Check out some similar questions!

Adora · Feb 2, 2011, 02:47 PM

I received alias appearance summons to answer a complaint for a credit card debt from a debt collection law firm Blitt & Gaines. They are not suing me but are suing on behalf of Palisades Collection and they Palisades is listed as the Plaintiff in the proceedings. The summons was mailed to me with a first class mail stamp on it from a PO Box, but it was filed in October 2010 in the court, but I did not receive it until January 25, 2011 and had to return it back by February 1, 2011. This only gave me 5 days to answer the complaint. The summons did not have a complaint attached on a sheet of paper with a court stamp, even though the letter stated that something was suppose to me attached. Also instead of the attorney's name there is a number listed, Attorney 1234. I checked the court filings and it was listed, so I know it was legit. They never answered my validation of debt letter. The law firm also listed themselves as an debt collector in the letter the letter wanted me to pay Blitt & Gaines, not Palisades, but I thought Palisades was the one who was the person whom the debt was owed. So, who is actually the debt collector, the law firm or Palisades. I have no idea what to do, I did answer the appearance form. The SOL was October 2010. Did I make a mistake in sending the validation of debt to the law firm, or should I have sent it to Palisades. Palisades purchased the debt from Chase. Each time I wrote Palisades they just send it to another debt collection company.

JudyKayTee · Feb 4, 2011, 03:02 PM

Without reading the notice I have no way of knowing which is the collection agency and which is the Attorney.

Is it your debt?

A complaint is often filed quickly in order to save the time frame (Statute of Limitation) and served some time later. There is nothing unusual in the two dates.

AK lawyer · Feb 7, 2011, 03:37 AM

Originally Posted by Adora

... The summons did not have a complaint attached on a sheet of paper with a court stamp, even though the letter stated that something was suppose to me attached. Also instead of the attorney's name there is a number listed, Attorney 1234. ...

I can't make out what you mean to say here. By "suppose to me" I assume you mean "supposed to be", but what you are saying about "a sheet of paper with a court stamp" is confusing. The summons didn't have anything with it?

The original complaint which was filed in court should have been signed by the attorney. If it wasn't signed something is amiss.