I am new to this site and hope someone can help. I was recently married and before my husband and I married we consolidated all of our finances, ran credit reports, and cleared all debts that were old so that everything was current before we went into our marriage. My husband started receiving collection calls around Oct 2008 from Midland regarding an old debt. My husband ask them to provide details and statement on the debt and he would be happy to pay if he owed the amount. But was sure everything had been cleared so we needed proof. They failed to provide the details we requested and they continued to call. He continued to request the information, and finally asked them to stop calling if they were not going to provide evidence of what the debt was for. Shortly thereafter, he received a summons from a local ATTY in AZ on behalf of Midland. They were suing my husband for the amount of $1000 and some change. Attached to the summons was a citibank agreement, but not with his signature. Still no details, just very vague information. We filed a response to the summons because our intent is to fight. Not to pay something we have no idea what the debt is for. We have now received a Request for Admission from the ATTY office. I understand I need to complete this and send a copy back to the ATTY. My question is this, Should I file a Request for admission? If so, how do I go about doing this. To retain an ATTY would end up costing more than the debt they are trying to collect, so we are trying to fight this ourselves. Do I need to go to the courts to file the request? If so, are there proper forms that needs to be completed? Please help, we want to beat this company and we are positive this is most likely some old debt and these companies get away with collecting all of these fees in addition just because most people won't fight these cases. I refuse to back down. Any advice is appreciated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redchilipepper

I ... We have now received a Request for Admission from the ATTY office. I understand I need to complete this and send a copy back to the ATTY. My question is this, Should I file a Request for admission? If so, how do I go about doing this. To retain an ATTY would end up costing more than the debt they are trying to collect, so we are trying to fight this ourselves. Do I need to go to the courts to file the request? If so, are there proper forms that needs to be completed? Please help, we want to beat this company and we are positive this is most likely some old debt and these companies get away with collecting all of these fees in addition just because most people won't fight these cases. I refuse to back down. Any advice is appreciated.

---

If you don't respond in the required period, these admissions can be used against you when the case goes to trial. The plaintiff would not have to prove any of it. So, yes, you should respond, refusing to admit things you don't agree with.

In most cases, you would mail your own RFA to the attorney for the plaintiff, keeping proof that you mailed it, and when. In most jurisdictions discovery such as this doesn't have to be filed with the court. It could be helpful when, as is frequent in collection cases like this, the plaintiff may not be able to get the pertinent documents it needs to prove. For example, it is possible that plaintiff (assignee of the original party with which you contracted) does not have your signed agreement. If you get it to admit this, it may be helpful in court.

Other discovery tools include "interrogatories", "requests for production", and depositions. You can do these by yourself if you want. I suggest you read your court's civil rules for the specifics of what these should look at. Use the RFA sent to you as a model, and modify it as circumstances warrant.

Discovery or interrogatories in debt collect should be answered, but don't admit any thing. The attorney or Plainitff are trying to get you to admit everything for them.
Simply State; " I cannot admit or deny any of the alleged claims, due to no validcation was be done nor has the original contract been provide to compare the signatures.


Also use the following:

FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT
AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION
IN CIVIL CASES




APPLICATION OF PRIVILEGE TO CIVIL CASES
In Andresen v. Maryland, 49 L.Ed.2d 627, 96 S.Ct. 2737 (1976), the Supreme

Court noted that the development of the protection against self incrimination was

In part a response to certain historical practices, such as ecclesiastical inquisition

And the proceedings of the Star Chamber which placed a premium on

Compelling subjects of the investigation to admit guilt from their own lips, the

“historic function” of the privilege having been to protect a natural individual from

Compulsory incrimination through his own testimony or personal records.