I'm Being Sued

Evenbob, you seem like a strange fellow. I just read this thread in its entirety. At first, you were talking about surprising the plaintiff by just showing up in court and talking your way through it, as if this were a small claims hearing. You've said that this isn't worth your time, but you also say that you are researching an hour a day. That research has apparently progressed to the point where you have what you believe to be a perfect answer that, in conjunction with your day at trial, will have the case dismissed.

This is a junk debt buyer and assuming you don't owe the debt (and frankly, even if you do), I wish you the best in your efforts. But your motivations in posting seem odd to me. People have given you advice, some good, some bad. And you seem to dismiss all of it in favor of your own research, which leads to the question why you would post on a forum.

I am not a lawyer and I am not particular familiar with Michigan collections law. I hesitate to give advice here because, well, that is what lawyers do.

Answer the complaint in the way that the law says you need to, not in the way the court clerks say. This includes serving the answer (to the plaintiff's attorney) and filing the answer (with the court). If you fail, "court clerk advice" is not a defense, especially if it was over the phone. You may find that personal service to the attorney's office is the best way. Print two copies and have the receptionist date-stamp both copies. You take one, they take one. Then you have proof that they received it. This assumes that this is acceptable in Michigan for serving an answer.

If you do not answer properly, they will likely file for a default judgement, and you will not go to court.

If you do answer properly, they will likely file for a summary judgement or something of that nature. Again, not sure about Michigan, but this may be decided on the pleadings and not actually involve oral argument. If so, you will not go to court.

Depending on your court's backlog, it may be a year or two before your court date. If you keep fretting over this until that time, you will get stressed and your life and health will suffer. This isn't legal advice, but try to stay calm. These things are awful experiences, although it feels great when you win. As you've discovered, there are many places to research these things, but please make sure you're looking at the laws for Michigan.

Unless your court date is imminent, I wouldn't want to wait to have the literal and figurative "day in court" to solve this.

Quote: clamchowder

Answer the complaint in the way that the law says you need to, not in the way the court clerks say. This includes serving the answer (to the plaintiff's attorney) and filing the answer (with the court).

Depending on your court's backlog, it may be a year or two before your court date. If you keep fretting over this until that time, you will get stressed and your life and health will suffer. This isn't legal advice, but try to stay calm. These things are awful experiences

Good god, do you actually think I would ever NOT send a copy by certified mail to the plaintiff because of something a dumbo clerk said? I'm following what the complaint says to the letter. You say you read the whole thread, but you seem woefully ignorant of the facts. I already stated the court date will be next March. Where on earth did you get the idea I'm 'fretting'? Or that I'm not calm? As I stated and you apparently missed, I've had four major lawsuits that I brought against people, and I won them all. I am hardly a newbie to the court system. I've never been sued by a collection agency, so I'm learning all I can. Going to court is not an 'awful' experience, how silly. If you're as well prepared or better prepared than the other guy, it can be a rewarding experience. The friend I had dinner with tonight just sued AT&T over the mistakes on his bill and they settled out of court, big surprise. The regional manager met with him in a conference room at the courthouse and said if he dropped the suit, they would reinstate him for 6 months for free, and forget about his previous bills. The manager was very nervous, and told him they don't get sued very often. My friend has sued and been sued dozens of times and when I showed him the complaint I got, he said its total BS, they file these complaints 2 dozen at a time and they have no proof to back up any of it. His advice was to not get cute. Don't write long denials to every charge, just deny all of them in one paragraph (which I can do) and give them no clue as to what I know. He's right, I think. He says he learned the hard way that when you're sued in small claims, or for a small amount in civil, play dumb the whole way. You don't know what they're talking about, make them come up with facts and proof, which they won't have. He says I have the right to ask that this be heard in small claims court, which means the plaintiff (or I) can't use an attorney. I'm going to look into that next week. This is all great fun, do I sound like I'm 'stressed'? Get real..

Don't be a deadbeat. Pay your bills.

I'm assuming your 4-0 record came in legitimate cases and not in suits of this type. I hope that you aren't one of those people who sues just because "they can" instead of because "they really need to..."--there is a difference, at least in my opinion.

I've had the displeasure of having neighbors who sued everyone for everything...

