiff were in
   fact the rightful creditor it would already have copies of these documents in its possession.

6. Defendant has not been able to identify the alleged account that is the subject of the lawsuit from the plaintiff's petition and
   from this request.  Defendant will supplement.

7. Defendant has not made any such determination and will supplement.

8. Defendant objects on the basis that these documents are already in the possession of the plaintiff and are equally or more readily available to plaintiff.
   These include the plaintiff's discovery requests, which purport to require Defendant to verify his responses to teh requests for disclosure,
   request for production and requests for admissions when no such verification is required.

9.  Defendant has not yet made this determination.  Defendant will supplement.

10. Defendant has not yet made this determination.  Defendant will supplement.

11. Defendant has not yet determined whether to bring a counterclaim. Defendant will supplement in the event that he brings a counterclaim.

12. Defendant has made no such claim. Defendant will supplement.

13. Defendant will supplement.

14. Defendant objects to this request as impermissibly shifting the plaintiff's burden of proving standing to the defendant.  The plaintiff's
    own petition constitutes a judicial admission that plaintiff is not the original creditor.  Plaintiff must plead and prove up any assignment
    and has done neither.

-REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS-

1.  Denied.

2.  Defendant objects to this request as vague and unclear in that the "Account" is not identified and cannot be determined from the request or the pleadings.  Subject to and without waiving these objections, after a reasonable inquiry the information known or easily obtained by Defendant is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny the request.

3.  Defendant objects to this request as vague and uncertain because there is no way to discern from the request what the plaintiff contends were the "applicable terms and conditions and/or cardholder agreement" and the determination whether these were "applicable" calls for a legal conclusion.  Subject to and not waiving these objections, after a reasonable inquiry the information known or easily available to Defendant is insufficient for Defendant to admit or deny the request.

4.  Defendant objects to this request as vague and uncertain because there is no way to discern from the request what the plaintiff contends were the "applicable terms and conditions and/or cardholder agreement" and the determination whether these were "applicable" calls for a legal conclusion.  Subject to and not waiving these objections, after a reasonable inquiry the information known or easily available to Defendant is insufficient for Defendant to admit or deny the request.

5.  Defendant objects to this request as vague and uncertain because there is no way to discern from the request what the plaintiff
    contends were the "interest, late fees, over limit fees or other fees and/or penalties."   Subject to and not waiving these objections, after a reasonable inquiry the information known or easily obtained by Defendant is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny the request.

6.  Defendant objects to this request as vague and uncertain because there is no way to discern from the request what the plaintiff
    contends were the "interest, late fees, over limit fees or other fees and/or penalties"  Subject to and not waiving these objections, after a reasonable  inquiry the information  known or easily obtained by Defendant is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny the request.

7.  Denied

8. Denied.

9.  Denied.

10. Denied.

11. Denied.

-PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES-

1. Defendant has never had any account or dealings with Portfolio Recovery Associates and does not owe any money to Portfolio Recovery
   Associates.  There is no evidence that Portfolio Recovery Associates has standing to bring any claim for a debt allegedly owed by
   Defendant to any creditor. Defendant does not recognize the alleged account.

2. Discovery is not yet completed.  Defendant will supplement.

3. Defendant has not filed any counterclaims at this time.

4. n/a

5. Unknown.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Texasgirl2017]

Awesome thank you, so denial and answers to their discovery and production send that but I don’t need to ask for discovery or production from them correct? ( since they filed in district court) and for the second same as the very first case you helped me with correct?  I am just getting confirmation so I can move forward.  Thank you so much.  I will send you messages directly if I have questions which I will.  

[Goody_Ouchless]

22 hours ago, Texasgirl2017 said:

These collection agencies THINK you actually owe them money.  Really?!

Well, they kinda, sorta KNOW you owe them money from when, ya know, you charged things you didn't eventually actually pay for.

[Texasgirl2017]

Actually Goody ouchless, I do NOT owe them a thing and so therefore they KNOW nothing.  I will just leave that right there period. 

[Texasgirl2017]

And by the way Goody Ouchless who the heck do you think you are saying crap you know nothing about yourself.  You must work for them, ya know, because you are trying to ya know, get people bent out of shape ya know.

[Goody_Ouchless]

Ha - you found a kindred spirit in rocker! (And if you are saying it was identity theft, why are you fighting it in court?)

