Ohio court tells plaintiff to either get history of payment or copy of original contract to get judgement. OC has attorney. Is one without the other validation? Hearing is set in 12 days. Help please.
This is "validation". Validation is for Collection Agencies, to "validate" a debt, and the fact that you owe it. "Verification" is for an "Original Creditor" (OC), to "verify" information reported to a Credit Reporting Agency. In your case, the judge is asking for "validation" of the debt.
So a computer print out of payment history is sufficient validation to get a judgement? Since this is the OC using their attorney, it would not be worth my effort to show up and ask they show contract I signed?
The judge isn't asking for validation, or verification... The judge is simply saying, look you have got to prove to me, this account exists, and that the amount is accurate, I am not going to award you a judgement, sight unseen. If it is a type of an account which there would typically be something in writing, with your signature, and they can provide the account statements, that the judge is asking for. You could still challenge, how do those statements show, with a purponderance of the evidence, that this is allegedly my account. i.e. They may have provided proof of the existance of the alleged account, but not who the alleged account belongs to.
1*I will send you 5 computer print outs all different. Which one is the right one which one do you pay?What if it's none of the 5.???????????? 2*Smart move ; give them an automatic default judgment.
An educated consumer can beat virtually any attorney, if they are persistant, and adament about defending their rights. Just look through the posts here, to see the consumers who have won against skilled litigation attorneys, on both the defendant, and plaintiff sides of the court. Everyone here, was once a newbie, the difference is that the members who have become the 'experts' have been persistant in learning, and following up. The lawyers case is only as strong as the evidence that their client can provide. If their client can't provide anything, the lawyer doesn't have a case, no matter how good that lawyer may happen to be.
