|
The Plaintiff ( Accounts Receivable Services, LLC ) is Suing Me for a debt I do not owe ( Case # XXXX ). The Court is XXXX County Co urt Hou se ( MN ). Part of my answer is below : ANSWER My name is XXXX XXXX XXXX ( The named Defendant, or Defendant ) and I had elected to Defend Myself in this Case. Through interaction with the Plaintiff ( And receipt of additional information, thereof ) ; I am adding further Affirmative Defenses ( AD, or ADs ) and Counter Claims ( As they become known ). It should be stated that the Defendant maintains all items in his in itial Answer ( A nd the below is nothing more than a continuation, thereo f ). Si milarly, the ADs ( Listed Below ) will begin with the numbe r XXXX to correspond, with the Initial Answer.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 5 ) The Plaintiff is in Violation of Minn. Stat. 548.101 : Per th e Attorney Generals Office : A Minnesota law, Minn. Stat. 548.101, applies to cases filed by Debt Buyers seeking default judgments against Minnesota citizens in district court or conciliation court for claims upon an assigned obligation arising out of any consumer debt that is primarily for personal, family, or household purposes and in default at the time of assignment. The law requires that Debt Buyers provide certain basic admissible evidence to district courts and conciliation courts with any request for default judgment, including admissible evidenc e ( 1 ) That the amount claimed to be owed is accurate, ( 2 ) Of the contractual terms they seek to enforce to show that the person su ed actually owes the debt, ( 3 ) Of a valid and complete chain of assignment of the debt from the original creditor to the debt buyer seeking the default judgment, with documentation evidencing that the particular debt at issue was included in the assignment or assignments Based on information provided by the XXXX County Court H ouse the Plaintiff had failed to provide the above stated information, and, thus ( The Defendant believes ) that the Plaintiff Is in violation of Minn. Stat. 548.101. 6 ) The Plaintiff Failed to Properly Serve Their Summons & Complaint ( As Prescribed by the Minnesota Attorney Generals Office ). Service of process is necessary for many reasons, but the primary reason is to make sure that the due process of law is upheld in United States. If papers are n't served properly, the court is not able to rule on a case relating to an individual ( If they were not legally made aware of it ). An other reason service of process is important is because being properly served gives legal proof a defendant ( Or the right pers on ) re ceived the notice for which they are being sued ( Which didnt occur in this situation ). The Minnesot a State Attorney Generals Office o utlines the above stated process, as follows : To start a lawsuit, a person ( Or company ) must serve a Summons and Complaint on a debtor either : ( a ) By delivering to them personally or leaving it at their home ; or ( b ) By mail, if the debtor agrees ( In writing ) to accept service of the Summons and Complaint by mail and sign a form that so indicates. Accounts Receivable Services, LLC sent a copy of the Defendants Summands and Complaint via regular mail in a plain white envelope ; Additionally, no agreement in writing to accept Service of the Summands and Complaint by mail ( and no signed form that so indicates ) were ever executed. 7 ) There Are Now Federal Laws Debt Buyers Are Subject to : As much as the law affords the legitimate Debt Buyer to legally purchase debt for pennies on the dollar ( And then legally serve process and sue Consumers for the full value, thereof ) : There are now Federal Regulations that Govern the way these debts can be Collected. Today, the Dodd-Fran k Wall Street Refor m and Consumer Protection Act is in play ; Which prohibits Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ( collectively, UDAAPs ). The Governing Body that oversees Dodd-Frank is the Consumer Financial Protection Bure au ( CFPB, or Bureau ) and its enforcement jurisdiction includes all U.S. Lenders, Debt Buyers, Service Providers and any other entity that is involved in the Consumer Collection Process ( On any Consumer Service, or Product. ). Also, all financial institutions that are regulated under the Dodd-Frank Act ( That Collect Consumer Debts ), whether as original creditors or as legally-defined debt collectors, a re now subject to the requirements of former Federal Debt Collection Law. In effect the CFPB eradicated decades of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) precedent, which unambiguously holds that original creditors ( And Debt Buyers ) are not Debt Collectors and, thus, are not subject to Federal Regulation under the FDCPA. The CFPB has taken the position that its general authority to prevent unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices ( UDAAPs ) applies to Consumer Debt Collection, and that the type of conduct barred under UDAAP is analogous to conduct subject to enforcement under the FDCPA. Being that UDAAP falls under the jurisdiction ( And enforced by ) the CFPB, it is the Defendants intent to file a ( rather lengthy ) complaint with them ( The CFPB ), directly. Not so much for Defense of his Case, but the Defense of others wh o may ha ve been treated Unfairly, or Deceptively ( In similar fashion ) by the Plaintiff. Similarly, the Minnesota Attorney Generals Office wi ll be contacted, for the same reasons. It is the also the Defendants intent to further demonstrate ( To this Court ) how the Plaintiffs Claim is ( And should continue to be ) unsubstantiated ; Why the Defendant believes that a Judgment should not be granted in favor of the Plaintiff ; And why the Defendants Counter Claim, for Damages ( Stated below ), should be imposed on the Plaintiff for being Unfair, Deceptive, Illegal and Harassing In their entire dealings with the Defendant [ While ( And after ) ] they filed the above stated Statement of Claim. 8 ) Ac counts Receivable Services, LLC ( Plaintiff ), Harassed the Defendant with an Unsubstantiated Court Filing : Accounts Receivable Ser vices, LLC ( The Plaintiff ) is acting as the Debt Buyer for the above stated, alleged, deb t. At the time the Plaintiff filed their suit they failed to provide certain basic admissible evidence to the XXXX County Court Hous e including admissible evidenc e ( 1 ) That the amount claimed to be owed is accurate, ( 2 ) Of the contractual terms they seek to enforce to show that the defendant owes the debt, ( 3 ) Of a valid and complete chain of assignment of the debt from th e original creditor to the debt buyer seeking the default judgment, with documentation evidencing that the particular debt at issue was included in the assignment or assignments. The Defendant Answered the above Complaint in a timely fashion and proceeded to send ( via Certified Mail ) a Request for the Production of Documents ( And provided a copy for the Court ). The only response received ( From the Plaintiff ) were XXXX documents ( Attached to an undated Cover Letter ) requesting the Defendant to Contact them for resolution ( Gong forward, these documents will be referred to as t he above stated XXXX ). The above stated XXXX looked much like statements of alleg ed procedures that were conducted at XXXX XXXX XXXX . However, the sum total of all XXXX documents exceeded the Plaintiffs total claim ( Collection Fees, Interest and Court Costs Included ). On XXXX XXXX XXXX t he Defendant proceeded to reach out to the Plaintiff by phone : The Plaintiff did not have an answer for the discrepancy, but stated that the XXXX documents represent the same debt that they were suing him for. Failure for the Plaintiff to provide admissible evidence ( Up front ) leaves the Plaintiff all kinds of flexibility to change, alter, manufacture, or misrepresent evidence ( Such as the above state d XXXX ) ; That would best serve their purposes while a suit progresses ( On the basis that there is, really, no documented evidence to refer back to when the case was filed ). Being the total value of the above stated XXXX exce eds the value of their Claimed amount ( After Collection, Interest & Court Costs ), the Plaintiff has failed to substantiate the Claimed Amount they seek ; Additionally, it would be difficult ( if not impossible ) for the Plaintiff to prove otherwise. Lastly, any additional correspondence ( Or information ) would be extremely difficult for the Defendant to view, as Accu rate & True. 9 ) The Plaintiff Deceived the Defendant by Pursuing their ( The Plaintiffs ) Claim Under More Than XXXX ( XXXX ) Name. The attached Summons and Complaint Names Accounts Receivable Services, LLC as the Plaintiff. However all phone contact numbers ( Provided by said Plaintiff ) go to Reliance Recoveries ( The Plaintiffs Assumed Name ). Additionally, the only correspondence received ( The a bove stated XXXX ) came from Reliance Recoveries. The Defendant almost did not open the above stated XXXX based on the different company name ( In the return address portion of the envelope ). The only time Accounts Receivable Service s, LLC has been referenced was on the Statement of Claim. Such an approach can deceive a Debtor ( Or Defendant ) in a number of ways : 1 ) Th e Debtor/Defendant could believe that he/she is being pursued by more than one pa rty for the same debt. . 