Inter Next Technologies, Inc., Internet Marketing Services, Reno, NV
Call (Toll Free)
Community Area
Get FREE Counseling


Helpful Resources
Popular Discussions
Creditmagic Twitter
Credit on Facebook

Need help with a response of an allegegation in complaint

Post reply  Start a topic
Author Message
Print this topic
Invite a friend
Email this topic
  Bookmark online
Add to
Add to YahooMyWeb

Joined: 31 Mar 2011
raybork's page
Posts: 3
Location: California

0 Magic Points

Subject: Need help with a response of an allegegation in complaint
Posted on Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:48 am  

In paragraph 20 of my summons complaint, it states, "As a result of the breach of the agreement by Defendant, Plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of $9,000 plus interest at the rate of 10% from March 3, 2010."

Now, the plaintiff is the CA, not the original creditor. I am filing this answer in the state of California and on their form it gives me two areas to either deny or claim statements as false.

I am puting this statement under the false statement section and stating as a reason that, "In response to paragraph #20, there is not, nor has there ever been any agreement, written, oral or implied with the Plaintiff and Defendant. Therefore, damages alleged by the Plaintiff through the direct action or inaction between Defendant and Plaintiff is completely inaccurate and fallacious."

Was wondering if that statement is good or too much?


Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Aaron's page
Posts: 2632

48565 Magic Points

Posted on Fri Apr 01, 2011 5:40 am  

I don't think it will be a good idea to send such a statement when the summon complaint doesn't state that you ever had an agreement with the plaintiff. I guess the complaint only states that there was a breach of agreement, which could have been between the defendant and someone else (may be the original creditor), and that as a result of this the plaintiff here has suffered a financial damage.
Keep in touch Smile

Posted on Sat Apr 02, 2011 7:55 am  

Ya, but the plaintiff is claiming I damaged them as a direct result of breaching the contract with the original creditor. The CA was never apart of the original deal and nobody twisted their arm to buy the debt in the first place. Only reason, why they did is the same reason why every other CA buys debt. Because they can buy the debt for pennies on the dollar and try to collect the full amount that was owed to the creditor, therefor making a huge profit.

Quick Reply
Your Name
Message body
Page 1 of 1

Delete this topic Move this topic Lock this topic Split this topic 

Page loaded in 0.052 seconds.