#12)"Please identify, including name, address and telephone number, ay person who owes you any money?"
#19) For all money or other consideration given by you at any time subsequent to January 1st 2006 to anyone, please identify separatly and with specifity each peson, including name , address and phone #.

No one owes me any money.. He has already tried to garnish my wages and I don't write checks... to anyone.. I operate with cash or credit cards... besides I don't keep records of minor stuff... should I just anwswer.. object to question , unreasonable..?

misshilde

12) not applicable
19) not applicable

Don't give any elaborate reason either as it is "not applicable" and nothing else will essentially be needed.

[QUOTE=misshilde]#12)"Please identify, including name, address and telephone number, ay person who owes you any money?"
#19) For all money or other consideration given by you at any time subsequent to January 1st 2006 to anyone, please identify separatly and with specifity each peson, including name , address and phone #.

No one owes me any money.. He has already tried to garnish my wages and I don't write checks... to anyone.. I operate with cash or credit cards... besides I don't keep records of minor stuff... should I just anwswer.. object to question , unreasonable..?



I believe the first is then not applicable if no one owes you money and that is what you say - it's not applicable.

Concerning the second it doesn't just ask about checks - it asks about money or other consideration (such as credit cards). The creditor is entitled to the info; you can try to delay the process but the next step will be to subpoena you, complete with your records (charge account statements - if you don't have them you will have to order them0, and have sworn testimony taken in person.

Thanks Judy Kay... so does that means payment to the kids ballet, gym, gas bill, electric bill, new underwear.. cat food etc... it would be unreasonable to have all that paperwork for 24 months.. I keep the receipts for certain stuff for tax purposes... and I filed my taxes for 2006.. haven't done 2007 yet... also I just thought about interrogs being part of puplic records.. right?. so when he asks for my bank account, address and to confirm my ss# I basically hand my life over to the next person wanting to take advantige...

misshilde

Interrogataories are not part of any public record. They are considered "discovery" documents for your lawsuit and are not disclosed to the public or kept in the court file at the courthouse. They are only shown to the judge if necessary.

[QUOTE=misshilde]Thanks Judy Kay... so does that means payment to the kids ballet, gym, gas bill, electric bill, new underwear.. cat food etc... it would be unreasonable to have all that paperwork for 24 months.. I keep the receipts for certain stuff for tax purposes... and I filed my taxes for 2006.. haven't done 2007 yet... also I just thought about interrogs being part of puplic records.. right?. so when he asks for my bank account, address and to confirm my ss# I basically hand my life over to the next person wanting to take advantige...



You asked me a question and I answered you - I don't make the rules, I'm just repeating them. You're shooting the messenger. If you don't want an answer, don't post the question.

Are you handing your life over to the next person waiting to take advantage of you? How are they taking advantage of you? Don't they have a judgment for money borrowed and not repaid? Do you really think anybody else cares about your kids' ballet lessons?

So, yes, it means ALL YOUR RECEIPTS - they want to know where your money has gone.

So do you owe these people or not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twinkiedooter

12) not applicable
19) not applicable

Don't give any elaborate reason either as it is "not applicable" and nothing else will essentially be needed.

---

You are aware that putting "not applicable" to a legitimate request is contempt of Court (speaking of the refusal to provide financial records)?

Not... but it looks like I have to pay to get rid of these people one way or another... it's not a crime to be stupid... but it sure costs... thanks for all your answers.. I'm just frustrated.. the attorney I talked to wants $3500 retainer and thinks he can get the amount down to $6500... and because I studidly let it go so long, it'll be hard if not impossible to fight... although I will try to file a motion to vacate... or dismiss... or something... this time I'll be on top of this... thanks.. and I didn't try to shoot the messenger... I was just freaked out believing the interrogs would be part of puplic record... it's a mom reaction...

misshilde

I can tell this really pisses you off, but, really, why not just answer.

None. And None.

Read over this response see if it fix your case.

Sample of a defense answer, if it fix your problem.

Defendant ME, answering the Complaint of the Plaintiff, asserts:

1. In response to paragraph #1, the Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations.

2. In response to paragraph #2, the Defendant admits.

3. In response to paragraph #3, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 3 of the Complaint and on that basis denies the allegations therein.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

As and for a First Defense,

1. Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff's Complaint and each cause of action therein fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the Defendant for which relief can be granted.

