Original Creditor or Debt Collector?

The question of the month has to do with a petition brought in the name of the original creditor – is that who is suing you?

Member question is, if the summons and complaint list the original creditor but at the bottom of the summons and complaint it has “this communication is from a debt collector” am I dealing with the original creditor through their attorneys or is this a debt that they have transferred/sold?

My answer to this question used to be, always, that if the case was brought in the name of the original creditor, that’s who you should think actually was suing you, but my answer has changed somewhat. Now I would say that if you have any doubt about who is suing you, you should pursue the question in discovery. Specifically, that means asking interrogatories regarding whether the debt has ever been sold, and if so, to whom.

It Can Be Hard to Know Who Is Suing You

My new-found skepticism on this issue comes from talking with an ex debt collector who reports to me that debt collectors do (often, he says) sue in the name of the original creditor.

As I pointed out in In the Shoes of the Original Debt Collector, it is deceptive for the debt collector to pose as an original creditor. While certain of the rights of the debt collector are the same as, and are derived from, the rights of the original creditor, the law very definitely and explicitly regards debt collectors are different from original creditors. And original creditors are treated more favorably in the law than debt collectors. So it is a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) for debt collectors to bring suit pretending to be the original creditors. That is so obvious, and bringing suit in the name of the original creditor would be such a blatant violation of the law, that I have always doubted that any debt collectors would dare to do it.

I, of all people, should know better! However, it is still true that the mere fact that the petition says “this is a communication from a debt collector…” does not mean you are being sued by a debt collector and not the original creditor when the original creditor’s name is on the suit. Lawyers are often cautious, and do a lot of things by routine and with forms, and so they could have put the warning on there unnecessarily.

However, if you have any suspicion that your debt has changed hands, but you’re being sued in the name of the original creditor, you should explore the question in discovery. And if you find out you are, in fact, being sued by a debt collector, I suggest you very strongly consider bringing a counterclaim under the FDCPA for deceptive and unfair debt collection practices. It should be a winner.

Local Rules and Discovery Limits

The Local Rules are rules enacted by the specific court your case is in, and they often control the timing and form and number limits of discovery as well as containing extremely important information about how a trial will proceed and what you have to do to place evidence in front of the court. In other words, finding the local rules is absolutely crucial to defending yourself.

Rules of Civil Procedure

Let’s start with rules that every legal jurisdiction has: Rules of Civil Procedure. You can easily find these by Googling the name of your state and the phrase “rules of civil procedure.” Or you can go to Rules of Civil Procedure and find your jurisdiction.

Organization of Rules of Civil Procedure

In most jurisdictions, the rules of civil procedure are part of a larger body of court rules enacted by the legislature (in the states) or the Supreme Court (in the case of the federal rules). These are the rules that control every aspect of the legal process, from the qualifications and ethical rules of lawyers and judges, through the appeals and other “collateral” challenges. They cover everything, and they are, as much as possible, in an order related to how they would come up in an ordinary case. That means that for the most part, the rules controlling the beginning of a case – filing it and getting it served – are at the beginning of the rules, and stuff that comes later, like discovery, comes a few rules later. That will help you figure out where things are.

Federal Rules

In the federal jurisdictions, courts are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Most of the jurisdictions also have what are actually called “local rules.” These rules are, in many courts, numbered exactly like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Which is to say that the Local Rules controlling discovery have the same number as the Rules of Civil Procedure that they are modifying. An example might make it easier to understand.

Federal Rule 26 is the general rule that controls discovery in federal cases – there are several other rules that apply to specific parts of the discovery process. Rule 26 provides a general framework for the discovery process, but it does not limit how many questions you are allowed to ask in interrogatories or what the form of those questions must be. That’s what the Local Rules do, fill out the general rules and apply various limits that will apply within certain “local” jurisdictions, so there is a “Local Rule 26.” The local rules might provide, for example, that a party can only ask 25 or 50 interrogatories, or that those interrogatories must take a certain form.

Other Jurisdictions

Other jurisdictions do NOT follow the federal rules. They have their OWN rules, starting, of course, with the state rules of civil procedure. They may have local rules that would govern your specific court or type of court, including, most likely, the discovery process. And some jurisdictions have “approved” interrogatories or requests for production. These are in a form that the courts have specifically ruled is acceptable, although that wouldn’t stop you from objecting on other grounds (e.g., that they are not relevant to your case).

It is beyond the scope of this article, or my materials generally, to provide the location of every jurisdiction’s rules. They all have different ones, if they have them at all (and not all courts do). Nevertheless, knowing those rules for your jurisdiction is crucial. You must find the rules that control the game you are playing.

Finding the Local Rules

In the federal courts – which will only apply where you have brought a claim under a federal consumer protection law – finding the local rules is simple. You can either look it up in the federal website for your jurisdiction under “local rules” or ask a court clerk to point you in the right direction.

It’s tougher in the state courts. In the state courts, you start with finding the correct rules of civil procedure. As I have often pointed out, debt cases are often brought in courts of lower jurisdiction – called “Associate Circuit Courts” in Missouri, for example. These courts often operate on slightly different rules than the Circuit Courts which must follow the state rules of civil procedure. Sometimes the rules for your court will be embodied in a special rule within the rules of civil procedure, and sometimes the rules will occupy their own area of the rules of civil procedure.

First, figure out what jurisdiction you are actually in. Is it the courts of general jurisdiction? Or is it some sort of more limited court? At the top of the petition will be a header that looks like this:

In the Associate Circuit Court
          of St. Louis County
            State of Missouri

That tells you what your jurisdiction is. Google that court. So in this case, Google “Associate Circuit Court,” “St. Louis County,” and “Rules of Civil Procedure.” This will bring up references to the specific rules that control your jurisdiction. Or go to your court’s website and look up “Rules of Civil Procedure” or “rules of court” or “local rules” or something like that and see if you can find the rules that will control your case.

How Debt Troubles Start

Life History of a Debt

This continues the series of videos for people being harassed or sued for debt, and in this video we’ll look at the way debts evolve – from bills you can pay without problem, to bills you do have problems paying (or don’t want to pay), through the “charge-off” and sale of the debt to the debt collector.

Tomorrow we’ll lok at the “moral” duty to pay debts, and then we’ll move on to possible solutions to debt troubles.

_________________

Dispute and Debt Verification under FDCPA

Within five days of first contact, a debt collector is supposed to identify itself and advise you of your right under the FDCPA to seek verification. This right will also have what we call the “mini-Miranda,” which is notification to you that the communication is seeking payment of a debt (alleged debt) and that any information you provide will be used for the purpose of collecting that debt. You should dispute the debt and demand verification.

Disputing – A Step toward Protecting What’s Yours

Mini-Miranda

You must take the mini-Miranda seriously. Debt collectors often record, and always at least make notes of, anything you say. They are building a file on you from the first time they contact you. You should remember that anything you say that reveals financial information will be remembered by the debt collector, and that anything you say that sounds bad for you, like cussing or name-calling, may come up again at a bad time for you. This is why I say that silence is golden with debt collectors.

Verification

The other right you are told about, of course, is your right to seek “verification” or “validation.” If you request it within thirty days of receiving notice of your right, the debt collector must validate the debt and notify you before taking any further action on the debt. For some reason, debt collectors often will not do this if you seek verification, but instead will either ignore the request or sell the debt and move on to greener pastures.

What Is Verification?

Verification is not a clearly defined term. It was certainly not required as a means of slowing the debt collection process substantially. It appears to be almost a pure formality, but it does at least, according to most courts, require the debt collector to contact the original creditor and make sure, in some vague sense, that the debt is supposed to involve you. If that sounds vague or minimal to you, I’m sure you’re right. But it is an actual obligation that the debt collector take some time and do something besides harass you, and it does require them to stop harassing you, and it may give you a claim against them if they continue bugging you before verifying the debt. These are all good things.

And it often makes them go away entirely.

Defend Yourself – No one Else Will

If you’re being sued, you’re going to have to defend yourself – there’s no magical solution, and you will lose if you ignore the suit. Please don’t think that just because you’ve never heard of this debt or don’t think you owe it for any reason, you will win. Once you’ve been served with a lawsuit, you will lose if you don’t take steps to win it. Nothing is automatic.

And the lawyer on the other side just wants to win as quickly as possible. He or she has very little interest in “doing the right thing.” It’s up to you to protect yourself.

If you are being sued for debt, you must defend yourself. What that means, very simply, is actually proving you don’t owe the money to anyone – or, more likely, that the plaintiff cannot prove you owe it to it. There are simple ways to do this (not necessarily easy), and our job is to help you use those methods.

Anything that promises or appears to be an easy or automatic way to win is probably a mistake or a scam.

