Brand new to this forum. Ran out of advice on another forum and still looking for answers.

I was served with a summons from a local lawyer last Thrus. I have until 7/19/07 to file my answer. I'm not sure if it was issued legally or not. I sent them a validation of debt letter well within the 30 day time limit they set in their letter to me, they served me with a summons without giving me any sort of answer to my letter. It was sent certified, return/receipt and I have copies and all that. This is an attorney that was hired by the collection agency that now owns the debt. (CACH, LLC) I know that it states in the FDCPA (Fair debt collection practices act) that a suit can filed without providing validation, if validation is sought. But then I found a web site that states the opposite, though the case that they site as evidence is having to do with the CA not being able to get a judgement issued without validation.

I'm also confused as to what exactly will constitute validation. There is what is laid out in the FDCPA, and then what is set forth in an interpretation of that section (809 (b) I think). I'm confused. I want to represent myself in court and avoid a lawyer fee, but I want to be as informed as possible and not let them cheat me! I know that CACH has a nasty reputation for using illegal practices.

Since you have been served , file Notice of Intend to Defend in the court, this will cause a hearing date to be set.

Now since they have fail to validicate the alleged debt, that is you defense at the hearing. Do not admit or deny that the alleged debt is yours. At the hearing demand to see the original contract your allegelly sign, not a copy the original, NO contract, no claim.

If the plaintiff is not present in the court, move the court ot dismiss with prejudice, lack of jurisdiction, no plaintiff, no case

Who exactly is the plaintiff? Is it the law office that I have been contacted by or the collection agency? If it is the CA, does that mean that someone from the CA must be present? Isn't that something that the judge would catch and throw the case out?

Isn't it illegal for the CA to sick the lawyers on me after I sought validation of the debt from them directly? Or is that protected under the whole still able to pursue legal action?

They have not reported the debt as in dispute to the CRAs (credit reporting agencies), isn't that illegal? I tried to have the CRA do an investigation, but all that did is show up as activity on the account and extend the time that it will be on my report. Is that because the CRA decided that it was valid, so it isn't in dispute anymore? Isn't that something that I should agree with?

I just feel like I'm being scammed somehow. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I know this CA is one of the worst in the country and I just don't believe that they have handled everything in this whole scenario legally.

Thanks for the advice already. That is info that I have been looking all over the internet for! I like this forum already!

Attoreny is not the plaintiff, it would be the collection agency, attorney cannot testify for their client, so if the plaintiff doesn't show, no case.

Yes they have to validicate the alleged debt, if they don't, they have no valid claim against you. Make them prove it.

Don't forget to file NOtice of intend to defend.

Can I just say that I LOVE THIS PLACE! :D I have been feeling like I am the most informed person in other forums and I end up spending all my time explaining why I refuse to just pay them off and siting sections of the FDCPA. What a relief!!

Thanks for the advice, I will defintely file an intent to defend.