That's not how it works :)

Your defense says you deny owing the creditor and requires the creditor to prove their claim. Common points listed on a defense are:

1. You deny that the creditor is owed as stated in the claim.

2. In the event that you are indebted towards the plaintiff (which you're not admitting to) you believe the amount requested is in excess of the actual amount owed and require proof of the amount claimed.

3. You request the court costs to the plaintiff not be added towards any judgment that could be awarded.

Obviously, I'm not a lawyer and they would word a defense correctly and assist you with every possible defense point that can be added, but these are the common ones I've seen.

The reasons for the above points are:

1. The creditor may have lost the agreement or application. If those aren't available to them, you could have it thrown out or at the very least make it far more difficult for them to obtain a judgment searching for some other type of signed document then having to get the court to agree that it is as valid as the signed agreement would have been.

2. The amount ALWAYS should be questioned. Johnny lawyer can put any amount in the claim, make him prove this with an actual printout of the account history. Many claims are adjusted (lowered) when it turns out the lawyer 'accidentally' listed a higher amount on the claim than what was owed.

There are multiple reasons an incorrect amount can be listed, but it's common enough that you should always question where the amounts coming from that's being listed.

3. You could have a lesser amount of the costs added or get a break in some way. Not likely, but it does happen and there is no reason not to request this especially if payments were being made to the creditor and they sued anyway.

Lots and lots of options when you file a defense, whereas if you just let a creditor get a judgment, you're stuck with that.

The hassle to go and get that changed is far greater than ensuring the action is originally handled correctly. Why should the courts amend a judgment that a defendant was to lazy to defend in the first place?

I think from the comments that they probably wont sue then, i have offered a settlement so we will see what happens.
Just in case they do sue and in the interests of being prepared any ideas about what I would say to file defense as I do owe the money.

Not sure if you deleted or I just can't find the post your referring too.

Edit: Read your other thread that has a bit more details.

Low income and asset under the spouse usually means a creditor wouldn't sue. It depends though what options are available to execute a judgment in NB.

If you were in Alberta, for example, you could still be sued by a creditor and they would have the option to lien your dowry rights on the asset. It's just a possible recovery method, more likely to happen on a 'dry judgment' then for someone to go and obtain a judgment with that as the planned recovery method.

Just something to consider, but it really doesn't look like a creditor would go through the trouble of suing you.

Sorry about that last post nameuser, not fair you were only trying to help.
Just a bad day.

I'm surprised at the amount of advice being given regarding legal action here from people with little to no knowledge of New Brunswick and debt recovery within this province.

Fightback,

You haven't even established if this is small claims or not. You're in NB so it's assumed you're speaking of this provinces laws, but what is the debt for? Is this a mortgage default? A Line of Credit?

Most debt recovery in New Brunswick would not reach court due to the high amount of consumer debt in that province and low income/assets of most individuals. It's a lot like Nova Scotia, but in the case of a mortgage default it is obviously more likely for a creditor to take legal action.

The main things to look at are:

1. how much is this debt
2. who is owed the money and who is trying to recover it

3. have you been served or just been told you're going to be sued
4. do you have assets or an income that would suggest legal action and execution of a judgment would be worth a creditors time and money?

Get those facts straight, then start asking about defenses and payments etc.

And people saying to not file defense are out to lunch by the way, there is no reason not to file one, it takes almost no effort and extends the time frame that you have to protect yourself from execution of a judgment at the very least.

All a judgment really ends up giving the creditor is just another piece of paper that says you still owe the money. Big deal. You don’t really have a defense unless you think you can rely on the limitations period.

Either way you can still settle (we do this all the time) the judgment for less then you owe if you raise a lump sum of money.

Why would you make monthly payments on a judgment? I would let the judgment go through and try and settle the debt for less money instead of paying the debt in full.

So based on what ranzzzz said it is worth while

" there is a settlement mediation among the three parties. Creditors and debtors have a chance to present their cases and the judge will evaluate your financial status to make a fair settlement. The settlement is always extremely leninent to debtors as I often see terms like an extremely low monthly payment with no interest incurred during the repayment period."

Still a little confused on what grounds you enter a defence something like " debt is acknowledged but unable to pay" would that apply?

That is certainly not the case in Ontario.

If you owe the money why bother showing up. The judge will submit a guilty plea and in my province they add a 5% annual interest which is standard. Once you find out there is a judgment against you the process of settling this debt can start. The older the judgment gets and you if you are judgment proof the lower the settlement will be.