Quote: EvenBob

He says I have the right to ask that this be heard in small claims court, which means the plaintiff (or I) can't use an attorney.

Bullshit. In most states, you can use an attorney in small claims, though I am not sure about Michigan specifically. It does sound likely that it might be an exception, because otherwise they would have just filed there to begin with (it's cheaper, easier, and faster, there is no downside for them).
But. Yes, you can ask for your case to be heard by small claims, but that does not mean, that you will get what you ask. If the plaintiff wants to be represented by a lawyer, no judge will tell them "tough luck, you are going without one".
Moreover, if the plaintiff is incorporated (it, probably, is), then it has to be represented by a lawyer (you must be an attorney to represent a legal entity, which is not yourself or your wife), which means automatic rejection of your request for small claims if Michigan indeed does not allow attorneys there.

What you really can ask for and get it is a jury trial (maybe, not the first time around, but on appeal, after you lose, that depends on the procedure). Now, THAT will be even more fun. Instead of wasting a day or two in court,mostly sitting there and waiting for the judge to show up, or listening to other people's cases, you'll be tied up for weeks. Also, you actual court date will move forward, so that Mohammed might hit his thirties before it happens.
If you find being bored like hell for days (and it sounds like you do, judging from your statements of how much fun you think court hearings are), you should definitely go for this option.

Quote: EvenBob

Good god, do you actually think I would ever NOT send a copy by certified mail to the plaintiff because of something a dumbo clerk said? I'm following what the complaint says to the letter.

Yes, that is what I thought. Your latest post on the matter did not specify, and the earlier posts seemed to give deference to what the court clerks said.

I would caution you not to follow what the complaint says but to independently check the statutes and court rules. The complaint, after all, was written by an attorney that you have no respect for, and it is potentially incorrect.

Quote: EvenBob

You say you read the whole thread, but you seem woefully ignorant of the facts. I already stated the court date will be next March. Where on earth did you get the idea I'm 'fretting'? Or that I'm not calm? As I stated and you apparently missed, I've had four major lawsuits that I brought against people, and I won them all. I am hardly a newbie to the court system.

You are correct that I missed the post on the court date. Also that I am making assumptions on your state of stress based on the tone of your writing. In particular, your posts where you seem to turn this into a personal battle with the junk-debt attorney led me to that belief.

As a betting man, I would put money on you winning this case. And if you are truly having fun, then I am happy for you, and go ahead and drag this out to the trial date. You're going to learn some things, as you have already, and you'll have more fun doing it. But while you are confident in your ability to win at trial, you must admit that there is some chance of losing, even if small. And I would suggest that you are increasing your risk of loss by choosing to forego some interim strategies that others have suggested, strategies that would not only decrease the value of this case to the attorney (who, as you know, is playing a volume game), but could also turn the tables and give the case some economic value for you.

Again, good luck.

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: weaselman

Now clerks are "helpful" to him

In fact, I called them again this afternoon and asked if I needed to send the answer to the complaint to them by certified mail, and to the plaintiff the same way, as they recommend on the legal sites. They clerk said naw, first class is OK, and I don't even have to send one to the plaintiff, they court will do it automatically. When I pointed out the complaint says I have to, she said the important thing is they get it, and the court makes sure they do.

Now that was bordering on legal advice, I swear to god she said all of it. They are very friendly to me at this court, I don't know why. These women have worked there since the dawn of time.

Also, if you were always planning on sending the answer via certified mail, why would you even call the clerks in the first place to ask? Their advice apparently didn't change your course of action. That's why I say you seem like a silly fellow to me. But if you're having fun, then I am happy for you. As we know from the tables, winning is fun.

Quote: clamchowder

Also, if you were always planning on sending the answer via certified mail, why would you even call the clerks in the first place to ask? Their advice apparently didn't change your course of action. That's why I say you seem like a silly fellow to me. .

Because I wanted their opinion. Maybe they felt it would be better to drop if off in person to them and the plaintiff, I didn't know. If you think asking questions and finding out information makes a person a 'silly fellow', what do you call the guy who does nothing, assumes everything, and makes no effort to learn anything? A flaming genius? Since when is educating yourself by all means possible and asking questions considered 'silly'? I have to assume you're being a sarcastic fop, because you certainly can't be serious.

