I recenty received summons for a credit card debt about 5-7 yrs old. I submitted the document stating I am not aware of this debt (I honestly had no idea what the debt was I was being sued for) which stopped the lawsuit prioceedings for now. I just today got an answer from the lawyers suing me that gives the name of original creditor which is an old cc account I believe was opened over 8 years ago. Not sure when I quit paying it but probably around 2001 or so.
From studying this site I have found my next step is to call the lawyers and tell them I need a copy of the signed original contract as I don't recall this account more or less. My question is two fold:

1. Isn't it highly unlikely they have the original signed agreement after thjis debt has been sold to probably 10 different recovery places? If they don't have this documentation will they continue the process to try and bluff me?

2. If the DO have this documentation when does the statute of limitations start? Because in Oklahoma the limit is 5 years. I am sure this debt is well over 5 yrs old.?

Thx in advance for any help. The debt is right at $5000

Sounds like it should be over the statue of limitation in most areas if you had not paid on it for a long time.

My daughter was in a similar situtation... I advised her to negoate a settlement... the attorneys advised he pay now or we will sue... after several weeks of negoating this thing they settled for $1000.00 cash now. The catch in all of this is if you can negotate a reasonable settlement with these people then do so... however advise them that this settlement if for full settlement and make sure YOU GET IT IN WRITING. In my daughters case the balance of $3000.00 was turned over to another collection agency who insisted she pay now or get sued... once she submitted her WRITTEN PROOF OF A SETTLEMNET it went away.

"received a summons" are not the right words when discussing a lawsuit for a credit card debt. Sounds like collection agency trickery to me. Hiring lawyers to sue you costs thousands and collection agencies/banks rarely do this for a $5,000 debt. If actually being sued, you would be "served" in person by a process server or a peace officer. You don't get a "summons". It's done in person and has a court's name, address, judge, etc. You also mention talking to the "lawyers" who are suing you. Once a lawsuit is filed, you usually have to hire your own lawyer or go through the court to get answers from the other side.

Sounds to me like you are being tricked into thinking you are being sued to scare you into paying. Your description of what is going on does not sound like a valid lawsuit. Could you post more about your so called "summons"? What does it say, who is it from etc. If it is from the attorneys, then it's not a lawsuit. It has to be from a court with stamps on it from the court clerk, case number, etc. Remember the collection agencies are very experienced at tricking the uninformed. They usually get money from debtors by using deceipt, threats, intimidation and rarely actually sue or take any legal action due to the high cost and the lack of actually getting any money back even if they win in court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prestonlewis

"received a summons" are not the right words when discussing a lawsuit for a credit card debt. Sounds like collection agency trickery to me. Hiring lawyers to sue you costs thousands and collection agencies/banks rarely do this for a $5,000 debt. If actually being sued, you would be "served" in person by a process server or a peace officer. You don't get a "summons". It's done in person and has a court's name, address, judge, etc. You also mention talking to the "lawyers" who are suing you. Once a lawsuit is filed, you usually have to hire your own lawyer or go through the court to get answers from the other side.

Sounds to me like you are being tricked into thinking you are being sued to scare you into paying. Your description of what is going on does not sound like a valid lawsuit. Could you post more about your so called "summons"? What does it say, who is it from etc. If it is from the attorneys, then it's not a lawsuit. It has to be from a court with stamps on it from the court clerk, case number, etc. Remember the collection agencies are very experienced at tricking the uninformed. They usually get money from debtors by using deceipt, threats, intimidation and rarely actually sue or take any legal action due to the high cost and the lack of actually getting any money back even if they win in court.

---

Sorry, I own a process service company and the phrase "received a summons" is used all the time. I have no idea what you mean when you say the OP would not "get a summons," it would be served in person.

Perhaps that is the case where you are but it is not correct in all jurisdictions - there are 3 absolutely legal ways to serve: personal, nail and mail, substitute. It is most definitely not always "done" in person.

I don't know why you think the OP is being tricked because "lawyers" from the creditor have contacted her/her. The OP submitted documentation disputing the debt and the Attorney for the creditor responded - nothing unusual about that. The Court most definitely would not respond - the Court doesn't have the information and the Attorney (representing the creditor) is legally responsible for the response. This is part of the legal process.

I realize from your posts that you must have some sort of bad experience with a similar situation; however, your blanket statements are incorrect here.