How do courts actually verify a debt case is legitimate
<p>Say someone forges a capital one credit card contract, says they bought the debt from Capone and sues.</p>
<p>Will the court just assume the debt is real? Are they seriously going to call Capone and ask? Does capital one have any compliance making sure it only deals with legitimate agencies? And isnt that irrelevant because the agencies can trade the debt?</p>

<h2>The creditor must prove the debt with evidence</h2>
<p>In order to collect a debt, either:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>the debtor has to agree the debt is owed - straight up or after some sort of non-binding ADR, like mediation.</p>
</li>
<li><p>the debtor has to prove the debt in a binding forum - either a court or binding arbitration</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Details vary by jurisdiction but a court case:</p>
<ul>
<li>starts with a statement of claim where the plaintiff (debtor) sets out their case against the defendant (creditor)</li>
<li>the defendant can:
<ul>
<li>ignore the claim - in which case the plaintiff seeks a default judgement and, providing they have a prima facie case, they will get it. They can then recover the debt.</li>
<li>admit the claim and pay the debt</li>
<li>raise a defence - in which they set out why the don’t owe the money in part or in whole.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>each side provides evidence to support their position</li>
<li>the court considers the evidence and arguments and decides if the plaintiff has proved their case on the balance of probabilities
<ul>
<li>if they have, they receive judgement which the can enforce (subject to appeals)</li>
<li>if they haven’t there is no debt (subject to appeals)</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>

debt