Quote: weaselman

Bullshit. In most states, you can use an attorney in small claims, though I am not sure about Michigan specifically. .

Not in MI, I just looked it up. I'll find out about the LLC thing on Monday, with ANOTHER 'silly' call to the court. You didn't have a problem with my friend telling me not to get 'cute' in my answer and to not say anything at all, just deny all the allegations in one paragraph. He says the judge and the lawyer do this for a living, I can't hope to compete on their playing field. So don't even try. Learn as much as you can, and at the hearing act dumb as a rock. Don't play their game, which is what they want you to do, force them to play yours. Act innocent and ignorant and force the collection agency to back up everything with proof, not hearsay. And even then there's a chance the judge will just 'cut the baby in half' and split the difference and find in favor of the plaintiff for half the amount they want. Or maybe not, depends on how flimsy their case is and how much the judge likes the lawyer. If they see him all the time and he's a jerk, the judge may not want to do him any favors. With a 5.3 rating, it doesn't sound like Mohamed has a big fan club.

Quote: EvenBob

Not in MI, I just looked it up.

Unless something has changed that is not true. I used an attorney in small claims in MI about 14 years ago.

Quote: EvenBob

NYou didn't have a problem with my friend telling me not to get 'cute' in my answer and to not say anything at all, just deny all the allegations in one paragraph.

Well, you have to answer each claim, separately, so, if there is more than one, there's gotta be more than one paragraph.

You also have to state your reasons for denying, the fact that you think they do not have proof is not a good reason - the fact in question is whether or not your debt is real, not whether or not they can prove it. You need to think about wording this carefully, because not denying it strongly enough can be construed as admittance (and once you admit that you owe them in your answer, it is going to be very hard to change your mind later), and denying it too strongly could weaken your position in case it becomes apparent that you lied.

Your friend is correct that you should not say too much, because, without experience in this stuff, you are more likely to hurt yourself by saying something you should not than to help by saying something you should. But saying too little can be hurtful too. If you plan on using an affirmative defense (such as proving that debt is invalid, against public policy, asserting statute of limitations, violations of collections procedure, etc., etc), you have to state so in your answer. If you don't, you will be precluded from using it.
As I told you before, planning on surprising the other party in court is a very bad idea. Surprises are generally disallowed, and the only outcome that can be achieved by that strategy is usually the loss of opportunity to use your planned defense.

Quote:

He says the judge and the lawyer do this for a living, I can't hope to compete on their playing field. So don't even try. Learn as much as you can, and at the hearing act dumb as a rock. Don't play their game, which is what they want you to do, force them to play yours. Act innocent and ignorant and force the collection agency to back up everything with proof, not hearsay.

If you are "dumb as a rock", you don't know what is hearsay. Judges are many things, but they are not stupid. You are not likely to fool your judge, and make him believe you are dumber than you are (or smarter than you are for that matter), you do risk to irritate him by trying though.

Quote:

And even then there's a chance the judge will just 'cut the baby in half' and split the difference and find in favor of the plaintiff for half the amount they want.

If they say there is debt, and can sufficiently explain why they think so, and you say there isn't, and neither of you have any real proof, that's what most likely will happen.

Quote:

Or maybe not, depends on how flimsy their case is and how much the judge likes the lawyer. If they see him all the time and he's a jerk, the judge may not want to do him any favors. With a 5.3 rating, it doesn't sound like Mohamed has a big fan club.

Don't count on that. Believe me, judges are too well paid, to even entertain a thought of allowing "fun club", and middle name considerations weigh in on a $500 decision.

Quote: JimMorrison

Unless something has changed that is not true. I used an attorney in small claims in MI about 14 years ago.

The law page was dated last year and it says no lawyers.

You are being sued, correct? I'm guessing the opposing party didn't file in small claims court because he can't take you to that court based on the rules...this is from one District's web site:

"Small Claims Court

Small Claims court is a judicial process established in district courts that allows for settling monetary disputes of $3,000.00 or less. You can only sue for money damages in Small Claims court. This court is not for cases in which you are trying to require someone to do, not do, or stop doing something.

