Credit Card Debt Lawsuit - Collection Agency Acting As Original Creditor
My question involves collection proceedings in the State of: New Jersey
Hello All,
Thank you for taking the time to read this. Today I received a summons in the mail for a superior court in NJ. I received 3 pages in total. First page was detailing information on how to respond to the summons. Second page lists Plaintiff information as well as the Demand amount. Third page is the complaint information.
I believe Capital One sold my debt long ago, although I do not have any proof of this. I believe that at least a year ago or maybe more I started receiving calls from the collector which was not Capital One. Prior to that Capital One handled all debt collection. Account was opened sometime in 2006, card defaulted either 2007 or 2008. This is as best as my memory serves me.
2nd Page Plaintiff Info:
When ever it lists the Plaintiff it lists the lawyers name, the address to their practice, telephone number then, a 2-3 lines later it lists Capital One Bank (Usa), N.A.
They are trying to collect over $1,600 for a debt that was originally ~$500 before the debt defaulted, may have been up to $700.
3rd Page Complaints:
Again it lists the law firms information including name of practice, address, phone number, "Attorney for Plaintiff", and a file number. Then there is a line and under the line it says Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.
Here's the interesting information. It states "Plaintiff having a principal place of business at: 6356 Corley Rd Norcross, GA 30091 says:"
That is not Capital One Bank (USA) N.A.! Doing some searching I was able to find that it is "TSYS TOTAL DEBT MANAGEMENT INC
* Address: 6356 CORLEY RD, NORCROSS, GA 30071-1704" The thing that worries me is the zip code is off in this listing, or possibly in the summons. In writing '7' and '9' look similar maybe it was a transcribing error or something of the sort. Anyways I found it on this site The company's website may be found on here.
There is only one (1) item on the complaint. It says to the effect of that I owe on a credit card account (it lists an account number I will go through an old credit report and verify that this is indeed an account number that I owned at one point in time). Then, it goes on to state that they are claiming over $1,300 plus over $200 for finance charges from March of this year to October of this year. This makes me believe that possibly Capital One sold the debt back in March of this year or possibly it went from one debt collector to the next.
Is it true that if the lawyer is representing himself/plaintiff as Capital One when they are not in fact Capital One, that it would constitute fraud? I looked at my states SOL and it seems like I should not even attempt to bring it up as I am not sure of specific dates. I would like to only use what I know would be a viable defense.
Has anyone run into something similar before? Possibly any case law?
The whole fraud thing comes from an article I read titled: Debt Collectors Suing Consumers Naming Capital One As Plaintiff
This all happened not even an hour ago so I am still doing my research.
[edit]
Some questions:
Would a viable defense be, since the complaint is a contractual complaint, to ask for validation of the contract? i.e. request original signed contract?
Do they still have the ability to submit evidence? It seems that they have not submitted any evidence at all. As there are no exhibits in the summons.
Re: Credit Card Debt Lawsuit - Collection Agency Acting As Original Creditor
You can attempt to explore through discovery whether the plaintiff is in fact representing Capital One or has acquired the debt. Consistent with the discovery rules of the court in which the suit was filed, and assuming that court permits discovery, consistent with the rules you can seek a copy of the relevant documentation including any past assignments of the debt. You would likely want to raise the issue of standing as one of your affirmative defenses when you file your answer. If the case goes to trial, or if you bring a legally sufficient motion that requires them to submit evidence in support of their response, they will be required to present evidence to support their position. There's no automatic reason why a summons and complaint would include documents; for most actions that's not necessary.