Citation PRA / Texas / HSBC

[blueapron]

1. Who is the named plaintiff in the suit? 

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC

2. What is the name of the law firm handling the suit? (should be listed at the top of the complaint.)

RASCH STURM

3. How much are you being sued for?

$2,xxx.xx

4. Who is the original creditor? (if not the Plaintiff)

HSBC according to the petition, but CC was always Capitol One account(not stated on citation)

5. How do you know you are being sued? (You were served, right?)

Served

6. How were you served? (Mail, In person, Notice on door)

In Person

7. Was the service legal as required by your state?

I believe so. 

8. What was your correspondence (if any) with the people suing you before you think you were being sued?

None that I can remember. 

9. What state and county do you live in?

Travis, TX

10. When is the last time you paid on this account? (looking to establish if you are outside of the statute of limitations)

June 2017 according to petition

11. When did you open the account (looking to establish what card agreement may be applicable)?

August 2007 according to petition

12. What is the SOL on the debt? To find out:

Four years 

13. What is the status of your case?

Served

14. Have you disputed the debt with the credit bureaus (both the original creditor and the collection agency?)

No

15. Did you request debt validation before the suit was filed?

No

16. How long do you have to respond to the suit?

14 days

17. What evidence did they send with the summons?

A "Facts" section that states the dates from above and that HSBC assigned account to PRA and that they are now the current holder of the account and proper party to bring lawsuit. 

 

18.  How did you find out about this site?

Search

 

Thanks in advance. 

[blueapron]

To clarify, this was taped to my door and not handed to me in person. 

[nobk4me]

Calling @texasrocker

[texasrocker]

For your answer use the same format as the Plaintiff's Original Petition that you were served with the court and case information on top of the page.

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER

Comes now, <your name>, the Defendant in the above styled and numbered cause and files this Original Answer in this action and would respectfully show the following:

I.  GENERAL DENIAL

Defendant generally denies each and every, all and singular, of the allegations set forth in the Plaintiff's Original Petition and demands that the Plaintiff proves same by the preponderance of credible evidence.

II. PRAYER

Wherefore Defendant requests judgment of the Court that Plaintiff takes nothing from the Defendant and the Defendant be granted any further relief that he (or she) is justly entitled to.

(Your name, address and phone number)

File it with the court immediately and send a copy to the attorney's office that filed the lawsuit.

[Goody_Ouchless]

You are fortunate to have been sued in Texas. Due to a preference for live trials and/or lack of wage garnishment, they don't prosecute these cases like they do elsewhere.

 

[texasrocker]

15 hours ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

You are fortunate to have been sued in Texas. Due to a preference for live trials and/or lack of wage garnishment, they don't prosecute these cases like they do elsewhere.

 

That does not make even the least bit of sense.  Where did you get such information?  

[Goody_Ouchless]

3 hours ago, texasrocker said:

Where did you get such information?  

Self evident from recent cases. There's nothing special about your "magic discovery." Rather, debt buyers appear to only deal with default judgments in TX.

 

[texasrocker]

7 minutes ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

Self evident from recent cases. There's nothing special about your "magic discovery." Rather, debt buyers appear to only deal with default judgments in TX.

And this makes even less sense.  What is "magic discovery"? 

[Clydesmom]

34 minutes ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

There's nothing special about your "magic discovery."

Well we all know who this refers to [GOD bless the ignore feature I am spared the nonsense] but the reality is that "method" isn't special.  If you go back and look at his posts when he got sued a decade ago he hired Jerry Zarombek and is merely copying what the attorney did to make the case dismiss.  He just takes credit for it as though he invented the wording and process therefore HE is winning cases not his ability to copy what someone smarter than him did.  

[Goody_Ouchless]

1 hour ago, texasrocker said:

And this makes even less sense.

I think you said you only look at TX threads. The fact is that there is virtually no place else where debt buyers fold so quickly - there's one in Georgia where they are even fighting a losing battle against arbitration. If Summary Judgement is not an option in TX, then debtors have an edge - a land that time forgot where a "well worded answer" is enough.

 

[texasrocker]

4 hours ago, Clydesmom said:

Well we all know who this refers to [GOD bless the ignore feature I am spared the nonsense] but the reality is that "method" isn't special.  If you go back and look at his posts when he got sued a decade ago he hired Jerry Zarombek and is merely copying what the attorney did to make the case dismiss.  He just takes credit for it as though he invented the wording and process therefore HE is winning cases not his ability to copy what someone smarter than him did.  

More disinformation from the most prolific liar on this board.  I have never myself hired Jerry Jarzombek but I know he is one of the best JDB defense attorneys in Texas and have recommended him many times.  I did not even know of him at the time I was sued.

If anyone looked through the archives here they would see that I have repeatedly acknowledged that I had a very good attorney and have passed along what I learned from my experiences with him while defending my three lawsuits from JDB's 6-7 years ago.  I have never tried to take credit for inventing wording or processes.  

