I rec'd interrog. in reponse to the summons response I recently filed. They came regular mail and state I have 20 days to respond. Do they carry the same weight/ramifications as the summons? In other words, am I under the same obligation to answer and bound by the 20 day time constraint? Also, I have twice asked for debt validation and have not received same. If I am bound to answer interrog., why are they not bound to my request for discovery/validation. According to credit report this account is listed as closed at the creditor's request, with a portion of the debt listed as "written off." I am dealing with Forster/Garbus and they claim Citibank is the plaintiff, but Citibank has closed the account according to credit report. The interrog specifically ask about the Citibank account number and list it in the question, but both the summons and now the interrog. use an account number with different numbers (first four are different, remaining 12 are same) which tells me the account is owned by someone else. Am I on the right track with that assumption coupled with the fact that they won't respond to my validation request? How can I force their hand on that matter?
"Written off" and "closed" does not mean you do not legally owe the debt. Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents need to be answered in the time delays allowed by law or you can be brought to court to compel you to do so. What you really need to look out for is the Request for Admissions buried somewhere in that packet you got. Request for Admissions are deemed admitted if you do not answer them in the time delays allowed by law.
"Written off" and "closed" does not mean you do not legally owe the debt. I realize that, but it would tend to indicate that the debt was purchased by a 3rd party and as such I have a right to validation, correct? I don't believe it is possible to accurately answer the interrog. without validation and the knowledge of whom the debt is currently owned by. I have two forms, "Plaintiff's forst set of interrog." and "Notice to admit." The notice to admit states it was "served" but I rec'd it by regular mail....
How to respond First why do you not want to respond? if responding causes problems, then what I would do is make a limited response, this way you complied, Has best you could, it is good faith on your part, and since this is a complicated process say that you did the best you could for the soul purpose of being responsible. That what I would do
Is the plaintiff the original creditor? They can write it off and still sue on it. Writing it off just means it's been taken off their books, but it doesn't mean the debt goes away or that they can't try to collect. If they do collect, they'll "write it back on" by taking it out of the bad debt account. But the writeoff has nothing to do with your suit. You would have to get the validation now through discovery. You have to answer based on the best of your knowledge.
interrogatory Written questions designed to discover key facts about an opposing party's case, that a party to a lawsuit asks an opposing party (but not a witness, who can only be questioned in person at a deposition). Interrogatories are part of the pretrial discovery stage of a lawsuit, and must be answered under penalty of perjury. Court rules tightly regulate how, when and how many interrogatories can be asked. Lawyers can write their own sets of questions, or can use form interrogatories, designed to cover typical issues in common lawsuits.
I don't know if it is the original creditor, but I have my doubts as the firm uses a slightly different account number and the credit report not only reads that a portion was written off, but also has "closed at the creditor's request" which is an entry I've seen on other debts sold to 3rd party debt buyers. I have made 2 requests for validation and discovery as to the current owner and they have been ignored.
Hummmmm used a "slightly different account number" perhaps at the time you opened the account you used a slightly different social security number.
What??? Are you insinuating something there? If so, you are barking up the wrong tree as far as an accusation of fraudulent activity and I suggest you refrain from similar less than subtle assertions in the future. I have had accounts purchased by 3rd parties and the account numbers were changed by usually similar.
That's often what happens. Who is filing the suit? That determines if it's the OC or a third party involved. At any rate, answer as best you can.
It's Forster and Garbus and lists Citibank as the plaitiff, however, I have read where this particular firm, as well as others, have used the OC as plaintiff when in fact they are no longer the pursuing party. I would prefer to know the actual debt owner prior to answering. Am I ok answering in the same manner that i answered the summons, i.e., "without sufficient information as to form an accurate opinion to the question" based on the fact that they have thus far refused my requests for discovery/validation? Answering these interogg. leads me to bbelieve I am affirming the current creditor as well as the original based on the two account numbers and I don't want to do that.
You really need to make sure they didn't sneak Request for Admissions in there. If you do not answer those timely, it's game over.
The notice to admit... Please take notice that pursuant to CPLR 3123 you are hereby requested to furnish the undersigned, within 20 days of service (was not "served," sent regular mail) of the within demand, a written admission of the following facts: 1. That you did apply for the Mastercard acct.# (appropriate original account number, however, different account number listed next to defendant name in heading) 2. That you did receive credit in your name on the account. 3. That you did make or authorize charges on the account. 4. That you made or authorized payments on the account. 5. That you received periodic billing statements on the account. 6. That you received the benefit of all or a portion of the charges made or authorized on the account constituting the balance due and owing. 7. That, at the time each charge was made or authorized on the account constituting the balance due and owing, you did not intend to repay all or a portion of such charges. 8. That you are not claiming Identity Theft. 9. That you are not claiming unauthorized Use. 10. That you are not claiming all or any portion of the charges on the account that are the subject of this lawsuit were made after you closed the account. 11. That the final statement sent to the defendant revealed a balance due and owing of $20,224.29 (the number was doubled in less than a year on interest and fees, but was never sent bills indicating such) Because I do not believe Citibank (listed as Plaintiff) owns the debt anymore and due to the different account numbers I am thinking of answering 1-6 as... "Due to the fact that Plaintiff and it's Attorneys have failed to respond to repeated requests for validation and other discovery related materials, defendant is unable to accurately answer this question." #7, although completely untrue and would like to answer "No" probably going to answer the same due to previous mentioned circumstances. 8 and 9 I will answer that I am not claiming either... 10 The same answer as 1-6 even though the orig. account was doubled after DLA and end of billing. 11. Defendant, at no time, received a "final billing statement" revealing balance due and owing $20,224.29. Are my answers sufficient since I do not believe I can accurately answer the questions without proper discovery?
What's the boilerplate for this? "Defendant has no knowledge of this or lacks sufficient information from which to form an opinion at this time" or some such... (I'd look up a similar case and see how the defendant responded) Don't get cute or cop an attitude. Keep it simple and brief.
