My question involves collection proceedings in the State of: Northeast Ohio
Just like a previous thread you answered i got a letter that said "Dismissed without Prejiduce"
You stated to another person that the Plaintiff can only sue me once over this debt so its over. Then you said the second suit would also have to be
filed as Dismissed without Prejiduce?? I am a little lost.
The Plaintiffs listed on my law suite were both Capital One and their attorney so what your saying is that neither one of them can sue me for this debt again. So How does the 2nd suit come about if it were to since Capital One Cannot sue me for the same debt?? Sell the debt again to another junk debt buyer???? If they did that then only they could come after me NOT capital One!! Obviously the new party is not going to be able to produce any other proof as well so it ends up the same as the first suit.
How many times can this go on before a judge steps in and says enough is enough suit is over and done with period. God I think the SOL in Ohio is like what 10 15 years??? so this will forever just hand there over my head?
Another Question!! If they filed "Dismissed without Prejiduce" then that means they cannot prove that I owe this Debt. If they cannot prove I owe this debt then how can they come after me for a debt they cannot prove I owe!?? Also can any and all derogitory info pertaining to this debt now be removed from the Credit Bureaus? They always said if the person collecting the debt, putting the derogitory info on my credit file CANNOT PROVE that I owe thios debt then the info has to be removed.
To keep this hanging over my head is like saying I can go to the court and file a suit against anyone and make a claim that someone owes me big bucks (even though they may not) and I can take them to court then drop the case without Prejiduce and have it hanging over their heads forever! I cannot prove they owe me but I am going to have this hanging over their heads forever.
AND in a way your contradicting yourself. One minute you say the Plaintiffs can no longer sue you but then you say they can still sue me again. How can that be when you just said the Plaintiffs could only sue you once!! How does this 2nd suit occurr? again redundantly speaking, "If they CANNOT prove that you owe the debt then it would only seem fair that the debt should be dropped!! It just seems rediculous to me!!