can one beat a credit card case pro se

a few years back got too many credit cards ,,, now I got one taking me to court .. can I go in pro se and think I might win or is this a slam dunk for them .. otherwise just pay the bill ..

The basic rule is the greenest and dumbest lawyer from the worst law school can beat the smartest and most prepared non-lawyer in a trial. This is true because a lawyer will at least have a basic knowledge of the rules of procedure and evidence -- at least enough to have passed the bar exam.

I don't normally do collections cases, but occasionally I'll be in court waiting for my case to be called and I'll watch a 'trial' of a collections case -- an attorney versus a debtor/cardholder. They don't last long. The lawyer may have taken part in hundreds of such trials. The evidence includes the card agreement and the debtor's account history. The cardholder signed the agreement, made the purchases, and didn't pay his bill. What more's at issue?

Do you have a legal defense? Note: 'I can't pay my bill' isn't a legal defense.

If you don't want to or can't hire a lawyer, and you have no legal defense, why not negotiate a settlement? The card company may accept pennies on the dollar.

a few years back got too many credit cards ,,, now I got one taking me to court .. can I go in pro se and think I might win or is this a slam dunk for them .. otherwise just pay the bill .. Originally Posted by cockofold

I think the immortal words of Katt Williams may help:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMneKBzcSts

a few years back got too many credit cards

Pay the man, you ate the steak.
The reason credit cards charge so much is because the other card holders like you make it hard for them and easy for them.

If it was stolen (Doubt it) then fight it.

Pay the man, you ate the steak. Originally Posted by Gotyour6

Closed - Paid
looks a lot better on credit reports than:
Closed- Charged Off

a few years back got too many credit cards ,,, now I got one taking me to court .. can I go in pro se and think I might win or is this a slam dunk for them .. otherwise just pay the bill .. Originally Posted by cockofold

First, if you got the money then pay up.

Next, If you don't, a negotiated settlement is much better than a judgement on your credit report.

Finally, in many cases your account has been sold to other parties before it gets to a lawsuit and it is not uncommon for your "file" to be incomplete and the plaintiff is counting on the fact that 99% of the respondents in a credit suit never show resulting in a default judgement for them. If this is the case then there is a chance you can win just by showing up and saying "prove it". If they do have the records and unless you can prove fraud on your account you will lose.

Building a bit on the above in which a third party "owns" the files...

If the creditor does not have

-- the original signed card agreement and
-- is not able to present documented proof of failed payments

(note mere copies of so called statements may not suffice)

then the plaintiff's case will be difficult to prove

In most instances when a original credit account has been sold and resol multiple times none of the creditos may possess any original documents much less any validated copies.

In which instance "prove it!" likely will be an adequate defense.

Pro se is risky imo.

Building a bit on the above in which a third party "owns" the files...

If the creditor does not have

-- the original signed card agreement and
-- is not able to present documented proof of failed payments

(note mere copies of so called statements may not suffice)

then the plaintiff's case will be difficult to prove

In most instances when a original credit account has been sold and resol multiple times none of the creditos may possess any original documents much less any validated copies.

In which instance "prove it!" likely will be an adequate defense.

Pro se is risky imo. Originally Posted by ck1942

Sorry, I disagree. Texas Rule of Evidence 1003 states: "A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless (1) a question is raised as to the authenticity of the original or (2) in the circumstances it would be unfair to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original." Thus, there is no per se requirement of an original. See:

http://www.courts.state.tx.us/rules/...7.htm#rule1002

Also, in all the collections mini-trials I've observed (and that's a lot), the attorney for the creditor always had a copy of the card agreement and the debtor's account history. It's easy to prove-up authenticity through the debtor.

As Jon mentions in his second post, whomever is taking you to court will have copies of stuff. And a debt purchaser will also need a copy of an assignment. But realize that these folks (debt purchasers or the original card issuer) do this for a living and of course they know the rules. Thus, yes they will have copies of the documents. And if even if documentation is weak, if challenged, defendant will be asked, in front of the judge, if defendant had possession of, or used, the card at any time. At this point the game is over.
This comment from one of my clients, yes, an atty.
I find it interesting how similar various laws are even if different states.

I can't remember the last time that I've sern an original document introduced into evidence in a law suit. Copies are almost exclusively used. Hell I was in a suit that resulted in a large 9 figure verdict that had several thousand doc's per side. I'd venture yo say not a single one was an original.

But as to your original question, can you? Sure! Will you? Hell will freeze over first. Do you even have a factual or legal defense in mind?

Original? What's an original?

Last time I remember a true original was absolutely required was the will in a messy probate case.

I can't remember the last time that I've sern an original document introduced into evidence in a law suit. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

One morning last week, a long-term client called me and asked me to go "help" his property manager handle an eviction appeal in a Dallas county court at law. The tenant didn't show, so I thought all we had to do was a brief prove-up. But we were in the court of a certain judge who's notorious for being (and I'll put it nicely) a bit difficult. She made us do a full-blown Q&A with exhibits. Unfortunately, my property manager didn't have copies of anything, so I had to use her original documents as exhibits. Typically, she was full of anxiety that the originals were out of her possession. But I know the court reporter, and later she let me cart off the originals to make copies. I replaced the originals with the copies. The reward was the judge signed a judgment that was three times the JP court judgment, and she awarded me fees.

A litigator must be flexible and improvise when necessary. That includes trying a case at the drop of a hat and using original documents when your dumbass client doesn't have copies.

You had me at treble damages!

But regarding the need to roll with it...Exactly! God, why all that for an appeal when the person didn't even show up? But obviously worth it.

Ok, back to the OP...

Was it Discover? I used to see those ALL the time. Occasionally an AMEX.

Either make a settlement or get an attorney.

Couple folks I know carry portable scanners that bluetooth into whatever storage device is also handy. My outfit lives on electronic copies.

Once a case is at the point of someone filing a suit the damage has been done to your credit.

Discover and AMEX make a mockery of the laws here in Texas filing notices of pending judgements/liens that can't be enforced but do tie up property at times requiring additional work.

Do you own any real property outside of a homestead?

If not then why worry? It's not like you are paying anyone else probably and they don't arrest you and throw you in jail for a credit card debt in Texas.