Question about answering a summons

Suspecting and knowing are totally different cases. In the case of suspecting that the debt is yours that means that you do not know, and it is completely reasonable that you require proof that the debt is yours and time to properly evaluate that proof, prior to any court appearance.

If you know the debt is yours, denying it isn't an honest move--you are not likely to be prosecuted if you deny it, but you may loose credibility in the judge's eyes if the plaintiff produces compelling proof.

Something fully within your rights, however, and entirely on the up and up is to require that the plaintiff produce documents proving their position and give you time to review said documents. I've seen this tactic work time and again, and in fact it tends to be the first thing done by most attorneys representing a debtor defendant (discovery phase).

In most cases the answer contends that the defendant neither affirms nor denies the assertions of the plaintiff but requires sufficient documentation be produced that they may properly answer the claims of the plaintiff. This response is usually followed by a request for specific documents, or standards of proof, and a request for the judge to postpone further proceedings until such time as the defendant has received and reviewed the requested materials.

While you are reviewing these documents often a settlement outside of court can be reached between the two parties. If the debt is yours, and the plaintiff is able to produce sufficient validation of their claims the matter is unlikely to go away--great time for an offer in compromise. I've even seen cases where the CA agrees to schedule the hearing sufficiently far enough in the future to allow the debtor to make a settlement in two or three payments with the (signed and written) understanding that the plaintiff dismiss the case and remove any negative reporting so long as the payments are made as agreed.