2 ) Could deceive the Defendant to mistakenly discard correspondence that is sent to them from the Plaintiffs Assumed Nam e. 3 ) Could refuse calls from anyone who states they are calling from said assumed name, etc,. The Defendant, therefore, believes that the Plaintiffs pursuit ( As stated above ) is Deceptive. 10 ) The Plaintiff may have R elied on Misleading, Robo-Signed ( Or Mass Produced ) Court Filings to Churn out Lawsuits : Many Debt Buyers prefer to mass-produc e ( Ch urn ) lawsuits by using an automated claim-preparation system and have a non-attorney support staff to determine which consumers to sue. Or ( If there are attorneys involved in the decision making proces s ), they would spend less than a few minutes, sometimes less than 30 seconds, reviewing each case before initiating a lawsuit. These types of processes can allow Debt Buyers to generate and file hundre ds ( if not thousands ) of lawsu its ( In a very short period of time ). The resulting Statement of Claims could be false, inaccurate and, or, unsubstantiated ( And result in a wrongful Judgment ). In most churning events, admissible evidence is not ever provided to the Courts ( Or Defendants ) ; Or it is delayed till such time that is most advantageous to the Plaintiff. Evidence that multiple Summons and Complaints have been Churned ( If a grou p of 100s if not 1000s of Com plaints were reviewed, at the same time ) could be reflected as follows : All Summons & Complaints were Notarized and Filed ( By the same p erson ( s ) /On the same day ) with the same ( Or various other ) Courts. Debt Buyers hope Defendants dont Answer these Complaints ( Or appear in Court ) so that they ( Debt Buyers ) can receive an automatic judgment in their favor. If the above stated processes are in any way reflective to the way the Plaintiff handled this case, they ( The Plaintiff ) would be in violation of Dodd-Frank Wall S treet Refo rm and Consumer Protection Act which prohibits unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the Consumer Financial Marketplace. It is the Defendants contention that his Statement of Claim was churned with others and that the Plaintiff relied on false or inaccurate data to create, thereof. The primary reasons for his contention is as follows : 1 ) Sig nificant inaccuracies associated with the above stated XXXX & the Claimed Amount ; 2 ) The Plaintiffs a ) Failure to Produce substantiating evidence at the time they filed their Statement of Claim ; b ) The Plaintiffs failure to produce substantiating evidence after their Statement of Claim had been Answered and c ) after a call ( From the Defendant ) requesting thereof ( On XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX/XX/XXXXX/span> ) ; 3 ) The Plaintiff stating ( On said call ) that All their Statement of Claims contain the same verbiage ( So that they automatically include other Defendants they werent aware of ) And that they didnt provide admissible evidence ( Or supporting documentation ) to the Court, upfront ( When they filed their suit ) . 4 ) Th at they dont serv e Consumers ( As prescribed by the Attorney Generals Office ) on any account that is less than {$2500.00}. 11 ) The Plaintiff Engaged in Unfair Litigation Processes while Serving Process. As stated earlier, the Plaintiff s erved the Defendant by delivering a Summons & Compl aint ( Vi a r egular mail ) in a plain white envelope ( The plain white envelope method ). In many cases, the Defendant could have ( Very easily ) discarded that envelope and have no knowledge tha t a Cour t Date had been set. In this instance the Plaintiff, would, likely obtain a Judgment ( In their favor ) without any opportunity for the Defendant to A ) Settle the debt outside of Court ( If it was valid ) ; B ) Answer said Complaint or C ) Show up in Court, or D ) Defend himself, in general. The plain white envelope method could, therefore pla ce a Consumer at a dire ly unfair advantage during the litigation process. Especially when the consequences of said Judgments are so severe : All on the basis of the Defendant ( W ho had not been improperly served ) failing to open a plain white envelope. 