If you want to bring a suit against another party in the 36th District Court, Civil Division Small Claims Court, the cause of the action for which you are suing must have occurred, or the party that you are suing must live or do business in the city of Detroit. It is important for you to know that by having your case heard in Small Claims action, you give up the following rights:

The right to have an attorney represent you in court;

The right to a jury trial;

The right to appeal a judge's decision to a higher court.

However, the party you are suing (the defendant) in Small Claims court does not have to give up these rights. They may demand that the case be removed to the General Civil docket. If that happens, you may seek the advice of an attorney."

I think you'll be in a regular court...small claims court won't happen because the other party already has a lawyer...

Quote: weaselman

Well, you have to answer each claim, separately, so, if there is more than one, there's gotta be more than one paragraph. You also have to state your reasons for denying

No, you don't. "A defendant’s answer can be what’s called a “general denial,” where we say in a single “blanket” paragraph that we deny all of the plaintiff’s claims and allegations." I'm running into this again and again on the internet. And my friend says he does it every time he's sued. In a small case like this, when the plaintiff has no paperwork to back up his claims, saying less is saying more. This bad bank debt doesn't even show up on my credit report, I just checked. I have no idea what he's talking about. I'm not trying to 'fool' the judge, I just want the lawyer to prove all his allegations. I don't remember this transaction, what was the original amount? Does he have something with my signature on it? Does he have a detailed accounting of how he arrived at his figure? On and on. My defense is he provides no proof of anything in his complaint. The judge often dislikes lawyers they see a lot, no matter what their name is, and will rule against them if they see fit. Its never a 'one size fits all' with a judge who is experienced.

Quote: EvenBob

This bad bank debt doesn't even show up on my credit report, I just checked.

So, you have bad debt and you're trying to welch, what a guy. No wonder I block you. Remind me not to read your posts again.

--Ms. D.

Quote: EvenBob

No, you don't. "A defendant’s answer can be what’s called a “general denial,” where we say in a single “blanket” paragraph that we deny all of the plaintiff’s claims and allegations."

If you put something in quotes it doesn't make it look more believable :)
Especially if you exclude the word "Sometimes" from the beginning of the phrase.
Michigan Court Law 2.111(C) seems to disagree. But, I have no interest in convincing you.

Quote:

I'm running into this again and again on the internet.

Yes, you can find anything on the internet. That's the problem.
Try looking here for example.

Quote:

This bad bank debt doesn't even show up on my credit report, I just checked.

It probably will. The collectors usually do not report the debt until they exhaust all venues of collecting it.

Quote:

I have no idea what he's talking about. I'm not trying to 'fool' the judge, I just want the lawyer to prove all his allegations.

I was referring to your intention to "act dumb".

Quote:

My defense is he provides no proof of anything in his complaint.

That is not a defense. If the debt exist, you have to pay it, even if there is no proof. The defense in your case could be asserting that the debt does not exist, but, like I said, it could be dangerous, because demonstrating that it does is easier than you seem to think, and coming out as a liar in front of a judge is never good.

Quote:

The judge often dislikes lawyers they see a lot, no matter what their name is, and will rule against them if they see fit. Its never a 'one size fits all' with a judge who is experienced.

They will rule against them if they see fit, or they will rule for them if they see fit. Seeing fit matter, liking or disliking does not, that belongs to the TV drama domain.

Quote: DorothyGale

So, you have bad debt and you're trying to welch, what a guy. No wonder I block you. Remind me not to read your posts again.

--Ms. D.

Its a bad debt according to them, not me. Just block me, please...

>>If you put something in quotes it doesn't make it look more believable <<<

Its in quotes to separate it from my statements. Duh.

>>Yes, you can find anything on the internet. That's the problem.
Try looking here for example.<<

"you must state whether you admit or deny that allegation OR whether you lack the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, which has the effect of a denial." OR being the key word here. You have to deny the allegation OR make a statement which has the effect of a denial. Thanks for making my point.

<<It probably will. The collectors usually do not report the debt until they exhaust all venues of collecting it.<<

Wrong again. As soon as I supposedly defaulted it would have shown up. And it certainly would have shown up 2 years ago when the bank wrote it off. Good grief, if someone is late on a payment, its shows up on your credit, you don't have to default. Who told you all venues are exhausted before they report you? Good grief.


