Proposals for refusal to survive together in debt

When you've been sued by a debt by a debt collector, one of the best things you can do is often to file a counterclaim. This could be based on any number of laws, but more typically there will be a complaint under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Especially if they are pro se (representing themselves) should probably wait for the collector provide 'motion to dismiss. "

Legally, a motion to dismiss is designed"Test the adequacy of lawsuits." This is legal jargon for deciding whether the law allows what would have occurred illegally, give you the right to sue the other person makes the other person to the right person to sue, and so on. In other words, if what you say is true, the party suing you owes you money? Pragmatically, the movements may be a way of forcing them to rethink their memories to be more specific, to test their will to fight against the tax collector toa client, or just a simple way for the law firm or to train new lawyers or to generate commissions. You will probably never know the real reason for the bike, but if granted, your application will be rejected (ejected), we must take seriously.

In a motion to dismiss, the court shall consider any counterclaim stated in your question (I'm assuming the debt collector is to take the movement against his counterclaim) as true. Given the truth of what you say, the collector is that the law simply does not give a remedy. In fact goes further, however. The question before the Court is whether there is a set of facts, according to his recollections, which would give the right to sue.

If you oppose a motion to dismiss, the strategy should be the first to put their complaints in relation to the words of the law with which you are bringing your claim. If the Fair Debt Collection> Practices Act says (and does) that the debt collector must stop calling at work and in certain circumstances, for example, and supports its request under the circumstances and the fact that the tax collector continued to call, then you will defeat the motion.

Sometimes it is not so clear, of course. Collectors are prohibited from many "or" deceptive "collection of injustice, and not all of these specifically enumeratedin the law. In this case, you want to find a similar action in the event that the courts have declared the practice illegal. Otherwise, you will feel the strongest possible argument that the contested measure is unfair or deceptive.

Remember that even if all the facts are in your favor (for each question "near" in fact, must go your way), the court to decide questions of law strictly. This means that even if the court finds that the so-called seven timesin an hour is unreasonable and illegal, you may decide to call six times it was not reasonable. This is because the issue is not how many times you were called, but if the number of times you have called "reasonable", a court is supposed to do. For this reason, it makes sense to assert strongly the facts and do your best.