EARL HICKS asked 1 day ago
Hello,
Thank you in advance, to anyone in this forum, for feeling compelled to reply or join in the discussion regarding my question.
I have been sued in Texas Justice Court for an alleged amout of $5,500 by CitiBank (Plaintiff). The Plaintiff included an "Exhibit 1" which is an alleged account statement from a "Big Box" retailer. The Big Box naming is strewn throughout Page One of the statement in Four various places such as the Titling and Logo, the Customer Service contact info and the Return Mailing portion of the statement. In each of these instances a completely different mailing address is used. The statement is a total of 4 pages. The only page in which any naming (whatsoever) is included is on Page One. CitiBank,NA is referenced only one time within the 4 page statement. Their name, in small print, is placed slightly above the perforation line where the instructions are provided to "detach and return the lower portion..." and it reads This Account is issued by Citibank, N.A. There, of course, is not a copy of any original agreements or contracts included within the lawsuit, just the one exhibit.
In this instance the "Big Box" is Best Buy, I referenced Big Box because this may be the same scenario encountered with most Department Store and other Big Box retailer credit accounts.
In watching most all of the videos I see mainly references to what I think of as the actual "Bank" issued credit cards or loans and was initially thinking the attack on the filings, by Citibank, should follow the securitization aspect, however after uploading the Case Docs to the Killdebt Ai it produced a scenario where the initial defense would be to question the ownership transfer from the "Big Box" to Citibank. I am thankful for the Killdebt Ai pointing this out to me in advance as the plan can initally be to question this particular ownership transfer before simply assuming Citibank is the true owner. If somehow Citibank is determined to be, then at that point, if needed subsequently I can follow up with additional filings regarding the securitization ownership transfers by Citibank.
I am pondering my best alternatives to be an Aggressive Defender and a Prolific Problem when transitioning from a defensive posture to offense mode and it brought a couple of questions to mind.: No 1. If Citibank, N.A., in this instance, is appearing to act as the "Debt Collector" on behalf of "Big Box" since they are the listed as the Plaintiff? - No 2. If Citibank is considered as the Debt Collector, would there be two opportunities existing for counter claims, one for attempting to collect the Big Box's debt and another for attempting to collect the Trust's debt?
I want to confirm I am not asking for specific legal advice and have no intention of soliciting for legal representation by these questions, but am simply wanting to offer up a platform where others can discuss their own scenarios and the actions taken which may be similar or related.
Thank You!
Please login or Register to submit your answer
Bring everything you got through your documents. Leave everything on the field. That is how you get them to settle to the amount you want. The collector does not respect weakness. Keep your eyes on the prize in that I want you wearing legal blinders and stay on message with your position based upon your documents and their weaknesses. Your number one job is making sure this comes through to both the court and the other side.
Thank you for all the information you have worked so hard to compile and giving us the opportunity to research this vast amount of knowledge so we can find our own solutions to these sometimes complex situations and implement them at our own discretion as we see fit to our specific scenarios. I will provide updates as they come.