12 ) The Plaintiff Engaged in Unfair Litigation Processes by Not Providing Admissible Evidence that the Amount Claimed to be Owed is Accurate : The only admissible evidence provided to validate the amount owed ( The Above Stated XXXX ) : Said evide nce 1 ) Was not provided to the Court at the time this case was filed ; 2 ) Was provided to the Defendant ( Only ) ; After he had answered their Complaint ; 3 ) Significantly conflict with the amount of the Plaintiffs Claimed Amoun t. Because the above information was not provided up-front [ And the values ( Of the above stated XXXX and the Claimed amount ) do not match ], it would be impossible to prove whether ( or not ) the above stated XXXX would be a valid representation of the Debt in question. This places the Defendant in an Unfair position during the litigation process. Conflicting values are also Deceptive. 13 ) The Plaintiff Failed to Provide the 1 ) Contractual Terms they Seek to Enforce to Show that the Defendant Actually Owes the Debt, a nd ( 2 ) of a Valid and Complete Chain of Assignment of the Debt from the Orig inal Creditor to the Debt Buyer Seeking The Default Judgment, With Documentation Evidencing that the Particular Debt at Issue was Included in the Assignment or Assignments ( Which is Deceptive and, Also Places the Defendant in an Unfair Position in the Litigation Process ) : The Plaintiff had failed to provide the above stated at the time they filed their Suit. They also failed to produce, thereof : After they have received the Defendants Answer ; After the Defendant Submitted a Request for the Production of Documents ; And after the Defendant had contacted the Plaintiff ( Via a phone call on XXXX ). The only indication that said information would be provided was when they told the Defendant ( On a XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX/XX/XXXXX/span> ) that it can be viewed when they see him in Court! T he Defendant, therefore, had no opportunity to resolve the alleged debt ( Between claim filing & court date ) unless he chose to pay the Plaintiffs unsubstantiated debt, upfront. Also, the production, thereof, ( At Court Date ) leaves in sufficient time for the Defendant to validate and make an informed decision on how to resolve thereof. If ( for any reason ) a Judgment was rendered in favor of the Plaintiff ( Based on a last minute production, thereof ) ; A Judgment would be rendered, in part, because sufficient time to make an informed decision was never provided the Defendant : The Defendant is, therefore, being unfairly pursued. If Judgment was rendered in favor of the Defendant ( Based, in part, on the last minute production, th ereof ) t han the Defendants trust in th e Financial System c ould still be negatively impacted, regardless. 14 ) The Defendant Deceptively ( & I llegally ) Communicated and Pursued a Third Party for A Debt : XXXX XXXX ( the Defendants Wife ) had a discharged Chapter XXXX Bankruptcy in Early XXXX ( Case # XXXX ) ; The Plaintiff is Claiming for Services provided by XXXX On various dates between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ; Also ( By the time XXXX Discharged her Bankruptcy ) XXXX & the Defendant were divorced, ( For approximate ly 5 months ). In addition, they were not residing with XXXX and another. They proceeded to Re-Mary ( A pproximately ) XXXX months after Discharge Date. Thus, ( Per Minnesota Statutes section XXXX ) : The named Defendant would be responsible for ALL Marital Medical Debt up to the date of Divorce ; Then responsible for his own Medical Debt ( During the period he was Divorced ) ; And then responsible for all the Marital Medical Debt from the date he Re-Married. Whereas, XXXX would be responsible for her, specific, Medical Debt from the Discharge Date to the date she Re-Married ; And, then, responsible for all Marital Debt thereafter ( The Divorce Papers and Marriage License are filed at the XXXX County Court House ). Bei ng that all debts that the Plaintiff is pursuing are relate d to medical services to Defendants on various dates between XX/XX/XXXX & XX/XX/XXXX ( Paragraph XXXX of the attached Summons & Complaint ) i t would be safe to assume that at least part ( If not all ) of the debts the Plaintiff was pursuing was not owed by XXXX XXXX . Yet, the Plaintiff still sites Minnesota Statutes section XXXX and utilizes the words spouses, together, defendants & jointly ( On 10 sep arate occasions ) ; Throughout the entire body of their Complaint. Additionally, the Summons & Complaint was improperly mailed in a plain white envelope to the named Defendants House [ And opened by his wife ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ], which lead her to believe that she was somehow responsible. By virtue of the language stated in the Summons & Complaint and the method by which the Summons was delivered ( And opened ), it is the Defendants contention that the Plaintiff, both : Pursued & Communicated ( With a third party ) about a Consumer Debt which is Illegal and Deceptive.