As and for a Second Defense,

2. Plaintiff has unclean hands as Plaintiff admits to purchasing the defaulted debt allegedly owed by the Defendant, causing Plaintiff's injury to its own self, therefore Plaintiff is barred from seeking relief for damages.

As and for a Third Defense,

3. Plaintiff's Complaint violates the Statute of Frauds as the purported contract or agreement falls within a class of contracts or agreements required to be in writing. The purported contract or agreement alleged in the Complaint is not in writing and signed by the Defendant or by some other person authorized by the Defendant and who was to answer for the alleged debt, default or miscarriage of another person.

As and for a Fourth Defense,

4. Defendant claims a Failure of Consideration, as there has never been any exchange of any money or item of value between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

As and for a Fifth Defense,

5. Defendant claims Lack of Privity as Defendant has never entered into any contractual or debtor/creditor arrangements with the Plaintiff.

As and for a Sixth Defense,

6. Plaintiff is not authorized or licensed to advertise or solicit, either in print, by letter, in person or otherwise the right to collect or receive payment of a claim for another, nor to seek to make collection or obtain payment of a claim on behalf of another. The Complaint fails to allege any exception or exemption to these requirements.

As and for a Seventh Defense,

7. Defendant alleges that the granting of the Plaintiff's demand in the Complaint would result in Unjust Enrichment, as the Plaintiff would receive more money than plaintiff is entitled to receive.

As and for an Eighth Defense,

8. Defendant states that Plaintiff's claim is precluded as Plaintiff failed to follow validation procedures as required by FDCPA 15 U.S.C § 1692g, which include, but are not limited to, obtaining and providing validation of the alleged debt from the original creditor.

As and for a Ninth Defense,

9. Defendant reserves the right to amend and/or add additional Answers, Defenses and/or Counterclaims at a later date.
COUNTERCLAIM

Statement of Facts

1. Defendant had no knowledge that MRC Receivables Corporation owned above alleged debt.

2. Defendant was under the impression from credit report that Midland Credit Management owned above alleged debt.

3. Defendant had no knowledge that MRC Receivables Corporation and Midland Credit Management are the same company.

4. Defendant sent letter to Midland Credit Management aka MRC Receivables Corporation on February 26, 2007, by way of certified mail; disputing and requesting complete validation of alleged debt.

5. Said letter was returned because the address that appears on Defendants credit report for Plaintiff is incorrect.

6.Defendant had to search the Internet to obtain correct mailing information for Plaintiff.

7. Defendant sent a letter to Lustig, Glaser & Wilson P.C. on February 26, 2007, by way of certified mail, disputing and requesting complete validation of alleged debt.

8. Said letter was received by Plaintiff on February 27, 2007, and signed for by Ed Gordon, agent of said Plaintiff.

9. Defendant sent another letter to Midland Credit Management aka MRC Receivables Corporation on March 27, 2007, by way of certified mail; disputing and requesting complete validation of alleged debt.

10. Plaintiff received said validation letter on March 29, 2007, and signed for by D. Petiotto, agent for the Plaintiff.

11. A complaint and summons was filed and issued on March 21, 2007 with an attached complaint dated March 20, 2007.

12. Up until the date of this filing, no validation was received from MRC Receivables Corporation aka Midland Credit Management or their attorney, yet through their attorney, continued to collect on alleged debt.

13. On March 30, 2007, Defendant was served with the summons and complaint.

Statement of Claim

11. In the course of its action, Plaintiff willfully and/or negligently violated provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in the following respect:

(a) by failing to cease collection of an alleged debt after the Defendant notified Plaintiff in writing that the alleged debt was disputed, therefore violating 15 USC 1692g(b).
(b) The failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed, therefore violating 15 USC 1692e(8).
(c) The use of any business, company, or organization name other than the true name of the debt collector's business, company, or organization, therefore violating 15 USC 1692e(14).
WHEREFORE the defendant prays the court as follows:

1. That the Plaintiff have and recover nothing of it in this action and that
the Plaintiff's action be dismissed as to it;

2. That the Court grants injunctive relief enjoining plaintiff from selling, transferring, reporting or otherwise assigning the alleged account to any other collection agency, debt collector, debt buyer or credit reporting agency.