<<That is not a defense. If the debt exist, you have to pay it, even if there is no proof.>>

You can't be serious. 80+% of judgements in the US go unpaid and uncollected, look it up. Somebody must have forgot to tell those people they 'have to pay'.

>>The defense in your case could be asserting that the debt does not exist, but, like I said, it could be dangerous, because demonstrating that it does is easier than you seem to think>>

For all intents and purposes, it doesn't exist, thats why he only has attached interest and not the original amount of the debt. Thats also why its not on my credit report.


>> Seeing fit matter, liking or disliking does not, that belongs to the TV drama domain.>>

Again, you're 100% wrong. There's two judges here that my friend typically goes up against, he does OK with one and the other one hates him and rarely rules in his favor and he always has to appeal to win. He got on her bad side many years ago and she's never forgotten. Of course judges bear grudges, in some places they even accept bribes and commit other crimes. They are hardly saints.

Quote:

So, you have bad debt and you're trying to welch, what a guy. No wonder I block you. Remind me not to read your posts again.

--Ms. D.

I agree. This entire thread is pathetic.

Quote: Keyser

I agree. This entire thread is pathetic.

Over your head, you mean.

Quote: EvenBob

>>If you put something in quotes it doesn't make it look more believable <<<

Its in quotes to separate it from my statements. Duh.

Well, it doesn't. "Event if it is in quotes, it is still your statement". Duh. Unless, you provide a source reference.

Quote:

>>Yes, you can find anything on the internet. That's the problem.
Try looking here for example.<<

"you must state whether you admit or deny that allegation OR whether you lack the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, which has the effect of a denial." OR being the key word here. You have to deny the allegation OR make a statement which has the effect of a denial. Thanks for making my point.

You are welcome, but I did not know your point was that you can admit OR deny, that's a pretty obvious point, even for you.
You are looking at a wrong line. The point is that you have to respond to each claim in the complaint with a separate paragraph.

Quote:

Wrong again. As soon as I supposedly defaulted it would have shown up.

Repeating a wrong statement does not make it correct :)
Obviously, you are wrong, because, as you know, it did not happen.

Quote:

Good grief, if someone is late on a payment, its shows up on your credit, you don't have to default.

No, that depends on the bank, on the debt and on the debtor. They may report it, or they may not. They often don't

Quote:

Who told you all venues are exhausted before they report you? Good grief.

I have multiple sources of information. I used to work for Fair Isaac, so I know quite a bit about credit reporting, I also have defaulted on a debt once, and have helped other people who had defaulted several times, I have sued several entities for both FDCPA and FCRA violations.
I just know how these things are usually handled. Sure, they can report you right away. But they usually do not, because that is about the only leverage they have against you. Once it shows up on your credit report, you have no incentive to pay them whatsoever, so they tend to hold off on it until your case is closed, one way or the other. Also, many collectors will not buy debt, that has been reported, for the same reason, so the banks often do not report defaults, because it would make them harder to sell. Some banks handle their own collections, or are just mean, and will report every late payment withing a month, that's actually true. But, it is a rather rare exception, not the rule.

Quote:

You can't be serious. 80+% of judgements in the US go unpaid and uncollected, look it up. Somebody must have forgot to tell those people they 'have to pay'.

Or they drafted the answer properly, stating a valid defense ... or they are just bankrupt or otherwise judgment proof (I am guessing, those would be at least 90% of your 80% - securing a judgment against a debtor is usually fairly easy, there are either no facts in dispute at all, or "dispute" is something silly like "maybe copy machine has forged my signature", it's collecting that is the problem).

Quote:

For all intents and purposes, it doesn't exist, thats why he only has attached interest and not the original amount of the debt. Thats also why its not on my credit report.

You don't have to convince me, remember?
If you entered into agreement to pay with the bank, then the debt does exist, and asserting otherwise is not a defense, but a felony.
And credit report has nothing to do with it at all. You'd be better off leaving that line entirely out of your answer, it is irrelevant, and if there is anything judges hate more than lying defendants, it is long answers, full of irrelevant statements.