[Harry Seaward]

1 hour ago, Texasgirl2017 said:

I do NOT owe them a thing

Your original contract says that the account may be sold at any time, and the successor-in-interest inherits all of the same rights as the original creditor.

The only possible ways you don't owe them anything is if a.) you didn't open the account, or b.) they didn't actually buy it.

[texasrocker]

2 hours ago, Harry Seaward said:

Your original contract says that the account may be sold at any time, and the successor-in-interest inherits all of the same rights as the original creditor.

The only possible ways you don't owe them anything is if a.) you didn't open the account, or b.) they didn't actually buy it.

...or c.) they cannot prove to the court that they own the alleged debt.

[Harry Seaward]

2 hours ago, texasrocker said:

..or c.) they cannot prove to the court that they own the alleged debt.

Even if this were to happen, you still owe the debt provided a.) and b.) are false. 

I have zero issue with people ditching out on legitimate debts. I've done it dozens of times in my life.  But let's be honest about what's actually going on. Playing semantic games to justify your actions only means you aren't at peace with your reality.

[BV80]

On 1/17/2019 at 9:34 PM, texasrocker said:

They are not actually collection agencies they are junk debt buyers and I agree 100 % that we do not owe them anything.

@texasrocker,I truly appreciate your valuable help and insight, but I must respectfully disagree. 

To state that a JDB is not owed is wrong   

First, in most circumstances, JDBs are conidered to be debt collectors.  If that were not the case, they would not be held liable under the FDCPA.

Second, just because a debt has been purchased by a JDB does NOT mean the debt is not owed to that JDB.   READ THE CARDMEMBER AGREEMENT.   It will state that a debt can be assigned to another entity.

In the event of a lawsuit, I absolutely agree that a JDB should prove ownership of the debt in question.  

However, to insinuate that a debt is not owed simply because it has been purchased by a debt buyer is dishonest.  To claim that nothing is owed to a JDB discredits and shames those of us who have paid debt buyers.

Most consumers know if the debts in question were incurred by them.   They know whether or not they made charges to accounts that resulted in a balance.   They know whether or not they defaulted on those accounts.

I was sued by 2 debt buyers and paid nothing   Since then, I have paid debt buyers   However, those settlements were not for the full balances of the debts   While the amounts paid resulted in income for the entities which were paid, they did not cover the full balances I owed .  The settlements did not cover the losses claimed  by the original creditors.  That means there were still losses.

 

 

 

,

[texasrocker]

8 hours ago, BV80 said:

@texasrocker,I truly appreciate your valuable help and insight, but I must respectfully disagree. 

To state that a JDB is not owed is wrong   

First, in most circumstances, JDBs are conidered to be debt collectors.  If that were not the case, they would not be held liable under the FDCPA.

Second, just because a debt has been purchased by a JDB does NOT mean the debt is not owed to that JDB.   READ THE CARDMEMBER AGREEMENT.   It will state that a debt can be assigned to another entity.

In the event of a lawsuit, I absolutely agree that a JDB should prove ownership of the debt in question.  

However, to insinuate that a debt is not owed simply because it has been purchased by a debt buyer is dishonest.

 To claim that nothing is owed to a JDB discredits and shames those of us who have paid debt buyers.

Most consumers know if the debts in question were incurred by them.   They know whether or not they made charges to accounts that resulted in a balance.   They know whether or not they defaulted on those accounts.

I was sued by 2 debt buyers and paid nothing   Since then, I have paid debt buyers   However, those settlements were not for the full balances of the debts   While the amounts paid resulted in income for the entities which were paid, they did not cover the full balances I owed .  The settlements did not cover the losses claimed  by the original creditors.  That means there were still losses.

 

 I am in agreement with most of what you said.  I suppose it is a matter of opinion whether or not they should be categorized as collectors.  I see a huge difference between run-of-the-mill collection agencies and JDB's such as Midland and Portfolio Recovery Associates.  In my opinion they are like vultures picking away at the last remaining tidbits of, for the most part, good people who have already hit rock-bottom because of whatever the circumstances were that led up to them not being able to pay their debts.  There are very few more prolific examples of greediness than JDB's.    

