Originally Posted by ashriot
My response would be when I go through each of the numbered items in the paperwork I received and either admit, deny, or state that I'm not sure? They all seem correct to me, but some of the dates, I'm not sure about.
Seems like the logical thing to do, don't it? Problem is that admitting anything is just begging for the judge to bang his gavel and get it over with as quickly as possible and judges are all too happy to do just that. I can't give you legal advice because I'm not an attorney but if it were me I'd deny everything and see if I could make them prove everything.
| Second, what is a demand for admissions? |
It is a list of things you want them to admit such as admitting they don't have any accounting of the debt or no agreement or any number of other things. I already have a list of demands made up just in case I ever get sued. My list consists of 44 things I'd like them to either admit or deny.
| And as far as I know, I've never been contacted by Ferris before, so how should I go about demanding validation? |
Validation letters should be kept very simple. About all you need is a statement about how you found out about her, maybe the case number and tell her that you dispute the debt and demand validation. Anything else is probably superfluous and would serve no useful purpose.
| Is it validation that she is in control of this case |
I'm quite sure she thinks she is but it is up to you whether you want to accept that or whether you want to take control of the case. If it were me I'd be taking control of the case one way or the other whether the lawyer liked it or not. And of course they wouldn't like that at all. After all, lawyers are just practicing law. I don't practice law so it is up to me to teach them a thing or two they didn't know before if I can. If I want to win I've got to be better than my opponent.
| or validation that she is legit? |
What difference does that make? Whether or not her parents were ever married has no bearing on who wins the case. I couldn't care less. (LOL). No, validation means they must fully and completely prove the debt. (See Fields v. Wilbur Lawfirm 7th Cir Ct of Appeals). Judge Kenneth Minh spelled it all out for the debt collectors. He told them in one short paragraph exactly what was required of them when they reply to a demand for validation. Many debt collectors and pro se litigants alike seem to think that was all stated in Spears v. Brennan (7th Cir. Ct. of Appeals) but that was not the case. In Spears Judge Kenneth Johnson only stated what must be present in the initial
contact with the consumer. He only quoted that which is to be found in 15 U.S.C. 1692(g)(§ 809)
| Again, thank you very much, just a response alone made me feel better as this whole situation is stressing me out. |
Why should it? I understand that you are frightened because you don't know how to prepare the paperwork and fight the case to the bitter end but its up to you to learn. This stuff isn't rocket science and you should have started learning back when you knew you were going to default and even long before that. Yes, I know, we all think it isn't ever going to happen to us until it does. We also are trained to think that if we get into legal trouble all we have to do is go find a lawyer and let them take care of our problems. What we are not taught is what to do when that don't work or we don't have the money to pay them. Elementary legal education including a comprehensive study of our Constitution(s) should be required of every child from at least the 5th grade on up through college. That education should also include basic money management courses. That wasn't provided to you and you probably never thought you would need it anyway so you can hardly be blamed for that. But now push has come to shove and you are under the gun. You only have a few days to learn what you should have been studying long before this.