Unfortunately you are not smart enough to even do that.  All you know how to do is bully newbies into not following my advice on how to defend themselves in court and then turn to the next one and tell them to do just that then leave them hanging because you don't have the slightest idea regarding Texas procedure or how to guide them yourself.      

 

3 hours ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

If Summary Judgement is not an option in TX, then debtors have an edge - a land that time forgot where a "well worded answer" is enough

When is summary judgment not an option?  In Texas either side can move for summary judgment at any time. 

[Clydesmom]

1 hour ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

If Summary Judgement is not an option in TX, then debtors have an edge - a land that time forgot where a "well worded answer" is enough.

I don't think it is the answer that is triggering it.  Texas consumer laws are EXTREMELY debtor friendly.  There is virtually no way to seize personal property or place a lien on a home.  They do not allow wage garnishment for consumer debt judgments.  There is very little remedy for a creditor to collect on a judgment outside of bank levy.  My observation is that they want the easy default judgment for two reasons the first being the obvious which is it is less costly and more profitable along with easy.  The second is that given the limited collection methods available a fast default judgment where a quick bank levy can be accomplished is probably the only way to yield any money on the judgment.

[BV80]

 

23 minutes ago, texasrocker said:

More disinformation from the most prolific liar on this board.  

I don’t mind disagreements but the above goes beyond a disagreement.     It was not necessary to refer to @Clydesmom as a liar much less as “the most prolific liar”. 

All of us can can have mistakes of memory.  

[texasrocker]

1 hour ago, BV80 said:

 

I don’t mind disagreements but the above goes beyond a disagreement.     It was not necessary to refer to @Clydesmom as a liar much less as “the most prolific liar”. 

All of us can can have mistakes of memory.  

If it were just this comment regarding me hiring Jerry Jarzombek then it definitely could be a lapse of memory.  I was actually referring to her claim that I try to take credit for inventing the wording or processes that I have passed to others and her history of lies such as claiming to have me on "ignore" and ultimately her accusation of me sending her antisemitic messages a few months ago.  With all due respect to you that is a blatant lie and a borderline criminal act and needless to say it is not easy to shake off.  I don't know of anyone else on this board who has surpassed her in coming close to crossing that line. 

 

[Goody_Ouchless]

2 hours ago, texasrocker said:

In Texas either side can move for summary judgment at any time. 

It appears there is a preference for trial versus SJ - almost like an "answer" sows enough doubt to take SJ off the table. I don't see another explanation for why they don't file an MSJ, rather than folding every time. Such an odd corner of the business world where one company legally makes purchases from another, on a regular basis, yet gets accused of "faking" the transaction. Seems someone would have figured out how to auto-generate a single-page file for every account that leaves no ambiguity that Bank A sold John Doe's defaulted account (in the amount of $X) to Debt Buyer B, who incorporated that account into their system, which they rely upon in the daily course of business - signed by representatives of both parties.

[texasrocker]

14 hours ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

 

It appears there is a preference for trial versus SJ - almost like an "answer" sows enough doubt to take SJ off the table. I don't see another explanation for why they don't file an MSJ, rather than folding every time. Such an odd corner of the business world where one company legally makes purchases from another, on a regular basis, yet gets accused of "faking" the transaction. Seems someone would have figured out how to auto-generate a single-page file for every account that leaves no ambiguity that Bank A sold John Doe's defaulted account (in the amount of $X) to Debt Buyer B, who incorporated that account into their system, which they rely upon in the daily course of business - signed by representatives of both parties.

I cannot see where you are getting the idea that they prefer a trial.  It certainly is not part of your earlier "self evident from recent cases" analogy.  I have seen only a very small percentage of cases go to trial in Texas, not just recently but ever since I have been on this board.  

I believe what is leading you astray is that at least 3/4 of the Texas JDB cases that have happened to end up on this board of late are from one law firm, Rausch, Sturm, Israel, Enerson & Hornik, which is by far the wimpiest bunch imaginable.  This really came into light a few months back when the guy that royally screwed up on the discovery items he sent ended up winning his case only because they were too lazy to get up off their butts and answer it.  

The other Texas JDB cases that land here sometimes take a lot more effort but still rarely make it to trial.   Their affidavit can easily be knocked down with preemptive discovery invalidating their robo-signers and without an affidavit they are dead in the water.  The case law anticipated to be presented in a MSJ can also be poked full of large holes by the wording in discovery.  Finally when they are to the point of having to produce the forward flow agreement they bail.  

Seriously the only problems have been because of the "rogue" JP court judges who have exercised their perceived option to disallow discovery.     

[Clydesmom]

3 hours ago, BV80 said:

It was not necessary to refer to @Clydesmom as a liar much less as “the most prolific liar”. 

