You are on page 1of 6

1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON


FOR THE COUNTY OF DESCHUTES
Small Claims Division 1164 NW BOND, BEND OR, 97701; 388-5300
QUICK COLLECT, INC (an Oregon
Corporation)
PO BOX 5547
PORTLAND, OREGON 97238
Plaintiff

Case No. ########


FIRST AMENDED ANSWER AND
COUNTERCLAIM

v.
FULL NAME HERE, American Citizen; and
FULL NAME HERE, American Citizen,
Defendant(s).

Defendant(s), appearing Sui Juris, for their reply to the Complaint of QUICK COLLECT, INC
(hereafter known as, "QUICK COLLECT") states as follows: All Answers correspond to the
numbered paragraphs of the Complaint. All allegations of the Complaint are denied unless
expressly admitted herein.
ANSWERS
1. DENIED. In response to paragraph #1, the Defendant(s) disputes the alleged debt, as solicited
and claimed by QUICK COLLECT in paragraph #1 of the complaint. Defendant(s) are at this
time without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the alleged
claim contained therein, and on that basis generally and specifically denies the alleged claim
contained therein, and leaves the Plaintiff to provide lawful proof that binds and compels the
defendant(s) and Plaintiff QUICK COLLECT which is defined as a creature of the state as
defined by US Supreme Court Ruling Hale vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 74 (1906).
Defendant(s) demand strict proof thereof.

DEFENSES
CASE NO. SC121604
DEFENDANT(S) ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM
[CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE]

2. As and for a First Defense


Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff's Complaint and each
cause of action therein fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the
Defendant for which relief can be granted.
3. As and for a Second Defense
Plaintiff admits to purchasing the defaulted debt upon an open contract, allegedly owed by the
Defendant(s), causing Plaintiff's injury to its own self, therefore Plaintiff is barred from seeking
relief for damages.
4. As and for a Third Defense
Plaintiff's Complaint violates ORS 41.580 statutes of Frauds as the purported contract or
agreement falls within a class of contracts or agreements required to be in writing. The purported
contract or agreement alleged in the Complaint is not in writing and signed by the Defendant(s)
or by some other person authorized by the Defendant(s) and who was to answer for the alleged
debt, default or miscarriage of another person.
5. As and for a Fourth Defense
Defendant claims a Failure of Consideration as there has never been any exchange of any money
or item of value between the plaintiff and the Defendant(s).
6. As and for a Fifth Defense
Defendant claims Lack of Privity as Defendant(s) have never entered into any contractual or
debtor/creditor arrangements with the Plaintiff.
7. As and for a Sixth Defense
Defendant alleges that the Complaint includes references to alleged agreements made outside of
the alleged written contract, violating the Parol Evidence Rule.
8. As and for an Seventh Defense
Plaintiff's Complaint fails to allege a valid assignment and there are no averments as to the nature
of the purported assignment or evidence of valuable consideration.
9. As and for an Eighth Defense
Plaintiff's complaint fails to allege whether or not the purported assignment was partial or
complete and there is no evidence that the purported assignment was bona fide.
10. As and for a Ninth Defense
Plaintiff's Complaint fails to allege that the Assignor even has knowledge of this action or that
the Assignor has conveyed all rights and control to the Plaintiff. The record does not disclose this
information and it cannot be assumed without creating an unfair prejudice against the
Defendant(s).
11. As and for an Tenth Defense
The Plaintiff is not an Assignee for the purported agreement and no evidence appears in the
record to support any related assumptions.
12. As and for a Eleventh Defense
Defendant(s) claims Accord and Satisfaction as Defendant alleges that upon open contract, the
original creditor accepted payment from a third party for the alleged debt, or a portion of the
alleged debt, or that the original creditor received other compensation in the form of monies
and/or credits.
13. As and for a Twelfth Defense
CASE NO. SC121604
DEFENDANT(S) ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM
[CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE]

Defendant(s) invokes the Doctrine of Unclean Hands as the Defendant(s) alleges that the
Plaintiff or the person or entity that assigned the alleged claim to Plaintiff acted in a dishonest or
fraudulent manner with respect to the dispute at issue in this case.
1