3. That the Court grants a judgment against plaintiff on the merit of the Counterclaim in the sum of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00).

4. That the Court grants have and recover all cost of defending against this suit and interposing Counterclaim, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, filing fees, witness costs and postage.

4. That the Court grants to defendant such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper.
__________________

[QUOTE=misshilde]Not... but it looks like I have to pay to get rid of these people one way or another... it's not a crime to be stupid... but it sure costs... thanks for all your answers.. I'm just frustrated.. the attorney I talked to wants $3500 retainer and thinks he can get the amount down to $6500... and because I studidly let it go so long, it'll be hard if not impossible to fight... although I will try to file a motion to vacate... or dismiss... or something... this time I'll be on top of this... thanks.. and I didn't try to shoot the messenger... I was just freaked out believing the interrogs would be part of puplic record... it's a mom reaction...



A $3500 RETAINER? How much is the debt? Wow!

(Hey, don't kick yourself around the block; everybody makes mistakes. The secret is moving on.)

Thanks y'all... answers are in the mail today... and the supposed dept was $6500 the judgement for $12000 now they want $22000... outrages... gone through everything I ever had... and I never had a that card... preparing to try to vacate or dismiss or something... so I'll be reading a lot of law sites...


misshilde

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by progunr

I can tell this really pisses you off, but, really, why not just answer.

None. and None.

---

I see on your profile that you are a collections manager, experienced in skip trace and the like. In your area are you not held in contempt if you either refuse to answer a question on an interrogatory, don't answer truthfully? It's basically a discovery procedure and so (probably) different Courts can treat it as part of a Court procedure or not - as they see fit.

Some years ago my X write "none" when asked about his expenses instead of getting copies of bank statements, credit card statements, got hauled in and charged with contempt of Court by his creditor. Different in your area?

That would be correct in my area as well.

The way I understood the asker was that he did not loan anyone any money, and that no one owed him any money, and if that is the truth, the correct answer to those specific questions would be none, and none.

How would that be contempt of court?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by progunr

That would be correct in my area as well.

The way I understood the asker was that he did not loan anyone any money, and that no one owed him any money, and if that is the truth, the the correct answer to those specific questions would be none, and none.

How would that be contempt of court?

---

As I interpreted it the question was:

#12)"Please identify, including name, address and telephone number, ay person who owes you any money?"
#19) For all money or other consideration given by you at any time subsequent to January 1st 2006 to anyone, please identify separately and with specifity each peson, including name , address and phone #.


I took question #19 to be asking for a list of all monies paid out by the person answering the interrogatories to other persons since 1/1/06. I also read that to mean living expenses as well as loans or anything else. "Given by you" appears to me to be the key phrase.

I don't read that as how much money other people owed the debtor but what the debtor is spending money on - thus, N/A (unless the poster is living somewhere for free and saving all her money) would be contemptuous.

How do you read it? Always glad to be corrected if I am wrong -

I guess the language could be more specific, and really, could be taken either way.

Since it states to "a person", I take that to not include business and regular cost of living
Type expenses to utility companies, phone or cable companies, or the gas station were you fill up your tank.

I would assume that if they wanted a complete detail of every single expense that has been paid for since January 2006, they would have been more specific in exactly what living expenses they wanted. Truthfully, the question is rather vague, especially for a court document.

I'm not here to correct anyone, and can stand to be corrected myself anytime!

TO be on the safe side I answered(#19)... "unknown at this time, under investigation".
As I don't write checks,(that is so "20th century") I have to order all bank records older than 6 months... this takes up to 3 weeks and costs money... as for my personal expenses I wrote those out with specificity... only a few of those, like car and a few credit cards... as for household expenses, my husband pays for those and as his name was not on the interrogs I left those out and as you said the question is "kinda" vague... I am however assuming I will get some kind of letter to compel me to answer a few other things I objected to. So like I said earlier I will be reading a lot of law site looking for info...
Once again thanks for your input.. it's always good to see the way other people think.. and you are right, this totally pisses me off and I just want to rip this whole things to pieces so it's good that your inputs keep me somewhat levelheaded

misshilde

Mr. Yet has it right. That other stuff a joke.