Quote:

Again, you're 100% wrong.

Ok, this one is a really strong argument. I'll have to concede.

<< The point is that you have to respond to each claim in the complaint with a separate paragraph.>>

Nope, you can deny all or some allegations by saying 'I deny allegations 3 thru 9' or whatever. Just so the court knows you have denied them.


>>Once it shows up on your credit report, you have no incentive to pay them whatsoever, so they tend to hold off on it until your case is closed, one way or the other.>>

They report late payments long before they do that, because late payments are what other creditors want to see. This case was 'closed' when they wrote off the debt, they could care less what happens after they sell it to some bottom feeder. They didn't report any of it because its not a valid debt.

>>Or they drafted the answer properly, stating a valid defense ... or they are just bankrupt or otherwise judgment proof>>

Or they can't be found, or their assets can't be found, or they have no assets. Saying somebody 'has to' pay a debt is ridiculous, when 80% of those with judgements don't ever pay. The only time they 'have to' pay, is if they're forced to, and 80% of the time they're not forced to. That figure, BTW, (80%) has been around for decades, it never moves, its written in stone.


<< long answers, full of irrelevant statements.>>

And what am I trying to avoid? Just that. All the court wants to see is a denial or an acceptance, they could care less what your details are till you're at the hearing. Brevity in all things legal. I don't remember much of anything, please help me out by showing me the proof. Ignorance and a faulty memory are always valid defenses. Remember the testimony Hillary Clinton gave in the mid 90's on that cattle futures deal she made so much money on? She said 'I don't recall' and 'I don't remember' and 'I have no recollection' as an answer to almost every question, and the court didn't say a word. I can't have long answers, I have no idea what this lawyer is talking about. The burden of proof is on him, he's the one making the accusations.

I guess I'm missing something. Is the debt yours, or do they have the wrong man?

You say you can't sue a corporation in small claims because they need to be represented by a lawyer? This is just flat out false. My friend sued AT&T in small claims and won last week, they settled. On the net there are hundreds of testimonials of people who sued corporations like banks and cell phone providers and service companies that were all corporations, and it was done in small claims. Besides, this collection agency is an LLC, not a corp. I'm definitely going to move it to small claims if I can. Make them show up with no lawyer, fair is fair.

Quote: EvenBob

You say you can't sue a corporation in small claims because they need to be represented by a lawyer? This is just flat out false. My friend sued AT&T in small claims and won last week, they settled. On the net there are hundreds of testimonials of people who sued corporations like banks and cell phone providers and service companies that were all corporations, and it was done in small claims. Besides, this collection agency is an LLC, not a corp. I'm definitely going to move it to small claims if I can. Make them show up with no lawyer, fair is fair.

LLC is a Limited Liability Corporation. So it is a corp just like a S Corp or C Corp.

They didn't sue you in small claims court because a lawyer for the entity is filing suit against you. The information I found in one of the Michigan districts said that you give up some rights by suing in small claims court including:

"The right to have an attorney represent you in court"

So...you are being sued by an entity that does not want to go to small claims court--it appears they could not do it even if they wanted to do so.

If that is the case, how will this go to small claims court?

You can answer and counter-sue for violations of the debt collection act but the court will take place where the plaintiff sued you, not where you as the defendant wants it to be heard.

Quote: EvenBob

You say you can't sue a corporation in small claims because they need to be represented by a lawyer? This is just flat out false. My friend sued AT&T in small claims and won last week, they settled. On the net there are hundreds of testimonials of people who sued corporations like banks and cell phone providers and service companies that were all corporations, and it was done in small claims. Besides, this collection agency is an LLC, not a corp. I'm definitely going to move it to small claims if I can. Make them show up with no lawyer, fair is fair.

Does the defendant give up the right to have a lawyer? Again, it appears the plaintiff cannot "force" them to do so...they can demand that the case be removed to the General Civil docket:

"However, the party you are suing (the defendant) in Small Claims court does not have to give up these rights. They may demand that the case be removed to the General Civil docket. If that happens, you may seek the advice of an attorney."

If ATT settled, did it actually happen in court or did they seek settlement before an actual hearing?

