Cute Chick,

You go girl - spoutin that knowledge! I love it! Yeah, courts do not care about the dictionary definition of verification. And of course all affidavits are based on first hand knowledge and whoever signs it will say that, even if it is untrue. If the CCC/collector/attorney/whoever is suing you on the note/contract, then you may have an out with the HDC argument. But if the CCC/whoever is suing upon an "account stated," the HDC argument is moot. The owner of the account is the creditor and the plaintiff is the master of his claim. If plaintiff does not want to introduce issues of the note, he doesn't have to. And as a defendant, the court won't hear the HDC argument b/c it is inapplicable as no one is suing upon it. Every time defendant "pays" on his "billing statement," he reaffirms and accepts the terms of the contract/account. Any CCC/attorney/etc. worth their weight will never sue upon breach of contract or default upon the note. They sue upon the account stated. Now the legal game is playing by a different set of rules. This is the game I am playing right now.

Some battles are not worth fighting or taking the risk of losing. Because my "account stated" is not a large amount, I think it is wiser to just give them more FRN's to make them go away and I can move on with my life. Otherwise, I run the risk of litigating until I have exhausted all my energy, time, money, resources, etc. and if I still lose, then this compounds what I will already "owe" and add to that the other sides attorney fees, interest, etc. and then I could owe double or triple what was originally owed. I've seen it happen. A $7,500 account turned into a $19,500 account after the smoke and dust settled. I don't even want to think what those numbers would become upon appeal. Sometimes it is better to run away so you can live to fight another day. This (unfortunately) is my decision.

-squirrels