It is representative of his LACK of character and poor social skills not any accurate assessment of who I am.  Fortunately decent people see right through him. Thanks to the ignore feature I don't see his garbage unless he is quoted by someone else.

[BV80]

@texasrocker

@Clydesmom

Here is my suggestion to both of you.   Put each other on “ignore”.  

You are both strong-willed and opinionated.  That is not necessarily a bad thing, but it can result in major conflict when the personalities who fit that description challenge each other.  

I have no doubt that to you are both here to help consumers. Offer your suggestions and trust that posters are intelligent enough to choose what is best in their situation.  

[Clydesmom]

15 minutes ago, BV80 said:

That is not necessarily a bad thing, but it can result in major conflict when the personalities who fit that description challenge each other.  

How is it that no moderator has noticed I have not responded to him in 2 or 3 months UNLESS he attacks me first AND someone quotes it or calls attention to it?  His behavior has gone unchecked including the religious remarks I complained about spilling over to him doing it TO a moderator.  How much more do we have to tolerate?  

[texasrocker]

47 minutes ago, Clydesmom said:

How is it that no moderator has noticed I have not responded to him in 2 or 3 months UNLESS he attacks me first AND someone quotes it or calls attention to it?

So this "attack" which started this very disagreement was in reference to someone other than myself?  "Well we all know who this refers to [GOD bless the ignore feature I am spared the nonsense] but the reality is that "method" isn't special.  If you go back and look at his posts when he got sued a decade ago he hired Jerry Zarombek and is merely copying what the attorney did to make the case dismiss.  He just takes credit for it as though he invented the wording and process therefore HE is winning cases not his ability to copy what someone smarter than him did."

 

47 minutes ago, Clydesmom said:

His behavior has gone unchecked including the religious remarks I complained about spilling over to him doing it TO a moderator.  How much more do we have to tolerate?

  Who's behavior?  You still have not shown one iota of evidence that I ever sent antisemitic messages.  That is a serious allegation that anyone who got wind of would certainly like to see so let us have it now if it exists. Since I know it does not exist an apology will be sufficient.

 

1 hour ago, BV80 said:

Here is my suggestion to both of you.   Put each other on “ignore”.

I will not put her on ignore because if I do then who is going to stand up to her obsession of lying about me?   I was going to say that I would agree to a truce until I read her reply that included another lie regarding never saying anything unless I "attack" her first when it was her "attack" that started this. 

I have always expressed my willingness to accept her apology for telling newcomers here that following my advice will lead them straight to judgment and then turning around and dishing out the same advice to others.  I am now saying that a mere acknowledgment and apology for conjuring up several fallacies about me will also be readily accepted and it will never be mentioned again.  

[Harry Seaward]

2 hours ago, texasrocker said:

I cannot see where you are getting the idea that they prefer a trial.

The preference for trial is with the courts, not the JDB. Apparently a JDB would prefer anything but a trial, including dismissal at the slightest hint of resistance. 

[cjtx2]

On 3/20/2019 at 11:16 PM, blueapron said:

To clarify, this was taped to my door and not handed to me in person. 

Service in Texas must be hand delivered.

Taping it to your door is not an acceptable service of process.

Of course, some JDBs use sewer service and they will produce an affidavit stating that they hand delivered it to you so they can obtain a default judgment.

Legally, you do not have to respond to the court and make an appearance due to lack of service, but if you want to avoid all the headaches of fighting a default judgment you should file a general denial to call into question their affidavit.

[texasrocker]

2 hours ago, cjtx2 said:

Service in Texas must be hand delivered.

Taping it to your door is not an acceptable service of process.

It actually could be acceptable according to the TRCP 106 (b2) but is very uncommon.  " ...the court may authorize service in any other manner that the affidavit or other evidence before the court shows will be reasonably effective to give the defendant notice of the suit."  and in the "new" JP court rules 501.4(5) "A copy may be delivered in any other manner directed by the court."

[cjtx2]

46 minutes ago, texasrocker said:

It actually could be acceptable according to the TRCP 106 (b2) but is very uncommon.  " ...the court may authorize service in any other manner that the affidavit or other evidence before the court shows will be reasonably effective to give the defendant notice of the suit."  and in the "new" JP court rules 501.4(5) "A copy may be delivered in any other manner directed by the court."

There must be a court order to authorize this type of service. A process server cannot take it upon him/herself to tape the summons to the door.

[Harry Seaward]

15 minutes ago, cjtx2 said:

There must be a court order to authorize this type of service.

How do you know there wasn't?

But really, more to the point, best case in your scenario is a defendant must ignore the complaint, risk default judgment on a chance the process server violated court rules, petitions the court to set aside judgment for defective service, the court agrees and then the plaintiff just refiles the lawsuit and conducts proper service the second time around.  Seems like a huge risk to take for no gain.