Those corporations may have decided the amounts were too small and the cases had enough merit that they would likely lose and made the decision to not use a lawyer, or there might be more to the policy that allows defendants to use a lawyer in small claims court. Either way, none of that speaks to your desire to move it to small claims court since you are the one being sued. I don't think it will happen.

Quote: RonC

So...you are being sued by an entity that does not want to go to small claims court--it appears they could not do it even if they wanted to do so.

If that is the case, how will this go to small claims court?

Of course they can sue in small claims, but they want to use an attorney, so they went to civil. And LLC stands for Limited Liability Company, look it up. It doesn't matter, they can sue and be sued in small claims. And yes AT&T settled without an attorney even being present.

{{LLC stands for Limited Liability Company. Because it is not a partnership or a corporation, the owners of an LLC are not partners or shareholders, they are "members."{{

My point was that the company suing you doesn't want to give up their right to have an attorney; that means they can't sue you in small claims court.

Yes, they "could" of course...but they won't because they want an attorney.

.

Quote: RonC

Yes, they "could" of course...but they won't because they want an attorney.

.

But I can request it be moved to small claims because I don't have an attorney. I'll get the details tomorrow.

Quote: EvenBob

<< The point is that you have to respond to each claim in the complaint with a separate paragraph.>>

Nope, you can deny all or some allegations by saying 'I deny allegations 3 thru 9' or whatever. Just so the court knows you have denied them.

You do realize, it is not me you arguing with here, don't you?

Quote:

They report late payments long before they do that, because late payments are what other creditors want to see. This case was 'closed' when they wrote off the debt, they could care less what happens after they sell it to some bottom feeder. They didn't report any of it because its not a valid debt.

The collectors would not buy the debt (or would not pay as much for it), if it was reported. I have already explained it to you. Please, make an effort to read the posts you are replying to.

Quote:

>>Or they drafted the answer properly, stating a valid defense ... or they are just bankrupt or otherwise judgment proof>>

Or they can't be found, or their assets can't be found, or they have no assets.

Yes, that is what judgment proof means. Sorry, I assumed you were familiar with terminology by now.

Quote:

Saying somebody 'has to' pay a debt is ridiculous, when 80% of those with judgements don't ever pay.
The only time they 'have to' pay, is if they're forced to, and 80% of the time they're not forced to.

I mean, legally. In the same sense that you have to drive under speed limit. Most people do not, but it is not a valid defense against a speeding ticket.

Quote:

<< long answers, full of irrelevant statements.>>

And what am I trying to avoid?

I have no idea. You keep talking about omiting required stuff, like responses to individual claims, but icluding irrelevant info, like your credit report. This is the opposite of sensible. So, my best guess is you are trying to avoid being rational.

Quote:

All the court wants to see is ...

If you say so...

Quote: EvenBob

You say you can't sue a corporation in small claims because they need to be represented by a lawyer? This is just flat out false. My friend sued AT&T in small claims and won last week, they settled. On the net there are hundreds of testimonials of people who sued corporations like banks and cell phone providers and service companies that were all corporations, and it was done in small claims. Besides, this collection agency is an LLC, not a corp.

This is America, you can sue whoever you want whereever you want. If your friend did not settle, his case would get transferred to the general civil court, that has jurisdiction. It would not be heard in small claims.
LLC is technically not a corporation, but it is a legal entity, so, same difference.

Quote:

I'm definitely going to move it to small claims if I can. Make them show up with no lawyer, fair is fair.

That actually would be the opposite of fair. In the interest of fairness, everyone has a right to be represented by an attorney.
Because Michigan does not allow attorneys in small claims, that right has to be explicitly waived by both parties for the case to be heard there.
There is nothing "fair" about forcing somebody to not have legal representation.

Quote:

And yes AT&T settled without an attorney even being present.