15 ) Th e Plaintiff is Not Bound by the FDCPA. However, is Still Required to Legally Collect Consumer Debt : Prior to the Dodd-F rank Wall Street Reform and Consume r Protection Act ( In XXXX ) ; Debt Buyers ( Considered to be Debt Owners ) were not subject to many laws associated with the Collection of Consumer Debts ; Thus were afforded all kinds of flexibility in how they could engage in the Collections, th ereof. Third Party Collect ors ( Collection Agencies ), however were not so lucky : In XXXX the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act ( FDCPA ) was enacted ( In response to prior abusive and unfair Debt Collection practices they had exhibited ) [ It is the Defendants belief that the reason that Debt Buyers were not subject to this law ( Early on ) is that they did not exist until XXXX ( And did not become prevalent until XXXX ). Unfortunately, Debt Buyers were never subject, thereof, ever since ( For unknown reasons ) ]. Collection Agencies could violate the F DCPA under the most minor of circumstances. For Example : ( 1 ) Calling before, or after a specific hour, 2 ) Calling someone at work. 3 ) Failure to state that This is an attempt to collect a debt by a debt collector ( When contacting the Consumer ). 4 ) Communicating a Debt to a party that does not owe the debt. 5 ) Timely posting of payments. 6 ) The requirement to send validation letters. 7 ) Misrepresenting what will happen if the Consumer does not pay their debt. 8 ) What is ( and isnt ) stated in a phone conversation ( with a Consumer Debtor ) 9 ) The type of correspondence that is, etc,. ) ; All violations, thereof, could be punishable up to {$1000.00}, each. Similarly ( Prior to XXXX ), the Debt Buyer could engage in all sorts of Abusive and Unfair ( Consumer ) Debt Collection Practices ( And violate all of the above listed ) and walk away Scott-Free. Since The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Refo rm and Consumer Protection Act ( Of XXXX ) ; The CFPB had imposed some very hefty monetary penalties to Debt Buyers for violation of UDAAPs ; As defined abov e ( Suppo rting information can be provided to the Court at their request ). Defined fine amounts ( Per UDAAP violation ) have not been established ; However the Dodd-Fran k Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is every bit as much of a Federal Mandate as the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act ( And was signed into law for the very same reasons ) : Thus, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Re form and Consumer Protection Act, should be similarly punishable ( If violated ). Also if any Debt Buyer is successful by engaging in Unfair, Deceptive, Illegal or Abusive Consumer Collection Practices ( And are not reasonably punished ) they ( The Debt B uyers ) will continue to do so, going forward.
Counter Claim Request 1 ) It i s the Defendants Position that XXXX ( Of the last XXXX Affirmative Defenses ), contain at least XXXX ( XXXX ) UDAAP violation [ ( Some XXXX ( XXXX ), or XXXX ( XXXX ) ] ; or a violation of a State Law. Additionally, the Defendant spent a minimum o f 20 hours working this case. Being that the Defendant lives a significant distance from the closest Post Office, more than reasonable fuel Costs were encountered when sending out his correspondence ( Via Certified Mail ). The Defendant paid Court Costs and Postage to Defend himself & went through significant emotional distress ( Due to the Plaintiffs lack of cooperation ). Lastly, the Defendant did more then his fair share in his attempt to get this matter resolved outside of Court. If the Court agrees to the above assessment ; The Defendant Counters the Plaintiffs Claim in the amount of {$12000.00} ( After the Cost of the Plaintiffs Claim Amount. ) ; Which would, roughly, translate into {$1000.00} per UDAAP violation, time spent on an unsubstantiated case, court, fuel and postage costs & pain and suffering. The Defendant Further States that other defenses and counterclaims may exist and will be added as they become known.
WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court : 1. Enter Judgement for the Defendant, 2. In the alternative, find that Defendants counterclaims outweigh and debt the Defendant owes the Plaintiff, 3. Order Such relief as the Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted
|