I have been sent a summons for a credit card debt of 38,900 that I have with Citibank. I became unemployed at he end of 2008 and stopped making payments on Feb 2009. I received a letter several months ago from a lawyer representing Citibank that stated they were willing to settle the debt for 70%. I answered in writing stating I was insolvent and unable to pay that amount and offered them to settle for 9,000. I stated in the letter that I didn't have that money, but that my sister was willing to lend me such amount in order to avoid bankruptcy. I never got an answer and now I get the summons. In the complaint they state that "before the institution of this action Plaintiff and Defendant had business transactions between them and they agreed to the resulting balance"
The only "transaction" I had was answering their offer with a counter offer. Does that constitute acceptance on my part of the balance owed? Can I still request they send me proof of the debt and the original contract to buy some time? Can I still negotiate a settlement? In the letter I had sent to the lawyer I stated that I would file for bankruptcy if they did not agreed to settle. Currently I am self employed and my income varies month to month. I have a mortgage on my apartment which is about 90% of the current sale price. I have no wages to be garnished and my bank account is below 1,000. Can they still go after my apartment even though its mortgaged? I would appreciate if anybody could give me some advice.

If they have correspondence whereby you acknowledged the amount of your debt then a request for documentation probably will not fly.

On the other hand it's not likely they will go after the apartment.

I'm going to add an editorial comment here. Banks and credit card companies are in the business of lending money and their income derives from charging interest on the money they lend. Now its true that some lenders were irresponsible in lending money when the risk was too great. But the consumer also has responsibility here. No one forced them to amass large amounts of debt. No one was forced to live beyond their means. So, while I sympathize with people who have had reduced amounts of income, I also have some sympathy for the lenders with lots of outstanding loans going bad. This is a two-way street and that has to be understood.

I think the legal terming is just standard wording saying that you were both parties to the money borrowed. Even at the beginning, where you used the card and borrowed from them. At that point you had transaction between each of you, and you did not object to any of the orginial billing, so you agreed with it ( normally 60 days to object to a bill statement)

I don't see it saying they agreed to any settlement.

What was the outcome?

Hello miami9876, I am too being sued by Citibank through a lawyer saying to be representing them through a CA. What happened with your case??