Civil Court Rules. Help!!!

How do you know it's not the entity that owns the debt? Have you done discovery to get proof of ownership?

Many times collectors are only assigned a debt, and it's still owned by the original creditor.

The creditor can also hire a law firm to sue on their behalf.

So before you file such a motion you need to know who the true owner is.

 

So what? They can do that. The United States Supreme Court ruled they can do that.

You can't do discovery until you have made an appearance to the court. In some states you have to file a notice of appearance before you can file your response to the court and you certainly have to file your response before you can engage in discovery. You can file a motion to dismiss at the same time you file your response but you need a valid reason to do so and your idea don't constitute a valid response.

And what do you plan to do in the way of discovery? Before you attempt to engage in discovery I'd recommend a good reading of the rules of civil procedure for both your state and local courts. Also you just might not even be allowed to use discovery. That might depend on how much you are being sued for. Discovery is one of the most valuable tools you have at your disposal but you have to know what questions to ask and how to ask them. Even then the lawyers will do their level best to give you silly answers or non-answers, denials, objections and whatever in order to keep you from getting any information whatever. They are good at it indeed. Then they come back with their discovery motions and get all bent out of shape if you don't give them the answers they want. So if you don't know what you are doing and how to do it they will run over you like a 10 ton truck.

You also have to know how many questions you can ask them. I use 30 questions even though some states allow 35 and some more. And you also need to know what to do when they come back with their garbage answers. I just went to court over discovery last Thursday. They responded to my demand for admissions with a bunch of nonsense and outright lies so I hauled them into court. They straightened up their act a bit before we got to court but in the process provided proof positive that they were trying to double dip on court costs and attorney fees as well as trying to pull some other nasty tricks. The judge wasn't real happy with them.

I also filed motion to show cause why they should not be sanctioned and we have a hearing on that August 26th. As the judge said when he closed the hearing, "I'll be waiting with baited breath for the next exciting episode of this case". (LOL)

Once that hearing is over I'll probably file motion for summary judgment as the judge suggested that I do. Then its off to federal court we go. I'm sure they are going to love that.

But it sure sounds to me like you have a lot of learning to do and an extremely short time to do it in. You might start your learning process by clicking on my google docs link below. You will get some help there but there is lots of reading to do. I'll have lots more up there before you get done. I'm fixing to upload some more stuff today. One of them is a set of instructions to the plaintiff's attorney when you respond to their demand for admissions. It was written by an attorney out in California and it is really dynamite. I've seen a great many responses from attorneys over the years and I've never seen any of them use anything like that in their responses.

Another thing you need to learn before you attempt discovery is that you can't ask any questions which call for a legal conclusion and you can't ask multi-part questions. You also have to be extremely careful about definitions. Take the phrase "customer agreement" for example. If you don't define what a customer agreement is they will usually come back and tell you they can't answer because they don't know what a customer agreement is. Try the phrase "financial institution" for another example. They will tell you they don't know what that is either. We know what those things mean and so do they but they won't admit it and will use it to avoid giving you an answer to your questions so you have to define everything for them. And now you know one of the reasons people and judges alike will tell you to go get a lawyer. Lawyers know or are supposed to know these things but lawyers aren't the only ones who know them. I know just about everything a lawyer is going to say or do before they do it so I know how to head them off at the pass. The way you talk I can tell you are headed for disaster. Sorry about that. I wish you the best of luck anyway.