It wasn't a legal settlement then. The settlement to the case, must be filed with the court and signed by both parties (and yes, for ATT, it would have to be an attorney who signed it). It looks like what happened here is either that you or your friend or both misunderstood what was going on, or your friend was simply paid privately to drop the case. It is not illegal (not for your friend's part anyway, it could be for ATT), and happens every so often, but it is usually a pretty bad deal for the plaintiff for two reasons - first, if the defendant does not go through with all or part of his promises, it will be impossible to enforce, and second, if the defendant wants to "settle" this way, privately, there may only be two reasons - either they are not planning on keeping their promises (and want them to be impossible to enforce) or they have some much, much bigger piece to lose if the case ever gets before the eyes of a judge or anyone with legal experience (like statutory damages for example), and they are looking for an easy way out, hoping that the plaintiff will not know he is being lowballed, and sign the deal.

Weaselman, I'm pretty much done with you. The only one of your 'points' I'll respond to is, yes my friend settled with AT&T at the courthouse, then they went in front of the magistrate and signed papers. As far as anything else you say, you're being a dunderhead because it seems to delight you. You ignore some things I say, misread others intentionally, dispense false and misleading information, and generally offer advice that is non productive and contradictory. I'm weary of looking up information to answer your ridiculous and biased and mostly wrong positions on this, so from now on I'm ignoring you. I don't have time for nonsense, I'm sticking with people who actually know what they're talking about. I understand, the people I know and the sites on the net don't know as much as you do, but I'm taking that route anyway. You're sure I'm doomed, the wascally justice system has me by the short hairs, I have no chance. Don't worry, thanks for all your 'help', I'll be all right, I promise.

Buh Bye..

They want to have their 5.3 of 10 rated attorney handle the lawsuit.

My point isn't that the suit "can't" be heard in small claims court. The amount being sought in the suit would allow it to be heard there. I am saying it "won't" be moved whether you have a lawyer or not because they are using a lawyer and will not give up that right just because you don't intend to have a lawyer.

Quote: EvenBob

Weaselman, I'm pretty much done with you.

Uhh, scary ...Please, would you reconsider? How would I survive without your wisdom?!

Quote:

The only one of your 'points' I'll respond to is, yes my friend settled with AT&T at the courthouse, then they went in front of the magistrate and signed papers.

Then it was the first of the possibilities that I mentioned - either you or your friend simply misunderstood. The guy who signed for ATT was a lawyer.

Quote:

You're sure I'm doomed, the wascally justice system has me by the short hairs, I have no chance.

Actually, no. Like I said before, I think the most likely outcome is a judgment against you for half the sum in question, unless you do some of the more stupid things you were considering in this thread, in which case, you could be found liable for the whole amount, plus court csts, plus, maybe an administrative fine. It won't be a lot, and it will be a lesson worth paying for (some people have to pay to learn anything, it happens), so, I would not say that you are doomed.

You could instead make a few thousand on this ... but it looks like to you it is more important to be right than rich, so ...

Quote: RonC

My point isn't that the suit "can't" be heard in small claims court. The amount being sought in the suit would allow it to be heard there.

It actually can't, not because of the amount, but because only an attorney can represent the company in court. Unless you are an attorney, you cannot represent any entity other than yourself and your spouse.
So, they have no choice, even if they wanted small claims, they could not use it, not in Michigan.

Quote:

I am saying it "won't" be moved whether you have a lawyer or not because they are using a lawyer and will not give up that right just because you don't intend to have a lawyer.

That too .... If they could wave their right to representation but simply did not want to, it would have the same effect.
In this case though, even if they wanted to, they can't.

Quote: weaselman

The guy who signed for ATT was a lawyer.

Certainly. Internal counsel, probably an ass't general counsel. But not outside counsel, which presumably is where the confusion lies here...

Yes, of course. I did not mean to imply it was an outside counsel. It just had to be a member of the Bar. ATT has got plenty of them on payroll.

Its been 2 weeks since the court got my answer to
the complaint and I've heard nothing about a court
date. I called the civil court clerk today and she said
they haven't heard from the plaintiff, sometimes they
wait till the last minute before they continue the case.

We'll see. I denied every allegation and put in several
defense clauses of my own, maybe they'll just throw it
away. I hope he doesn't, I'm looking forward to my day
in court.

Quote: EvenBob

Just got off the phone with a nice lady at the court. ... She said if I answer on time, the nearest hearing date will be in March of 2012...

So how did this work out for you?

The lawyer never showed up so they they it out.
They had no provable case, I was supposed to
buckle like a good lad and I didn't.

Excellent! Well done.