Credit Card SOL

[JETX]

Okay, here we go again... having to educate the ignorant.

Interrogatories are for answers to questions. They will NOT get you a validation of a debt. What you probably meant was 'Request for Production'. That is when you ask for copies of documents.

Or you could simple send the party a "Subpoeana Duces Tecum".

But then McKee didn't know that, did you?? If you did, you would have realized that there is another motive for the validation. That being that the agent (and yes, I know that this only applies to 3rd party agents per the FDCPA) is stopped from pursing the debt in court until they comply with the validation request!! But then you didn't know that either, did you??

And finally, I realize that the FDCPA does not apply to the original creditor, but in my experience, it is far more likely that this case is being filed by a 3rd party agent or attorney, than by the original creditor and that the poster may be confused by the parties.

 

[MrKee]

Okay, here we go again... having to educate the ignorant.

Interrogatories are for answers to questions. They will NOT get you a validation of a debt. What you probably meant was 'Request for Production'. That is when you ask for copies of documents.

Or you could simple send the party a "Subpoeana Duces Tecum".

But then McKee didn't know that, did you??

What a pitiful plight you have, having to educate the ignorant and all!

You're giving advice to request validation from an original creditor, when there is no legal responsibility whatsoever for the OC to provide such. At least with a set of interrogatories, the OC has to respond.

But, hey, you know it all! I'll just defer all further advice in this matter to you!

Wow, how clever of you to edit your post after I had responded to it! I just hope for the sake of the original poster that you are correct, that indeed a third party is handling this claim. And if not, how sure are you that the previously stated documents provided by the OC won't meet the test of validation? If the standard agreement they supplied included her signature (as in a signed credit card app) and statements showing she used the line of credit, then it probably will meet the test.

Your assumption that the original poster is 'confused' about who is trying to collect is just that, an assumption. Just further proof that 'free advice' is worth exactly what you pay for it.

MrKee (recently educated ignoramus)

 

[krispenstpeter]

But, hey, you know it all! I'll just defer all further advice in this matter to you!

Now THAT was a correct response.

 

[JETX]

But, hey, you know it all! I'll just defer all further advice in this matter to you!

Finally, progress!!!

 

[cf6-80c2]

You are probably being sued by Love, Beal, & Nixon. They are a law firm, but still considered a debt collection company [www.LBNCollect.com]. You will probably have to send them several letters as they usually don't validate. Follow JETX's validation suggetions and his request for production of documents citing "Oklahoma Rules of Discovery §12-3226".

They have not won an answered case since I have been tracking them since around September. I have become a little bored with it and have not been following it as much lately as my cases were dismissed, but this is basicly their MO. They put the answered cases off for a long time hoping for a default judgment. If they can't get that, then they file a request for admissions and interogatories hoping you won't answer them. If you don't answer the interogatories with 30 or 35 days they will file a request for sumary judgment. That is all I know so far as the answered cases seem to just sit there on the docket. You can track your case on [www.oscn.net].

 

[Ladynred]

Has the writer pulled her credit reports to find out what is being reported as the date of last activity ?? If not, I urge you to do so ASAP as that will somewhat helpful. DID you use the account or make a payment in August 2001 ? You need to know - was it last payment in 2000 or 2001 ?

While the credit report isn't fool proof for proving dates for the SOL defense, it is still important to know what's on it for that account.

CF is right though - the majority of these kinds of lawsuits are won by default and many would never be won if the defendent would just answer the lawsuit and/or appear in court !!

Discover is known to be sue-happy, but after all this time, like JetX, I seriously doubt that Discover is actually doing the collecting/suing.