Defendant lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny each of the Plaintiff's Request for Admissions and therefore generally denies paragraphs numbered 1 through XX. Have you served your own discovery on the Plaintiff?
If you can put it off for as long as possible. Either do not respond at all or mail it CMRRR on the 20th day. Some folks and even attorneys don't respond at fist and force the opposing counsel to a Compel order.
That was what I was wondering initially as it was sent standard mail and not court ordered. I figured they don't carry the same weight as the summons/complaint.
Requests for Admissions are tricky. Most court rules state that if you lack knowledge to respond, you have to say so and explain why you don't. What I might suggest is that you respond as follows: 1. [If it is your credit card number, you probably have to admit. If its not your number, deny. If you deny, you don't have to state why in response to Requests for Admissions.] 2. Defendant objects to this Request for Admission as vague. The Request does not identify any time period, transactions or otherwise. 3. Defendant objects to this Requests for Admissions as vague. The Request does not identify the date or amount of any alleged charges. 4. Defendant objects to this Requests for Admissions as vague. The Request does not identify the date or amount of any alleged payments. 5. [same idea] 6. [same idea] 7. Defendant objects to this Request for Admissions as vague. Because the Request does not identify any transactions, Defendant is unable to respond to this Request. 8. Denied. Because Plaintiff has failed to identify the transactions at issue, Defendant cannot say that there is no identity theft issue in this case. 9. Denied. Because Plaintiff has failed to identify the transactions at issue, Defendant cannot say that there is no authorization issue in this case. 10.Denied. Because Plaintiff has failed to identify the transactions at issue, Defendant cannot say that there is no transaction timing issue in this case. 11. Defendant admits that it received from Plaintiff a credit card statement showing a balance of $_________. The rest of this Request is denied.
As requested, I'll chime in here and side with both Enigma and Capitian. Either is a good choice. I wouldn't go through a whole lot of trouble over it. Typically, they'll compel if they really want something and are too stupid just to pick up a phone. Frankly, you can just "deny" it. The most important thing is a timely response.
slainte17 just like you i too am being sued by forster & garbus for a capital one account.They also list a different account number then the one i had with capital one that shows up as charged off-written off.Just like you i sent in my answer to the summons/complaint but now i am waiting to see what happens next.The questions they ask are similar to the charges on the complaint only a little more specific.I would answer them the same way you answered your summons/complaint.How can you answer otherwise? you have not been given any new information since you answered the summons/complaint have you?To give any other answer would be admitting the answers in your summons/complaint were not truthful.Could they be trying to trick you?
As Hedwig explained, "written off", or a synonymous "charged off" notation merely means an internal accounting action was taken. It should not even begin to be an indication the debt was sold. Many, many banks may write them off but hold on to them. Cap One is one that jumps to mind, I don't think I've ever heard of them selling their debts. Closed by credit grantor - again, absolutely no indication of it being sold. It simply means the card was closed to any additional charges.
I think BofA holds on to their paper a long time, too. Or at least, they used to. They may be selling now for cash because of all the mortgage issues.
Admissions isn't really a form of discovery, it's intended to narrow the issues so that the court can focus on what is really disputed. As has been pointed out, if someone were to ignore this and not respond, they would essentially be admitting everything as the other side has portrayed it, game, set, match, that sort of thing. Furthermore, if the documents are to be shipped via the mail to the other side, there are rules that require you to add days on. It isn't probably wise to wait til the last minute to respond unless you are sure you know exactly how this and other rules affect how much time you have.
This is the same boat I am in too. Just a different attorney,and a different company. They ask a lot of questions about the original creditor, but they have the date totallly wrong. They ask if I got the card on or around the time that the collection agency bought it. I feel if I was paying this to the original owner, that would be cool, and I would be wanting to "right my wrong". But this is not the original owner..... And they just keep piling more interest on. This thread has been really informative. Thank you.....
Here is what I came up with for the answer, still working on interrog..... SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF GENESEE CITIBANK, N.A., INDEX NO. 56547/07 Plaintiff AGAINST XXXXX X XXXXXXXXXX, Defendant Defendant answering pro se regarding notice to admit does state as follows, Defendant lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny each of the Plaintiff's Request for Admissions and therefore generally denies paragraphs numbered 1 through 7. Paragraph 8 is denied as Plaintiff has failed to identify the transactions at issue, Defendant cannot say that there is no identity theft issue in this case. Paragraph 9 is denied as Plaintiff has failed to identify the transactions at issue, Defendant cannot say that there is no authorization issue in this case. Paragraph 10 is denied as Plaintiff has failed to identify the transactions at issue, Defendant cannot say that there is no transaction timing issue in this case. Paragraph 11 is denied as Plaintiff has never received a statement, final or otherwise, regarding any credit account with a balance of $20,224.29. Dated: February 14, 2008 ___________________________________ XXXXX X. XXXXXXXXX
And this is my Interrog response.... Defendant answering pro se regarding Interrogatories, Defendant lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny each of the Plaintiff's Interrogatories contained in paragraphs 1 through 7 and therefore generally denies paragraphs numbered 1 through 7. Paragraph 8, Defendant has never purchased â??debt avoidance materials.â? Defendant lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny each of the Plaintiff's Interrogatories contained in paragraphs 9 through 18 and therefore generally denies paragraphs numbered 9 through 18. Paragraph 19, Defendant has borrowed money from certain lenders and has repaid some or all of said debts. 19 was kind of tricky as it gives me the gut feeling that it might be some kind of trick question, maybe I'm just paranoid but it reads as follows..... "Have you ever borrowed money from a lender other than the Plaintiff, including lenders that are banks, savings and loans, thrifts regulated by federal or state law? If so did you repay all or any part of such loans?"
Answer Paragraph #: Objection, the interrogatory is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Requests for Admissions The problem with answering a Request for Admissions with a statement that you lack knowledged etc. is that most court rules regarding requests for admission state that if you are going to state that you lack knowledge, you have to give some explanation as to why. That is why I would still recommend objecting to the ones I tagged as vague. If you object, they have to move to compel you to answer over your objection.
Update.... I hired an attorney and case went to court....attempted to get a dismissal because they did send discovery materials consisting of blank statements from OC (Universal Mastercard) with my acct # on it. None of the statements showed transactions or balances....the first figure to show on any statement was the first statement wherein Citibank was the new creditor. We argued that there was no information provided to establish the original debt and there was a statement gap wherein the balance nearly doubled based on fees and accelerated interest. Went from 12k to 20k and no statements were sent to indicate the accumulation of fees/interest. We lost on the 1st issue but won on the 2nd and they were ordered to recalculate the debt (or the Court is recalculating it). I now have to figure out a way to settle or just take the judgement. It is actually in my wife's name and she is not on our deed (we have no plans to ever move again) and does not work, so a judgement doesn't mean much more that a longer period of time to fix her scores.
