Answer filed for PRA suit. Will it fly? What next

[Noreturn]

Just realized the "account stated" claim in this summons, now I don't know how to answer. Help please?? Does this change any defenses I can claim. I have not submitted my answer, need to by 9/3. So far I have denied everything except my name. Defense I have claimed:

1. Failure to state a cause of action. The plaintiff is not the original creditor and did not state it is now the legal owner and has a right to sue on it.

2. Statue of limitations. OC is Capital One who's CC agreement states "card holder defaults once they miss a payment or go over their credit line". The agreement also has a choice law statement using Virginia laws three year statue on open ended accounts.

3. Lack of Standing. The plaintiff is not who the defendant entered into contract with and did not state that is is the legal owner and failed to attach any agreement that shows it is the owner. 

4. Latches. fresh recollection, documents

4. Unjust Enrichment

 

Edited August 31, 2019 by yikesyo
more info

[Clydesmom]

3 hours ago, yikesyo said:

Does this change any defenses I can claim.

No.

3 hours ago, yikesyo said:

1. Failure to state a cause of action. The plaintiff is not the original creditor and did not state it is now the legal owner and has a right to sue on it.

Won't work.  PRA does not have to be the OC.  They are also not required to submit their proof of ownership with the suit filing.  The cause of action is account stated.

3 hours ago, yikesyo said:

2. Statue of limitations. OC is Capital One who's CC agreement states "card holder defaults once they miss a payment or go over their credit line". The agreement also has a choice law statement using Virginia laws three year statue on open ended accounts.

Cap 1 agreements do not have a choice of law and Idaho does not have a borrowing statute.  The SOL on credit card debt is 5 years not 3.  When did you default?

3 hours ago, yikesyo said:

3. Lack of Standing. The plaintiff is not who the defendant entered into contract with and did not state that is is the legal owner and failed to attach any agreement that shows it is the owner. 

See my answer the first time you used this in #1.

3 hours ago, yikesyo said:

4. Latches. fresh recollection, documents

This never works when filed within the SOL.

3 hours ago, yikesyo said:

4. Unjust Enrichment

NEVER works.  The courts know PRA paid pennies on the dollar.  The problem is under contract law they are legally entitled to the full value of your account not what they paid.

3 hours ago, yikesyo said:

Just realized the "account stated" claim in this summons, now I don't know how to answer. Help please??

See if the court has a pre-printed answer form where you can simply check "denied" and submit it.  Cap1 removed arbitration as an option almost a decade ago so you either have to file bankruptcy, settle or go to trial.

[BV80]

1 hour ago, Clydesmom said:

Cap 1 agreements do not have a choice of law and Idaho does not have a borrowing statute.  The SOL on credit card debt is 5 years not 3.  When did you default?

The Cap1 agreements I’ve seen state they are governed by the laws of Virginia.  Idaho does have a borrowing statute.

Idaho Code §5-239.  ACTIONS BARRED IN ANOTHER STATE. When a cause of action has arisen in another state or territory, or in a foreign country, and by the laws thereof an action thereon can not there be maintained against a person by reason of the lapse of time, an action thereon shall not be maintained against him in this state, except in favor of one who has been a citizen of this state and who has held the cause of action from the time it accrued.

“Idaho's borrowing statute is a choice of law rule that by its terms applies only where the action arises in another state — a situation that indicates another state most likely has a substantial interest in the action in most circumstances. Furthermore, the statute does not cause the application of a foreign limitations period unless the plaintiff was either not the original holder of the cause of action or was a non-resident of Idaho when the cause of action arose — situations that also indicate another state most likely has a substantial interest in the action.” Miller v. Stauffer Chem. Co.,99 Idaho 299, 581 P.2d 345, 349 (1978)

Virginia’s 3-year SOL applies to contracts that are in writing but not signed.  That could be argued for a credit card.

§ 8.01-246(4)

4. In actions upon (i) any contract that is not otherwise specified and that is in writing and not signed by the party to be charged, or by his agent, or (ii) any unwritten contract, express or implied, within three years.

[Noreturn]

To clarify, the defenses listed are those I considered using before I realized "account stated" cause. I guess my question should be has anyone successfully defeated account stated claim? Is this something I would have to argue within my answer like any affirmative defenses are? What if any besides sol are defenses to claim? Btw sol on sol  thinking. Nothing attached to summons. requested dv received their "validation" with 2 statements after they served me.

[Noreturn]

Filed answer today. Denied every claim based on lack of knowledge. Also claimed every affirmative defense available for this alleged account stated with the plaintiff (I.R.C.P 8 (c) A-S) due to lacking any knowledge of said account. Wonder if this will fly? Honestly not sure what happeneds next? Opinions, thoughts please...feeling lost about the procedural timeline in uncharted territory.

[Noreturn]

29 minutes ago, yikesyo said:

Filed answer today. Denied every claim based on lack of knowledge. Also claimed every affirmative defense available for this alleged account stated with the plaintiff (I.R.C.P 8 (c) A-S) due to lacking any knowledge of said account. Wonder if this will fly? Honestly not sure what happeneds next? Opinions, thoughts please...feeling lost about the procedural timeline in uncharted territory.