14. As and for a Thirteenth Defense


Plaintiff is not authorized or licensed to advertise or solicit, either in print, by letter, in person or
otherwise the right to collect or receive payment of a claim for another, nor to seek to make
collection or obtain payment of a claim on behalf of another. The Complaint fails to allege any
exception or exemption to these requirements. The Plaintiff is not any of the following: an
attorney at law; a person regularly employed on a regular wage or salary in the capacity of credit
men or a similar capacity, except as an independent contractor; a bank, including a trust
department of a bank, a fiduciary or a financing and lending institution; a common carrier; a title
insurer or abstract company while doing an escrow business; a licensed real estate broker; an
employee of a licensee; nor a substation payment office employed by or serving as an
independent contractor for public utilities.
15. As and for a Fourteenth Defense
Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's Complaint, and each cause of action therein is barred by the
Doctrine of Estoppel, specifically Estoppel in Pais.
16. As and for a Fifteenth Defense
Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's actions are precluded, whereas Plaintiff's demands for interest
are usurious and violate state and federal laws.
17. As and for a Sixteenth Defense
Defendant alleges that Plaintiff or the person or entity that assigned the alleged claim to the
Plaintiff is not entitled to reimbursement of attorneys' fees because the alleged contract did not
include such a provision, and there is no law that otherwise allows them.
18. As and for an Seventeenth Defense
Plaintiff failed to comply with normal and accepted business practices.
19. As and for a Eighteenth Defense
Plaintiffs claim is in violation of federal statute(s).
20. As and for a Nineteenth Defense
Defendant invokes the Doctrine of Laches as the Plaintiff or the person or entity that assigned the
claim to the Plaintiff waited too long to file this lawsuit, making if difficult or impossible for the
Defendant to find witnesses or evidence, or that evidence necessary to provide for Defendant's
defense has been lost or destroyed.
21. As and for a Twentieth Defense
Plaintiff has no Fiduciary Duty.
22. As and for a Twenty-first Defense
Plaintiff's alleged damages are the result of acts or omissions committed by non-parties to this
action over whom the Defendant has no responsibility or control.
23. As and for a Twenty-second Defense
Plaintiff's alleged damages are the results of acts or omissions committed by the Plaintiff.
24. As and for a Twenty-third Defense
Defendant(s) alleges that the granting of the Plaintiff's demand in the Complaint would result in
Unjust Enrichment as the Plaintiff would receive more money than plaintiff is entitled to receive.
CASE NO. SC121604
DEFENDANT(S) ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM
[CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE]

25. As and for a Twenty-fourth Defense


Plaintiff's alleged damages are limited to real or actual damages only.
1

26. As and for a Twenty-fifth Defense


Defendant(s) invokes the doctrines of Scienti et volenti non fit injuria and Damnum absque
injuria.
27. As and for a Twenty-sixth Defense
Defendant(s) reserves the right to amend and/or add additional Answers, Defenses and/or
Counterclaims at a later date.
COUNTERCLAIMS
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Statement of Facts
28. May 14, 2012, Defendant(s) sent QUICK COLLECT, by way of Notary Presentment,
certified mail and return signature receipt, request for validation of alleged debt, including a
conditional acceptance upon QUICK COLLECT providing bona fide proof in good faith and
without deceit that QUICK COLLECTs claim was lawful and valid, and a questionnaire about
said debt and a request for documentation within 21 days of receipt of letter. This letter states
that QUICK COLLECT was given 21 days to respond and that failure to respond, within 21
days, as stipulated, and rebut, with particularity, everything in the letter we sent them, with which
QUICK COLLECT disagreed was their lawful, legal and binding agreement with and admission
to the fact that everything in the letter is true, correct, legal, lawful and binding upon you, in any
court, anywhere in The United States of America, without protest or objection or that of those
who represent you. YOUR SILENCE IS YOUR ACQUIESCENCE. Up until the date of this
filing 07-20-2012, no such information has been furnished by QUICK COLLECT to
defendant(s) and we consider the filing of this claim to be an invalid form of reply to our letters
demand(s). This conditional acceptance/debt validation letter was witnessed and notarized by
Debra June Harrer, Notary Public Oregon, Commission #461490 and mailed via Notarys
Certificate of Services by Maria Vanessa Yozamp, Notary Public Oregon, Commission
#450401.
29. Up until the date of this filing, no attempt at validation was received from QUICK
COLLECT, yet through their agent, Jason Garner, continued to claim the alleged debt via this
complaint.
30. Up until the date of this filing, no attempt from QUICK COLLECT has been made to notify
the credit agencies that the alleged debt is in dispute nor provide bona fide proof of lawful claim
to the alleged debt to the credit agencies.
31. Up until the date of this filing, no attempt from QUICK COLLECT has been made to
lawfully validate the alleged debt in question and cease collection of the alleged debt.
32. Up until the date of this filing, no attempt from QUICK COLLECT has been made to
represent the status of QUICK COLLECTs lawful claim of the alleged debt to the defendant(s)
and yet they have still pursued collection of the alleged debt through this claim.
Statement of Claim
33. In the entire course of its action, Plaintiff willfully and/or negligently violated provisions of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (hereafter FDCPA), The Fair Credit Reporting Act
(hereafter FCRA) and Precedential Federal Law in the following respects:

CASE NO. SC121604


DEFENDANT(S) ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM
[CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE]

(a) by failing to cease collection of an alleged debt after the Defendant notified Plaintiff in
writing that the alleged debt was disputed, therefore violating 15 USC 1692g(b).
(b) Plaintiff, willfully and/or negligently reporting the Defendant(s) credit history
inaccurately to the Credit Agencies Experian and Transunion, therefore violating US
Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, No. 00-15946, Nelson vs. Chase Manhattan.
(c) by falsely representing the legal status of the alleged debt and therefore violating 15 USC
1692e(2)(A)
(d) by QUICK COLLECT failing to report the claim it as disputed to the credit bureaus,
therefor violating 15 USC 1692e 807(8)
(e) by falsely reporting the alleged debt to the credit agencies without providing reasonable
bona fide proof of claim, therefor violating 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 (a)(1)(a).
(f) by QUICK COLLECT claiming to be BOTH purchaser and 'assignee' upon open contract
of alleged claim. It's can only be either one or the other, therefor it is violating the FDCP
in relationship to Gearing v. Check Brokerage Corp 233 F.3d 469 (7th Cir. 2000).
(g) By Misrepresentations by QUICK COLLECT about themselves or the alleged claim are
actionable regardless of intent, therefor it is violating the FDCP in relationship to Gearing
v. Check Brokerage Corp Cacace v. Lucas, 775 F. Supp. 502, 505 (D. Conn. 1990)
(h) By QUICK COLLECT failing to validate Defendant(s) alleged debt yet continue to
pursue collection activity via this claim, therefor in violation of 15 USC 1692g 809(b).
(i) By QUICK COLLECT having not validated the alleged debt after lawful notice of
dispute on June 14, 2012 and as of July 19, 2012 they still continue to report the alleged
debt to the credit bureaus, therefor in violation of 15 USC 1692g 809(b) and FTC
opinion letter Cass from LeFevre.
(j) By QUICK COLLECT failing to live or retain a valid business license in the County of
Deschutes, Oregon at the time this claim was made or failing to produce a valid signed
contract between defendant(s) and Plaintiff in the county which defendant(s) live at the
time of creation of the alleged debt/claim, therefor violating 15 USC 1692i 811 (a)(2)

NOW THEREFORE, DEFENDANT(s) PRAY FOR THE FOLLOWING RELIEF:


PRAYER FOR RELIEF:
34. A. For Defendants First Cause of Action
1) Statutory damages as specified in 15 USC 1692k in the amount of $10,000;
B. costs;
C. That any and all contracts having balances owed to the Plaintiff by the Defendant(s) be
declared null and void.
FURTHER, sayeth naught.
Dated: July, 20th, 2012
Respectfully submitted,
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

CASE NO. SC121604


DEFENDANT(S) ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM
[CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE]

FULL NAME HERE, American Citizen


FULL ADDRESS HERE

FULL NAME HERE, American Citizen


FULL ADDRESS HERE
TO: Attention: JASON GARNER, Authorized Representative
QUICK COLLECT, INC P.C.
5500 NE 107th Ave Vancouver, WA 98662
[CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE]

CASE NO. SC121604


DEFENDANT(S) ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM
[CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE]