Do Your Legal Leg Up Materials work against Original Creditors?

Do the YourLegalLegUp Litigation materials work on cases brought by original creditors as opposed to debt collectors? Yes–but watch this video to see how lawsuits by original creditors are different from those brought by debt collectors.

I used to think the difference between debt collectors and original creditors meant more than it does now. Perhaps it’s because there is such a huge amount of debt out there that even creditors lose track of it. Perhaps all the debt makes any one debt cheap. But in any event, the difference between original creditors is less than it used to be. The original creditors often do not have the records they need to prove the debt, and even more often than that they don’t have the will to pursue it if you fight.

In any case, you will pretty much always be better off it you do fight the lawsuit and go through the discovery process – especially if that means filing a motion to compel. It’s work, but if you can prove they don’t have what they need, you can make them drop the case. And if you find that they DO have what they need, your making them work so hard will make them settle for much less than they would have. Or if you can’t settle, you’ll take your best shot – and you’ll have put off the result for quite a while even if you lose.

Our materials will guide you through that process. You need to know how the system works in order to use it, and our materials give you what you need to understand the system.

Importance of Early Discovery

Read more

Preparing for Mediation Pro Se

Mediation is “rigged” against pro se defendants in debt law cases. Why do I say that? Is there some evil force at play? No…

The mediator might be trying his hardest to be fair and honest, but even so the process is rigged. To understand why, let’s first go back to who the mediator is.

A mediator is usually (but not absolutely always) a lawyer.  That is useful and appropriate in general because you generally want someone who knows how the legal process works and what you might encounter, in general, if you went to court. At the least it will almost certainly be someone who spends a lot of time in court or with lawyers and is impressed with lawyers.

Often the parties are given a list of “approved” mediators by the court. You’d have to get permission to get someone else. In some situations the parties are completely free to find their own mediator.

And I gather that in some situations a mediator is just assigned by the court automatically, and you don’t get to choose.

Mediation is Rigged

Whatever way it works, the lawyer has an advantage. The mediators have a reputation, and the lawyers can find out what that reputation is far more easily than you can. They won’t use a mediator who has a reputation of pushing too hard against them.

And the mediators know that, of course. You see, the debt collection lawyers are “constant.” They handle many, many of these cases, and if one of them decides never to use a mediator…well, that could be a lot of money to the mediator. If you decide against a mediator or don’t like him or her after going through the process, your options are extremely limited. Your opinion simply doesn’t matter as much to the mediator. And that’s true of everything in the whole process.

Lawyers Trust Lawyers

Next, have you ever heard the saying that “everything looks like a nail to someone who is good with a hammer?” That will apply to mediation. As I said, you can pretty much expect the mediator to be a lawyer or at least an ex-lawyer. Lawyers tend to respect, trust and understand other lawyers.

The mediator might like and respect you and be warm and friendly and all that. But when the chips are down, the mediator will tend to trust and believe the lawyer more than you. And he or she will also expect you to lose the case if it goes to trial, no matter what the evidence shows, because of this sympathy to the lawyer for the debt collector.

No matter what the evidence shows.

And this is true even if the mediator doesn’t specially trust or respect collection lawyers. We all know that debt collection isn’t rocket science, but lawyers come basically from the same caste, and they expect other lawyers to be able to beat non-lawyers.

Your Advantages Could Get Forgotten

The mediator will get paid regardless of whether you settle, and regardless of who wins. That reduces the amount of attention the mediator must spend on your central advantage: the price of litigation.

Further, the mediator will almost certainly not know much about debt law or the debt collection business. That means the mediator will tend to undervalue your second main advantage, the Rules of Evidence! If you have my materials (you should!), you will probably know far more about the relevant law and the “facts of life” than the mediator does. That’s because lawyers tend to take sides in their lives. I would never have represented a debt collection company, and debt collector lawyers rarely defend against debt collectors. So no debt collection attorney from either side would be likely to be truly impartial.

And most other lawyers don’t know much about debt collection at all. Thus the mediator’s tendency to trust and believe the debt collector is magnified in importance.

Mediation Can be Intimidating

Finally, let’s consider the mediation process itself. It’s a chance for one-on-one combat (so to speak) between the parties without the rules of evidence being so important. (And the rules of evidence are another of your biggest advantages). The debt collection lawyer will act like he can prove everything –no sweat. The mediator will believe that. Both will exert pressure on you to “realize” how strong the debt collector’s case is. You will feel lonely and outnumbered. The debt collector’s lawyer feels no risk in this situation –it’s just a job to him—whereas the personal stakes are much higher for you.

What You Must Remember

Through it all, you have to remember, cling tenaciously to the facts that… most debt collections lawyers do not have the evidence they need to win their case and cannot get it cheaply enough to go to trial against you and make money. What have they actually shown you? Can they pull up and show you and the mediator an affidavit from the original creditor that proves that they, the debt collector, actually own the debt, how much it is, that you owe it and didn’t pay? Can they prove that you owe the money? How? Remember that if they want to introduce any account information from the original creditor they’ve got to have either a witness or an affidavit. Can they get it cheaply enough to justify the expense? Not likely! You may have to remind the mediator of these facts—many times.

Don’t Forget Collection Risk

Also, you have to remember their “collection risk.” How likely are they going to be able to collect the money from you? If you didn’t pay (and if you owed) it was probably because you couldn’t afford to pay. Just because they manage to get a judgment, if they do and over your strenuous efforts in court and before, that doesn’t mean, by a long shot, that they’ll get their money.

Your Advantages

Your main tasks in mediation are to remember these facts. AND to remember not to provide them any information or material that could help them get past these problems. If you say you could pay, or if you admit the account was yours…you make their job in court much easier.

Also, remember your advantage: if they have a lawyer or two present, the clock is running, and someone is paying and not very happy about that. Time is on your side in mediation as elsewhere. Remember the Litigation materials and what your advantages are. If you can withstand the fear and temptation to give up, you’ll be in very good shape and can settle (or not) according to what is really in your best interests.

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.

Talking with Debt Collectors

If you have debt troubles at all, you’re probably going to be getting calls from debt collectors. Should you answer them and speak to the debt collectors? If so, what should you say? Usually you should not say anything at all, but if you have something you need to say, say it and then hang up.

Most of the Time, Silence Is Golden

Most of the time you should not be talking to debt collectors unless you have a specific, well-defined reason to do so. Otherwise, you can end up making their life a lot easier – and yours a lot harder.

There is almost no reason to talk to a debt collector. If you HAVE all the money they want, and you want to pay it, then it would make sense to negotiate. If you think you have enough to make a deal, you might also negotiate, but you should remember not to admit anything. YOU CAN ALWAYS NEGOTIATE A SETTLEMENT WITHOUT ADMITTING THAT YOU OWE THE MONEY.  People ask me that all the time – and yet everybody knows that companies settle lawsuits all the time without admitting they did anything wrong. You can do it because the assertion of a claim, or the threat (or existence) of a lawsuit is a threat. You settle to make that threat go away.

If you don’t have enough money to make a deal for at least 70% of the debt, it’s usually a bad idea to attempt to negotiate beyond a very preliminary stage. The person you’re talking to doesn’t have authority to make such a deal. So you can say you might pay 10% of the debt, but it would make no sense in attempting to negotiate beyond that. You will need to talk to someone higher in authority. You could ask to speak to that person.

Beyond that, anything you say will likely just be wasting your energy and time and may lead to other trouble. Remember that your dispute, in order to force verification, needs to be in writing, so you can tell the debt collector you dispute the debt but don’t forget the dispute letter.

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.

 

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.

Discovery – Requests for Documents

This is going to be a brief article. For a fuller discussion and samples, look in the Litigation Manual and Forms. Still, you should be able to create your own after reading this. If you do not already own the Debt Defense System, you should consider it. Membership with us allows us to help and guide you every step of the way.

As with other discovery, Requests for Documents are controlled by the rules of civil procedure for your jurisdiction. And there are two sets of rules you must consider: your state rules in general and, if you are in some sub-court of the state, the rules regarding your court; and your “Local Rules” if your court has them.

Sub-Courts

An example of what I mean by “sub-court” might be what we have in Missouri, Associate Circuit courts. These are courts that are designed to handle smaller amounts of money. Or small claims courts (even less money). Many states have similar types of arrangements, and these sub-courts will have their own special rules, and these rules always control when and how much discovery you can conduct. I normally suggest that people avoid these courts because the can be a little too relaxed about the rules. Relaxed rules may seem “easier” for you, but in reality what they do is let the debt collectors get information in that they couldn’t otherwise – and your best chance of winning is to keep that evidence out.

Even if you’re not in that sort of sub-court, your court may have “local rules,” which are rules designed to elaborate on your state’s rules of civil procedure. The rules of civil procedure will create the general structure of discovery and set the penalties for not cooperating – the local rules will establish certain limits: only a certain number, for example, or that they must be in a certain format (not “compound,” usually, meaning without sub-parts).

Whatever the situation, you must find the rules controlling your discovery, or you may do something wrong, giving the debt collector an easy out. To find your rules of civil procedure, follow this link. Any special rules may be mentioned in your rules of civil procedure or in your court’s web-page. I am not aware of these rules – but you must be.

Content of Requests for Documents

The term “document” for purposes of requests is very broad and contains things like electronic records, facsimiles, any non-identical copy of a record, etc. The term is usually defined in the rules of civil procedure, and the way you would define it is to refer to that rule: “by requesting documents, defendant intends all documents as defined by Rule ___, ____Rules of Civil Procedure.

What You Request

You want everything thing the debt collector could use to support its case or attack yours. At a minimum you should ask for any document in their possession or control which you signed or which they contend applies to you in any way. You want all documents relating to the amount or terms of any alleged debt, every document showing or relating to any agreement you made with them, including any notes or comments. You want every document showing or relating to anything you said. If you have a counterclaim, you’ll want to create requests that get everything they have related to that.

Standard

The standard for requests for production is that you are asking for documents in their possession or control. Possession is obvious, but control includes documents that other people have created for them or in support of their business: accountant’s records, for example, or account records (of your account) if the original creditor agreed to provide them if requested. If these documents are not provided or objected to, but then they try to use them at court, you should request to have them excluded from trial.

Objections

When the other side objects – as they will, to everything you ask – you will, eventually, have to eliminate those objections so that you can be sure you have everything they have. Just because they deny having something you would expect them to have, though, does not mean you can file a motion to compel. Rather – once they have answered, you pretty much have to take them at their word for not having stuff they say they do not have. That is, unless you have evidence they are actually hiding something.