I have a CA that is sueing me for a credit card debt they are claiming I have. I've never had an account with the CO they are saying the debt was with, and in my interrogatories I asked for a copy of the contract between myself and the OC. They haven't been able to produce one, since one was never signed. Go figure that one. Anyway, I wanna try and get them on a FDCPA violation. I was reading a message that was posted here not long ago, and it was speaking about section 808 (1). If there is no agreement, it would be an unfair practice, and hence a violation. Now someone else had also mentioned section 807 (5) - The threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken. Well, I don't see how they can legally take action if the only proof they have of a debt is a table from an excel spreadsheet. I really wanna counter-sue on a violation... but I want to make sure I actually have grounds to. Thanks!! Added: I just read another post which mentioned Section 811 (2)(a) - would this be a possible violation??
from reading this I would think that 811 my be actionable if they did in fact file the suit and have you served. since thay can not bring suit against you with no contract or proof of the debt. I dont see how they can claim this debt is legally valid. did you ever check you states SOL on this yet? this may be a factor here as well as they can not bring suit after that time period . nor may they threaten to take civil action against you, when they know they dont intent to legally take it. those are violation you can sue for.
It's not out of the SOL.. at least not technically. The whole thing is a mess... it should be out of the SOL, but it isn't. Of course, seeing how they haven't been able to show me one ounce of proof it is my debt, I can't see how they could prove it isn't past the SOL.
ok if Im understanding you right this is NOT your debt, you requested validation from the CA within your 30 days and they did not repond with any proof,. but they are now suing you ? 1. have you been served yet ? if not do you know if papers were filed? ck with the court they may want a case # but can search by name. 2. have you disputed this acct with the CRA yet? 3. have they sent you any communication in writing saying that they were going to sue you? 4. what is the date they are claiming this acct went deliquent?
Did they provide any statements, or signed CC slips? Anything indicating when the account was opened and where billed to, presuming it was not your address?
It was to my address.. so they say. But I never recieved any bills from them. The only thing they have provided is a table from an excel spreadsheet. I've asked for copies of bills and a copy of the contract. They haven't produced either.
1. I have been served. 2. I have not disputed with the CRA as it's not on my reports. 3. Yes. They sent a summons. I sent a list of interrogatories.. they sent their list. I answered mine. They ojbected to 3 of my 5. 4. They are claiming a payment was made in Feb of 02. I asked them for statements/bank account records from the OC, and they objected as being too burndensome. I just got in the mail today they are going to request a summary judgement from the courts and not even let this go to trial. (Trial date is set for less then 2 weeks from today)
how can they claim payments were made in the account is not yours? in my opinion I would get a lawyer, and let him tell you what violations that he can countersue them for. they should not be able to get a summary judgement if they have no proof other than the excel spreasheet I would think.
How can they move for a summary judgement when you have obviously answered their complaint? That does not make sense. Summary judgements seem to be more prevalent when the defendent does not answer the plaintiff's charges. Since you have filed your own inter's...and have had three of the five tossed back as "burdonsome" (awhich is in itself a strongarm tactic to bully you into submission) obviously you know your way around the court room. I would definitely demand my day in front of the judge. If a summary judgement is granted, I would pray to the superior court to set aside the judgement and hear me. A basic right is for the accused to be able to confront his accuser. Question...did you ever pay anything on this account...like for a girlfriend or loan someone money (check) to pay on this acct? If they have nothing but a computer screen's printout..no contract, no paper trail pointing to you, it would seem that they could not hang this debt on you. However, if you can show the judge where you have attempted to be reasonable, i.e. you answered their initial notification within 30 days and they failed to respond with validation and continued collection activity (lawsuit) and even when they continued on to sue to sue you the CA refused to cooperate with you...maybe they will look like asses... You should check over on Http://www.artofcredit.com there is a great series of links regarding lawsuits...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Has the CA violated FDCPA 808 (1)? When did they first contact you, and what did they provide to identify the account?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Has the CA violated FDCPA 808 (1)? I would motion to deny summary judgment and to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted on the following grounds: 1. Plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence of a payment made during the statute of limitations period, as outlined by xxxx statute. 2. Plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence of a existing contractual obligation between xxxxxxxx and defendant other than documents generated by a third party who has no personal knowledge of the substance of the information. 3. Plaintiff has failed to exhibit any agreement between plaintiff and xxxxx that provides them with the legal authority to reduce the alleged debt to judgment. Wherefore, defendant prays that the court deny plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; and that plaintiff's complaint be henceforth dismissed in its entirety due to plaintiff's failure to state facts sufficiant to enable the court to grant relief upon plaintiff's claims.