 Perhaps I should have elaborated a bit further as you did here-  "In the event of a lawsuit, I absolutely agree that a JDB should prove ownership of the debt in question."  My point is that if they cannot (or better described in my experiences do not) prove to the court that the own it then we don't owe them anything. 

 I certainly did not mean to insinuate that we don't owe them simply because they are JDB's.  That indeed would be dishonest and I offer my apology to anyone who may have interpreted as such.   I am fully aware of the wording in card member agreements that they can legitimately purchase accounts and "step into the shoes of the OC" upon doing so and are legally allowed to attempt to collect the full amount no matter what they paid for it. 

The main purpose of this forum has always been to assist defendants hoping to reach the ultimate goal of keeping the JDB's from proving their case and the ultimate result of the court agreeing that we do not owe them anything.  I will always steadfastly advise anyone to ignore their settlement offers but I don't believe I have ever shamed anyone for previously agreeing to settle.  In most cases when they offer to settle for less it is because they know that they have been pushed into a corner with little chance of escaping so it is their last "Hail Mary."     

 

[Harry Seaward]

1 hour ago, texasrocker said:

My point is that if they cannot (or better described in my experiences do not) prove to the court that the own it then we don't owe them anything.

The money is still owed per the agreement.  Not having a court sign off only means the consumer can't be externally leveraged to pay it back.

Again, I don't care who does what with their debts - I've done all of it myself several times and I help others do it.  Propagating the lie that the money isn't owed unless a court says so is bad for business.

[Goody_Ouchless]

1 hour ago, texasrocker said:

My point is that if they cannot ...

They actually do, every time. Unless in your world the bills-of-sale, affidavits and reams of statements, etc. are all forged. I'm frankly stunned that you haven't contacted the OC's and Attorney General to report that PRA is suing the OP for debts that are actually still owned by Capital One and Chase. Those are pretty serious charges.

[texasrocker]

7 hours ago, Harry Seaward said:

The money is still owed per the agreement.  Not having a court sign off only means the consumer can't be externally leveraged to pay it back.

Again, I don't care who does what with their debts - I've done all of it myself several times and I help others do it.  Propagating the lie that the money isn't owed unless a court says so is bad for business.

 Then you just contradicted yourself after arguing a few months ago that anything that we do here should not be looked at from any other perspective than in a legal sense.  Since the courts are the law of the land therefore if they have decreed that the debt is not owed for any reason then it is not a lie.  

 There are countless analogies pertaining to JDB's without proof.  The first one that comes to mind is that most of us have (or have had) a mortgage or automobile loan.  We know we owe it and are obligated to pay on it every month.   If someone you had never heard of claimed they are now the owner of the debt and told you to start sending them the monthly payments there is no question that you would never pay them a dime until you saw absolute proof.   Yes, you know you owe the full amount of your original loan and they likely have a stipulation in the contract that they have the right to transfer it at any time but with just this stranger's word that they purchased it from the OC and maybe a bad photocopy of a bill of sale that says they purchased something without even your name on it and/or an affidavit from them swearing that they now own it would you just start paying them?

6 hours ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

They actually do, every time. Unless in your world the bills-of-sale, affidavits and reams of statements, etc. are all forged. I'm frankly stunned that you haven't contacted the OC's and Attorney General to report that PRA is suing the OP for debts that are actually still owned by Capital One and Chase. Those are pretty serious charges.

The very reason I added  "or...do not" after "cannot" to my post is because I knew that one of you was going to say that.  I never said anything whatsoever to even remotely resemble that I believed the OC's still own the debts.  (Nice try again on mimicking your mentor.) You may be correct that they "can" prove ownership  but keeping them from doing so is quite plausible.

 

20 hours ago, Harry Seaward said:

I have zero issue with people ditching out on legitimate debts. I've done it dozens of times in my life.  But let's be honest about what's actually going on. Playing semantic games to justify your actions only means you aren't at peace with your reality.

So says the king of playing "semantic games."

I am very at peace with my reality especially when three people have reported back here now in 2019 that they won their cases after following my advice that you and your two cohorts have sworn up and down for the last two years will no longer work. 

[Texasgirl2017]

I am not going to get into this ridiculousness about owing or not.  Texasrocker I will text you directly.  Thank you 

[Harry Seaward]

6 hours ago, texasrocker said:

Then you just contradicted yourself after arguing a few months ago that anything that we do here should not be looked at from any other perspective than in a legal sense.

