SOL and Interrogatories question.

[Akhenaten]

What is the name of your state? NY

A lawfirm on behalf of Pallisades claimed that the last activity of my verizon account was October of 2001, although the last payment made was May of 2001. What is considered SOL in this case?? Last payment made, or last activity claimed?

FYI - They still have not provided proof of the claim. Yet, they have just served me with a letter of Interrogatories. What are my options?

[daprez1963]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

What is the name of your state? NY

A lawfirm on behalf of Pallisades claimed that the last activity of my verizon account was October of 2001, although the last payment made was May of 2001. What is considered SOL in this case?? Last payment made, or last activity claimed?

FYI - They still have not provided proof of the claim. Yet, they have just served me with a letter of Interrogatories. What are my options?

are they claiming that the last activity was the charge off? is the last activity a payment or use of the phone? it has to be your last activity, not theirs. i am not sure about ny's law when it comes to last use or last payment regarding the start of sol, but it has to be yours not theirs. you see, each month, interest is added on to it, so i guess in their theory, there is always activity on it.

[debtcollector`]

Originally Posted by daprez1963

are they claiming that the last activity was the charge off? is the last activity a payment or use of the phone? it has to be your last activity, not theirs. i am not sure about ny's law when it comes to last use or last payment regarding the start of sol, but it has to be yours not theirs. you see, each month, interest is added on to it, so i guess in their theory, there is always activity on it.

Nonsense.

The OP was served with Interrogatories. That means the OP is either being sued or has already lost a lawsuit and they are pursuing enforcement options.

The OP will have to provide more information to get a better answer.

DC

[daprez1963]

Originally Posted by debtcollector`

Nonsense.

The OP was served with Interrogatories. That means the OP is either being sued or has already lost a lawsuit and they are pursuing enforcement options.

The OP will have to provide more information to get a better answer.

DC

Since when did sol matter after losing a suit? I would think he is being sued and the other side has not a lick of proof. btw, i have read (maybe only here in fla) that if someone is fought and they are pro se, the other side with a lawyer may not initiate discovery (only if the pro se does first).

yes, the OP needs to provide more info before we both jump to false conclusions.

[debtcollector`]

Originally Posted by daprez1963

Since when did sol matter after losing a suit? ...

It doesn't - ergo your post was a waste of electrons. Your theories were almost laughable - if it wasn't so sad that you actually thought that.

DC

[daprez1963]

Originally Posted by debtcollector`

It doesn't - ergo your post was a waste of electrons. Your theories were almost laughable - if it wasn't so sad that you actually thought that.

DC

Excuse me? Are you being insulting as I have seen in some of your past post. I was actually questioning why the OP was even mentioning SOL if this case had gone past the trial stage and they were seeking info for collecting. Now if it was still in the stage before trial, then my post would stand as I said, "maybe only in FLA" because we do have a part in the RCP that states the plaintiff, if represented by an attorney, may not initiate a discovery on a pro se defendant unless the pro se first starts it. If you would like, I will post that rule. However, I noticed the OP is in NY so it may not matter. While I think we were just having a constructive conversation, it went south with your usual insult. Might I say that you are one of the biggest waster of electrons here. The difference with you and I is that your theories are far beyond "almost" laughable because you actually believe everything you post and have the gall to post them.

[daprez1963]

Oh, what the heck. I know the Op is in NY, but after debt collectors' insulting comment, I thought I would go ahead and look up the rule that applies here in FLA.

RULE 7.020. APPLICABILITY OF RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

(b) Discovery. Any party represented by an attorney is subject to discovery pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.280–1.380 directed at said party, without order of court. If a party proceeding without an attorney directs discovery to a party represented by an attorney, the represented party may also use discovery pursuant to the above-mentioned rules without leave of court. When a party is unrepresented and has not initiated discovery pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.280–1.380, the opposing party shall not be entitled to initiate such discovery without leave of court. However, the time for such discovery procedures may be prescribed by the court.

[daprez1963]

Originally Posted by debtcollector`

Nonsense.

The OP was served with Interrogatories. That means the OP is either being sued or has already lost a lawsuit and they are pursuing enforcement options.

DC

The OP stated "FYI - They still have not provided proof of the claim."
Sounded to me like the case hasn't been even heard yet by the judge. How could they have got a judgment without proof of claim? Do explain please and try to without your usual insulting comments. Seek the advice of others if you don't know how to respond without being such an A-hole.

[You Are Guilty]

Originally Posted by daprez1963

The OP stated "FYI - They still have not provided proof of the claim."
Sounded to me like the case hasn't been even heard yet by the judge. How could they have got a judgment without proof of claim? Do explain please and try to without your usual insulting comments. Seek the advice of others if you don't know how to respond without being such an A-hole.

Are you kidding? Ever hear of a default judgment? (If not, try reading, oh, I don't know, 98% of the posts here.)

[dcatz]

Originally Posted by daprez1963
Oh, what the heck. I know the Op is in NY, but after debt collectors' insulting comment, I thought I would go ahead and look up the rule that applies here in FLA.

With due respect, the Rule cited is applicable to Florida Small Claims actions only. You may find debtcollector’s comment insulting, and that’s up to you. However, recognizing that (1) the OP is in NY, (2) is either being sued under different procedural Rules than apply in Florida (or is mischaracterizing post-judgment enforcement, as suggested by debtcollector`) and that (3) Florida Small Claims even permits modification of the Small Claims Rule that you posted, your post really is not productive to the OP or to readers either. Perhaps if you PM’d debtcollector`?

