foolsmission
Member
What is the name of your state? California
I've been fighting back since June and the CA's attorney (Plaintiff) just sent me a Request for Dismissal. It is however without prejudice.
Attorney says his client will not agree to "with prejudice" dismissal.
I've cost them money and they've cost me some money. I'm not going to pay them for a delete as they are reporting incorrectly anyhow.
The debt is now five years old, and their alleged account stated case turns four years old this week.
They say the collections account is being returned to the JDB along with many others they've not been able to collect on.
So far I've done better than one poster here predicted, but would like to make sure it won't come back. I never filed FDCPA counter claims although I drew some up.
Thanks for the help to date.
p.s. Found a neat area of law of use to those here:
"The common law mailbox rule" = the RECEIPT of a properly adressed, stamped piece of mail (not returned to sender) is A REBBUTABLE PRESUMPTION. LEXIS has case law on it.
I've been fighting back since June and the CA's attorney (Plaintiff) just sent me a Request for Dismissal. It is however without prejudice.
Attorney says his client will not agree to "with prejudice" dismissal.
I've cost them money and they've cost me some money. I'm not going to pay them for a delete as they are reporting incorrectly anyhow.
The debt is now five years old, and their alleged account stated case turns four years old this week.
They say the collections account is being returned to the JDB along with many others they've not been able to collect on.
So far I've done better than one poster here predicted, but would like to make sure it won't come back. I never filed FDCPA counter claims although I drew some up.
Thanks for the help to date.
p.s. Found a neat area of law of use to those here:
"The common law mailbox rule" = the RECEIPT of a properly adressed, stamped piece of mail (not returned to sender) is A REBBUTABLE PRESUMPTION. LEXIS has case law on it.
Last edited: