We'll help you find the right solution for your needs
Does this sound like your topic?
I was served with papers informing me that I was being sued by Midland Funding. I responded with a letter requesting Verification of Claim/Debt, Denial of Alleged Debt, and Request for Production of Documents/Discovery Request. I received a VOD letter with a copy of a credit card statement and a Bill of Sale between CitiBank and Midland (which was false because CitiBank sold the account to LVNV and they sold it to Midland) and a letter stating the Plaintiff's Answers to the Defendant's Discovery Requests. The Midland attorney responded to almost every request with the following:
“Plaintiff objects to this request as being vague, ambiguous, overbroad, not within the scope of discovery, and would not lead to admissible evidence. Plaintiff cannot understand this request and cannot comply.”Midland has not proven that I owe them anything. The Bill of Sale that the produced could have been printed off of my computer. Several parts of it are blacked out and say "redacted." They are also saying that I "owe" them several hundred dollars more than the original balance because of "interest, late charges or other charges." I thought this was a violation of the Texas Finance Code, particularly 392.404. Am I wrong?