Sorry, Lisa, did not mean to insult you. Just trying to clarify the issue. I just wanted to correct something in your above posting. I believe I indicated that an abstractor could minimize his/her jurisdictional problems by filing suit within the Defendant's native state. I don't think I said that it was  the only state in which to file. There was lengthy discussion on the significant contacts test and long arm jurisdiction (broad scope and limted scope) and the courts examination of the defendant's conduct which would confer jurisdiction. I indicated that each state had its own set of rules to apply for this test. I think my earlier posting indicated that when not filing within the defendant's native state the plaintiff is forced to run the risk of dismissal if the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is granted. There are instances in which the defendant's conduct will satisfy the long arm requirements and the minimum contacts test, but the plaintiff is gambling when he/she files suit subject to this issue.The court will be only too happy to take the plaintiff's filing fee...and equally happy not to return it in the event that his/her case is dismissed. Then there is additional expense for the abstractor when refiling the case in the other state.

In so far as posting information for lurking individuals to read is concerned, I think it is best for the abstractor to be armed with as much information as possible. If he/she is forewarned of complications, these can be taken into account when extending credit to a client of unknown reputation.

No hard feelings. We all benefit from the exchange of information.