- Was served thru my attorney.
Whoa, Nellie! You have retained counsel yet YOU are asking us what YOU should do??
Where is YOUR attorney in all of this? Dealing with the 'Rogs and Admissions is HIS job.
So is getting Palisades to "prove it" should the case go to trial.
I cant remember for sure if they acutally sent a summons and we answered
Then why don't you ask the party who was allegedly served with the complaint, your attorney?
I think I just answered and then nothing happened and then I forgot bout the whole matter, half hoping to would just go away until the SOL cleared.
Did YOU file that answer pro-se? I should think you did not since it appears that your attorney handles all such matters (service was directly on your counsel).
What in the heck is YOUR attorney doing to earn their fees?? Did the discovery get served on you directly or through counsel? If you were served directly, the paperwork should have been forwarded to YOUR COUNSEL immediately and you should have followed whatever he told you to do about it.
Now, if he gave the papers back to you to fill out? All you need to do is return them once you are done to HIM to serve them on opposing counsel. Then you need to tell him to serve discovery on Palisades (if he has not done so already).
Maybe I spoke too soon...Now, this is not legal advice (and your attorney should know about this), but F.Y.I. :
The origional acct was allegedly opened in 96, I cant remember or have any paperwork to state when last payment was attempted.
This one may be SOL; depends on the CoA:http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/civil-statute-of-limitations/south-dakota/
Contracts 6 yrs. §§15-2-6, 13; Oral: 6 yrs. §15-2-13
Collection of Debt on Account -
Note that "collection of debt on account" does not state a particular SOL in this chart, which is taken from a reliable source (FindLaw, a service of WestLaw). The actual SD Codified Code, Chapter 15, Civil Procedure, Sec. 15-2-13(1) states the SOL for an action on contract:http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=15-2-13
15-2-13. Contract obligation or liability--Statutory liability--Trespass--Personal property-- Injury to noncontract rights--Fraud--Setting aside corporate instrument. Except where, in special cases, a different limitation is prescribed by statute, the following civil actions other than for the recovery of real property can be commenced only within six years after the cause of action shall have accrued:
(1) An action upon a contract, obligation, or liability, express or implied, excepting those mentioned in §§ 15-2-6 to 15-2-8, inclusive, and subdivisions 15-2-15(3) and (4);
The cited subdivisions may all have nothing to do with the CoA in your case, which appears to be an action on a written contract; 15-2-15(4) deals with when the SOL begins for an open account (such as a bar tab
The conclusion is obvious even to a non-attorney such as myself: This alleged debt is WAY out of SOL
. Not only does Palisades not have the right to demand relief through the courts due to the passage of time, you have major FDCPA violations to get THEM with. Violations such as of FDCPA §807(5), the threat to take an action that cannot be taken, such as filing that lawsuit on a time-barred debt and FDCPA §807(8 ):
(8 ) Communicating or threatening to communicate to any person credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, including the failure to
communicate that a disputed debt is disputed.
Look again at the TL. Palisades no doubt is doing just that (reporting false information).
And if it turns out that there is no lawsuit? Those discovery demands would then get Palisades on this:
[FDCPA §807](9) The use or distribution of any written communication which simulates or is falsely represented to be a document authorized, issued, or approved by any court, official, or agency of the United States or any State, or which creates a false impression as to its source, authorization, or approval.
And of course, this...[§807(10)]
(10) The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer.
In short, why is your attorney not filing a Motion to Dismiss and make the court tell Palisades "so sad, too bad"? He sure has grounds for filing suit as your representative in Federal court for the FDCPA violations AND FCRA ones as well to make Palishady's life miserable.