HELP! I don't wanna go to court again!!

[Skywench]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Texas

I'll keep this short and sweet:

1. Received summons - being sued by JDB for old credit card from 2005
2. Answered summons and Court set a trial date
3. Sent Request for Production of Docs to plaintiff's attorney
4. Went to court and judge said he'd reschedule so plaintiff would have their full 30 days to produce docs
5. Monday, two days before their 30 days is up plaintiff attorney sends me a bunch of photocopies including a few old credit card statements from 2005, a generic cardmember agreement - no signature or my name on it, and a copy of a bill of sale from OC to first JDB then from first JDB to the current one.
6. So far no new court date set but I'm sure it's coming

Can I go ahead and file a Motion to Dismiss now using the argument that everything the plaintiff provided is hearsay? Or do I have to wait until another court date is set, show up and do it then?

[JETX]

Originally Posted by Skywench

Can I go ahead and file a Motion to Dismiss now using the argument that everything the plaintiff provided is hearsay?

You can try that... but it won't work. You could file a motion for summary dismissal based on the fact that there are NO issues of law since they can't provide any PROOF.

Or do I have to wait until another court date is set, show up and do it then?

That is your BEST bet.

[Skywench]

Jim:

Thanks for the fast response!

Just two more questions, my argument is that all the documents are heasay, correct? And do you think this is something I can argue successfully myself or should I think about hiring a lawyer?

Skywench

[JETX]

Originally Posted by Skywench

Jim:

Who is 'Jim'??

my argument is that all the documents are heasay, correct?

No. They are NOT hearsay. The owner of a debt is allowed to enter their records (even if they were provided by a third party - original debt owner).
You could try to argue them to be hearsay, but since you are not an attorney (presumed) and they likely have an attorney, you will likely get shut down pretty quickly if this is your only claim as to their 'evidential value'.

And do you think this is something I can argue successfully myself or should I think about hiring a lawyer?

See above. I would still suggest you let this get before the court and present your defense, SPECIFICALLY the lack of a SIGNED contract.

[Skywench]

Originally Posted by JETX

Who is 'Jim'??

LOL - sorry! Saw the -Jim Cramer under your quote and thought that was you.

[Credithis]

Without a testifying and or notorized statement from the OC the statements submitted are without merit. They cannot be proven and you must attack as such. The generic card agreement the same. They are using standard JDB "facts" that cannot stand up in a court of law. Truthfully you need an attorney to help. File your own affidavit to defend your lack of knowledge with this from here:

[url=http://debtcollectionlawyer.blogspot.com/2006/08/how-to-not-pay-your-debt-or-beat_03.html]Debt Collection Lawyer: How to Not Pay Your Debt or Beat a Collection Suit[/url]

Quoting it:

The second step is to file a SWORN DENIAL. This needs to be a statement in WRITING that you FILE with the court where you have been sued. It can be a simple statement, but it needs to be typed, signed, notarized, filed with the clerk of the court and a copy sent to the collection lawyer. It needs to be a graduated denial. In other words, it needs to say, I deny this is my debt and if it is my debt, I deny that it is still a valid debt and if it is a valid debt, I deny the amount sued for is the correct amount. The sworn denial is a powerful tool. It eliminates the Sworn Affidavit of Account. The vast majority of collection suits proceed without a witness for the creditor The collection attorney enters an affidavit signed by the creditor that the debtor owes the debt and that is this amount. With that affidavit in hand, the court gives the creditor a judgment. When a sworn denial is filed, the debt collection attorney can not rely upon a sworn affidavit of account, but must instead produce a live witness to testify about the debt. The requirement of a live witness changes the dynamic of the collection action considerably. The likelihood that the action will go no further now increases again.