No Free Lunches

There are other products out there for people being sued for debt, and some of them will encourage you to invoke magic words like “fractional reserve banking” or other concepts which, though legitimate in their place, will not drive the debt collectors out of your life.

Remember that there are no free lunches for regular people in this world. The judges are not concerned about the U.S. Money supply or system, and they are not concerned about any abstract rights of yours at all. You’ll be lucky if you have a judge who understands what hearsay is and doesn’t want to allow the debt collector to use it. Trust me on this. If this case reaches litigation, you must be prepared to understand the way debt law actually works, tell the judge how it works, and hold the judge to his or her job of making sure the trial is fair.

Luckily you can do all that. If you spend your time invoking the ghost of Andrew Jackson or fighting the monster of Jeckyl Island, claiming that the government sold you somewhere as part of the Social Security program, or other, similar ideas, you will lose the case. Debt collectors have a tough time proving what they must prove to be able to win. Don’t let your desire for a shortcut to victory make you lose.

Do not get fancy when defending

As I have pointed out elsewhere, there are other products out there that will tempt you in various ways. One way is to find a shortcut. Another, equally dangerous thing, is to try to hide behind legalese. You may think you’ve found an excellent phrase, like “I know nothing about what you’re saying and therefore deny…”, but you could be burying yourself under an admission. (In this case, that you “know nothing about…” – the denial is a conclusion with no real impact, but admitting you know nothing? – that’s a fact you’ve just admitted.)

Don’t Try to Hide behind Legalese against Debt Collectors

I have recently had a customer tell me she bought a package that told her to answer requests for admissions with “after reasonable inquiry, defendant cannot either admit or deny… [each request].”

It sounds so much more reasonable, doesn’t it, to say “defendant has no knowledge to admit or deny…” or “after reasonable inquiry defendant cannot either admit or deny…” requests for admissions or allegations in petitions. The problem is, if you cannot admit or deny, and the debt collector alleges, there is nothing in opposition to the debt collector’s allegations. The debt collector just says, “defendant admits that, after reasonable investigation, she cannot deny…”

The standard for judgment on the pleadings is no genuine issue of material fact.

Just deny what you can. And you can deny anything you don’t have to admit in almost every jurisdiction. Don’t get fancy. Hiding behind fancy sounding legalese is, in the final analysis, just hiding. The judge knows it, and the lawyers know it. You know it too – or you wouldn’t try it.

You have very strong arguments to make in terms of law and justice. The debt collector has an extremely tough burden to carry. Your every effort should be to make that burden crystal clear – and to prove that the debt collector cannot do it. Legalese of any sort will simply distract from this sharp, clear mission. A clear, rigorous reading of the facts and law is your friend. Vagueness is your enemy. Products which encourage you to hide behind legalese invite you to disaster.

Answer and Counterclaim

It is very helpful to have a counterclaim if you’re being sued by a debt collector. In this article we’ll discuss a few mechanics – things that are obvious to lawyers but might not be so obvious to people representing themselves.

What is a Counterclaim?

First of all, what is a counterclaim? Very simply, a counterclaim is a lawsuit you file in the same court against someone who is already suing you. That is, it is any lawsuit you file, whether or not it is related to the suit the other person filed.

The theory is that if two people are already in court for any reason, they may as well get everything done at the same time, but there are certain exceptions in cases where hearing the cases together would be too confusing, or the like. Many counterclaims do not have to be brought – you can wait till the first case is over and then (if time hasn’t run out) bring your case separately as an original suit. On the other hand, sometimes possible claims are so closely related that you are not allowed to wait: these are called “mandatory” counterclaims, and if you fail to bring a mandatory counterclaim as part of the first lawsuit you will lose the right. A classic example of mandatory counterclaims would be claims by both people in a car crash against each other – waiting and filing separately would be a big waste of court time and might also lead to contradictory judgments.

For debt defense, though, you might think of it as a defensive countermeasure. As in judo, they’ve been attacking you, and now you’re going to use what they’ve done against them.

Claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) can be brought as counterclaims, but they are not mandatory. You could, if you wanted to, bring a claim under the FDCPA in federal court – or even another state court – while a lawsuit against you for the debt was still underway. As a practical matter, when I was still practicing, I never did that, but you could do it.

Sources of Counterclaims

The FDCPA is the most logical source of counterclaims when you are being sued by debt collectors, for several reasons.

