I actually changed the Affirmative Defenses with a more detailed explanation why the claim falls under Ohio's 4yr statue and not the 6yr contract statue. And I updated the counterClaims after further research and investigation. Can someone please critique this?
I am hoping for some feedback and constructive criticism...
I need to get this mailed ASAP.


I. ANSWER

1. The allegations of Paragraph #1 are denied for lack of knowledge about the truth and sufficient information to justify a reasonable belief therein.

2. The allegations of Paragraph #2 are denied for a lack of sufficient information to justify a reasonable belief therein. Defendant calls for strict proof of contested allegations.

3. In response to Paragraph #3, Defendant admits that Exhibit “A” is attached. The allegations are denied for insufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the statements; therefore Defendant denies the statements and leaves the Plaintiff to provide strict proof of contested allegations.

4. The allegations of Paragraph #4 are denied for a lack of sufficient information to justify a reasonable belief therein. Defendant calls for strict proof of contested allegations.


II. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. These ALLEGED debts, $1,551.89 from plaintiffs complaint, are time-barred and beyond the statue of limitations under Ohio statute § 2305.09 (attached exhibit # A)

2. These alleged accounts do not fall under the Ohio Statutes for written contracts and are excluded for the following reasons :
a) Under the Federal Truth In Lending Act Title 15 § 103 (attached exhibit #E) a credit card account is legally defined as an “open” account.
b) Credit cards and retail revolving accounts are excluded under Ohio Loan agreements with Financial Institutions Definitions Statute § 1335.02 (attached exhibit # B.) and supporting statutes § 1109.18 (attached exhibit #C), § 1317.01 (attached exhibit #D). They are not defined any differently than the Truth In Lending Act (TILA) or specifically as a type of contract, for purposes for state Statue of Limitations (SOL) the Federal Truth In Lending Act “open end agreements” Federal Statutes prevails.
c) As such the accounts are “open end agreements” not contracts, based on definition under TILA and the exclusion of these contracts under Ohio Loan agreements with Financial Institutions Definitions Statute § 1335.02 the referenced accounts by way of exclusion are time-barred and beyond the statue of limitations under Ohio statute § 2305.09 (attached exhibit # A)


III. COUNTERCLAIMS


1. Plaintiff violated FDCPA 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A) by reporting false and harmful information to Equifax, a consumer reporting agency as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(F).

2. Plaintiff violated FDCPA 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A) by reporting false and harmful information to Experian, a consumer reporting agency as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(F).

3. Plaintiff violated FDCPA 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A) by reporting false and harmful information to TransUnion, a consumer reporting agency as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(F).

4. Plaintiff violated FDCPA 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10) by using any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt by not reporting a “Date Opened” to Equifax, a consumer reporting agency as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(F).

5. Plaintiff violated FDCPA 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10) by using any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt by not reporting a “Date Opened” to Experian a consumer reporting agency as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(F).

6. Plaintiff violated FDCPA 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10) by using any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt by not reporting a “Date Opened” to Transunion, a consumer reporting agency as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(F).

7. Plaintiff violated FDCPA 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A) by falsely characterizing the account status as "Open” to Equifax, a consumer reporting agency as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(F).

8. Plaintiff violated FDCPA 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A) by falsely characterizing the account status as "Open” to Experian, a consumer reporting agency as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(F).

9. Plaintiff violated FDCPA 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A) by falsely characterizing the account status as "Open” to Transunion, a consumer reporting agency as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(F).

10. Due to the above violations plaintiff owe defendant $9,000.00.