[dmorton]

I have filed a counterclaim to a lawsuit with several "contibutory negligence" assertments which I have received an answer to which generally denies all allegations and demand strict proof thereof in accordance with Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. How do I answer?

[chauhan vijaysingh]

For court suits, proofs are important factor. Strict proof is asked for the allegation lodged to save court time. Though the person not having strict proof, court proceedings
Can be continued and the substantial proofs can be produced in lieu of the
Strict proof so as to convience the court about the contibutory negligence.

[chauhan vijaysingh]

Reg. Income Tax : My pension was with-held from September 2006 to March 2007 which
Was below level of Income Tax. I received that pension in the month of July 2007 along
With the leave salary etc. As the with-held pension received in the financial year 2007-08
It became taxable and crossed the Income Tax slab. Is there is section or clause in
Income Tax Act to give me the rebate on the such with-held pension which was the fault
On Govt. part

[dmorton]

For court suits, proofs are important factor. Strict proof is asked for the allegation lodged to save court time. Though the person not having strict proof, court procedings
can be continued and the substantial proofs can be produced in lieu of the
strict proof so as to convience the court about the contibutory negligence.

Is there a correct method to submit the strict proof. I am assuming that this is part of the rules of discovery but do not know what I should offer as strict proof (pictures, property code, certified mail receipts, etc.) and in what format I should use to submit this proof.

[mr.yet]

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.