You need to revisit your logic, but this time under the correct context.  The point I was making then is the same one as now, which is it doesn't really matter if *you* think you do not owe the debt.

Go ahead a post a link to that thread so everyone can see.....

6 hours ago, texasrocker said:

I am very at peace with my reality especially when three people have reported back here now in 2019 that they won their cases after following my advice that you and your two cohorts have sworn up and down for the last two years will no longer work. 

You missed my point.  Again.  And I also never said your advice "no longer works".  To your chagrin, I've pointed out the defects in your strategy, and that there are much more effective (nearly 100% in fact) ways of accomplishing the same task with less hassle.

P.S. One of those two cases you're referring to is from a year ago, not 2019.

[texasrocker]

11 minutes ago, Harry Seaward said:

You need to revisit your logic, but this time under the correct context.   

You have absolutely zero room to talk about taking something out of context because it is the only way you can convince yourself that you have won a debate.

12 minutes ago, Harry Seaward said:

You missed my point.  Again.

I appreciate your extending me an invitation to join your desolate club but no, thanks...  If I had $1.00 for every time you purposely misunderstood what I said then I could buy a nice steak and lobster dinner. 

[Harry Seaward]

6 minutes ago, texasrocker said:

If I had $1.00 for every time you purposely misunderstood what I said then I could buy a nice steak and lobster dinner. 

Where?  The Dollar Steak and Lobster House?  And even then, it wasn't "purposely".  I understand your inability to recognize it since you seem incapable of realizing when you err, but it was a mistake and I owned it.

[fisthardcheese]

I would use arbitration on that Amazon account, personally.

Cap One will have to be with the regular @texasrocker method since arbitration is not available.

[texasrocker]

51 minutes ago, fisthardcheese said:

I would use arbitration on that Amazon account, personally.

Cap One will have to be with the regular @texasrocker method since arbitration is not available.

I told her again yesterday to look through your posts before making a decision and that you were a good person more than willing to help.  She is understandably pretty much disgruntled with out-of staters, specifically the Arizona naysayers' antics in Texas threads.

 

[texasrocker]

On 1/19/2019 at 6:18 PM, Harry Seaward said:

P.S. One of those two cases you're referring to is from a year ago, not 2019.

  Seriously...  I don't know why I even bother to converse with you sometimes.   I suppose I can start counting up to a second lobster dinner now with another of your "misunderstandings" where I had actually pointed out that three people so far in 2019 had reported back that their cases had been dismissed.  

P.S. That would be three cases I was referring to, not two.  Misunderstood again, eh Jim Dandy?     

 

 

[Harry Seaward]

10 hours ago, texasrocker said:

I suppose I can start counting up to a second lobster dinner now with another of your "misunderstandings" where I had actually pointed out that three people so far in 2019 had reported back that their cases had been dismissed. 

Your ability to pick and choose what you respond to is astounding. You decided on this, but ignored the part where i asked for a link to the thread you were talking about that actually proved you wrong. 

[texasrocker]

10 hours ago, Harry Seaward said:

Your ability to pick and choose what you respond to is astounding.

Takes one to know one.  Right here you failed to respond to what you just quoted regarding your antics of saying you misunderstood something I said to try to throw things off track and change the subject to something else that favors your side of the debate.

10 hours ago, Harry Seaward said:

You decided on this, but ignored the part where i asked for a link to the thread you were talking about that actually proved you wrong. 

I did not ignore it.  I did not post it because I believe you are as just as capable as me to search the archives here to find a post and I have no interest or intention of posting anything for your stated reason of "so everyone else can see it."      

Just for the purpose of appeasing your ego, even better even than posting the thread for you to search for the exact post here is the post in that thread and it does not prove me wrong at all.    
https://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/330226-need-help-tx-portfolio-recovery-lawsuit-with-a-twist/?do=findComment&amp;comment=1372659

 

[Texasgirl2017]

Texasrocker It’s really not worth any energy to go back and forth with those two.  They are irrelevant and that’s what makes them mad.  You keep doing what you are doing by HELPING individuals that need it.  It makes a diff when most of us are desperately trying to get answers and someone like yourself is willing to give those answers.  Fishandcheese, thank you for the info.  I appreciate any information that helps.