For one thing, the law is very broad. Anything that is an “unfair” debt collection practice is illegal under the FDCPA. Although several things are specified in the Act, many other things have been found to violate the law. That allows you to be a little creative.

Secondly, the FDCPA does not require any sort of “intent” to harm you. All you have to do is show that the debt collector did what you say is illegal. And you don’t actually have to have been hurt by what the debt collector did. That means that the unfair collection practice you claim they did does not have to have fooled you or hurt you at all.

In fraud cases, to give an example of a different kind of law, you have to prove that the person you claim defrauded you meant to do it (intent) and that it somehow harmed you (they did fool you, and you lost money). This makes claims under the FDCPA much easier than most other lawsuits. Finally, there is the question of evidence. Many FDCPA claims arise out of the debt collector’s lawsuit against you, and this will be part of the record, but all of the claims will be relatively easy to prove. Here are some articles that discuss some possible claims under the FDCPA:

There are other sources of possible counterclaims, however. There is a law in consumer law that provides that any time you would have a claim or defense against the seller, you also have that claim or defense against someone trying to collect the bill.That means that if you were ripped off by a seller, and then a debt collector comes after you, you can sue the debt collector for that fraud. If you do, you will probably have some significant advantages, as the debt collector probably does not have access, much less inexpensive, convenient access, to the witnesses it would need to defend the case. And there are other possible claims – like defamation or possible violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

What You Actually Do

Assuming you decide to bring a counterclaim, what you actually do is attach it to your Answer. That is, you create your Answer, and then at the end you add allegations that would support your counterclaim. The materials in my Litigation Manual provide you samples of these.

 

Defend against Motions to Dismiss Part 1

Hey there! This content is available to MEMBERS only! Consider registering for an account.

Rebuilding your Life after Economic Disaster

Hey there! This content is available to MEMBERS only! Consider registering for an account.

You Can Beat the Debt Collector

(Even If You Couldn’t Win the Lawsuit!)

If you’re being sued, I’m sure you’re scared. Everyone is. But hear this: you have a very good chance to win the suit if you stand up for yourself. Believe it or not, if you know what you’re doing, the odds are actually stacked in your favor against a debt collector. And it isn’t that hard to learn what you need to know to take them on and beat them.

And even more important, if you stand up for yourself, you will probably beat the debt collector even if you couldn’t win the suit. Read on to see why this is true.

Some Very Basic Facts You Need To Know

If people would stand up for themselves, debt collectors would have a very hard time making any money. Lucky for them, most people don’t stand up for themselves.

The Debt Collector’s Problems

The debt collector will have a lot of problems if you stand up for yourself. They usually don’t have the records they need to prove their case even if you actually did owe the money. And more often than you might expect, you don’t owe them the money because of certain time limits or because they can’t prove they own the debt. They also have certain even bigger practical difficulties that you can use to protect yourself if you know how to find them.

FEAR-The Debt-Collector’s Best Friend

Because the debt collectors would have such a hard time winning if you fight back, they rely on the terror of the collection process to scare you into settling the case or giving up altogether. This fear of the legal process is the most important weapon the debt collectors have. If you can handle that, chances are you’ll get off scott-free. That’s why YourLegalLegUp litigation materials explain how the debt collection business operates from top to bottom.

You Have Almost Nothing To Lose

Strange as it may seem, now that you’ve been dragged into this suit, most of the bad has already happened. It costs very little to fight if you do it yourself. And if the company wins, they are going to get the same thing (in almost every case) whether you fight or not. In other words, it won’t get worse if you fight.

And if you fight and win, as I explain in the section about counterclaims, not only will you not owe them anything, but they may have to pay you.

In other words, you have basically nothing to lose by fighting and everything to win!

Why You Have a Chance to Win

You actually have a very good chance of winning the lawsuit filed against you- if you stand up for yourself. Look at the lawsuit filed against you-the “Petition” it’s usually called. It may look like it was done carelessly, and it probably was. But the paragraphs of the petition say the things the debt company would have to prove to the court-if you stand up for yourself.

They have to prove the existence of a “contract,” or some obligation for you to pay. They have to prove they own the right to sue you. And they have to prove the amount you owe. You might think they could easily do that, but in fact it is difficult if not impossible for them to prove these things.

We can help either way. Click on the Articles button on the menu bar above to go to publically available videos and articles,

Sitemap

Quick Links

Get In Touch

© 2025 Your Legal Leg Up, All rights reserved