You see, even if your response did not take a NY question and provide a Florida answer, what you said, “my post would stand as I said, "maybe only in FLA" because we do have a part in the RCP that states . . .” is, in itself, misleading, because your citation is restricted to Florida Small Claims, and readers thinking it was a general procedural rule in your state could be both surprised and “burned” in Florida.

The OP has posted nothing to suggest that the relevant problem is occurring in NY Small Claims and, while NY does permit attorneys in SC, different discovery rules apply.

Your state does permit greater latitude, even with Small Claims, than your citation suggests. You omitted the next sub-section, which reads:
(c) Additional Rules. In any particular action, the court may order that action to proceed under 1 or more additional Florida Rules of Civil Procedure on application of any party or the stipulation of all parties or on the court’s own motion.
Even in Florida, the Court could permit a SC action to adopt the general procedural rules.

The general procedural rules do not impose a similar restriction:
RULE 1.340. INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES
(a) Procedure for Use. Without leave of court, any party may serve upon any other party written interrogatories to be answered (1) by the party to whom the interrogatories are directed, or (2) if that party is a public or private corporation or partnership or association or governmental agency, by any officer or agent, who shall furnish the information available to that party. Interrogatories may be served on the plaintiff after commencement of the action and on any other party with or after service of the process and initial pleading upon that party . . .”
You might know of a case where this occurred.

In answer to your question, “How could they have got a judgment without proof of claim?”, as you’ve phrased it, no plaintiff could in NY or anywhere and in Small Claims or a higher forum, but the phrasing suggests that the point is being missed. The plaintiff must carry the burden of proof, but facilitating that is the purpose of discovery. And, if this is pre-trial discovery, the plaintiff must prove it to the Court and need not prove it to the satisfaction of the OP. Concepts such as default judgment and/or Summary Judgment become relevant.

Perhaps you know of a case where this was relevant. If not, use the “search” function, or examples, including Florida, can be posted.

Since you agreed that the OP needed to provide more information or false assumptions might be made, the OP has not and the thread has veered into misleading assumptions about another state’s laws, help to keep it on track and productive for others, regardless of your feelings about the response.

[daprez1963]

dcAZT, is that another name for dc? thanks for saying basically what I already mentioned. I guess you didn't read my post. The reason I went ahead and posted it, was because you, I mean DC said my post was laughable after I mentioned to the OP that if it was still in the pre-trial stage that the rule in FLA was they couldn't initiate discovery but didn't know about NY. As usual, when someone here tries to have a discussion, whether they are 100% correct or not, you have a few here that feel the need to not only point out errors or misunderstandings due to OPs not giving all the needed info, but some of you also have to post insults along with them. There are lots of people here who give "useful advice" and there is some of you that come here with your so-called "almighty" wisdom and speak down to people. Try a little self-control and leave the childish behavior in the playroom. Act like grown-ups.

[dcatz]

dcAZT, is that another name for dc? Thanks for saying basically what I already mentioned.

Now what is the purpose of that? And I did not adopt your viewpoint. If it is not clear, I think it is incomplete and of no consequence to the question posted. You agreed that additional information was necessary to change that, yet you did not wait for it. I’m not addressing anybody but you.

I read your post, or I wouldn’t have posted.
(1) Your post relates to Florida Small Claims. The OP is in NY, and there is no reference to Small Claims. I make no judgment about debtcollector`. The post to which he replied would have addressed NY law or was unnecessary.
(2) Your post implied that you were discussing a Florida General Procedure Rule, when you were not.
(3) Your post implied that you referred to an immutable Florida SC Rule, when it is actually subject to modification.
(4) Your post was incomplete, in that it did not include the general Florida discovery rule. While I believe that the post was unnecessary, if you were going to attempt an analogy to Florida law, the general rule should be a part of it.
(5) Small Claims procedures by state vary wildly. Attorneys are permitted and they are not, discovery is permitted and it is not. Rules permitting attorneys and/or discovery are diversified and state-specific.
(6) To the best of my knowledge, not a single state restricts discovery in a higher forum in the way implied.
(7) Your post basically dismissed the possibility of a default judgment or summary adjudication, if the OP responds and admits all material, disputed issues. Those are very relevant concerns for the OP or they should be. If the OP were to conclude, based on your post, that he need not respond to discovery, because he is not represented and because he has not initiated discovery, he will shortly be a judgment debtor in NY.

No errors were ascribed to your post, except the error of omission. It was a relevant and important omission, if the thread were about Florida, and the thread is not about Florida.. There were no insults in my post, except any that you chose to see. I can see no reason for you mentioning that, but I would point out that the longer you persist in defending your post and editorializing, the more this thread becomes removed from the posted query. I see nothing productive in that.

[debtcollector`]

Originally Posted by daprez1963

i am not sure about ny's law when it comes to last use or last payment regarding the start of sol, but it has to be yours not theirs. you see, each month, interest is added on to it, so i guess in their theory, there is always activity on it.

This is the theory that is laughable. The reason it is laughable is that the poster has no concept of how SOL is calculated.

SOL is counted forward from the the most recent of either the last payment on the account or a written acknowledgment of the debt. It has nothing to do with the application of interest.

That said -- you do you like your new posting name gulfbreeze? I see you are still attempting to incorrectly apply Florida law to the rest of the country.

DC

[dcatz]

That said -- you do you like your new posting name gulfbreeze? I see you are still attempting to incorrectly apply Florida law to the rest of the country.

Yes, GulfBreeze came in the back door. And still no more scruples than before. I thought it would take no more than another post or two to be obvious to all.

Still no apology to Betty.

[daprez1963]

Originally Posted by dcatz

Yes, GulfBreeze came in the back door. And still no more scruples than before. I thought it would take no more than another post or two to be obvious to all.

Still no apology to Betty.