Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 11/24/2020 in all areas

  1. Nope. The jpeg of the papers they were served with indicates Texas 192 rules which means District/County court. Zwicker is starting to use the state level to avoid having to get permission for discovery and to force pro-se defendants to have to follow ALL the rules.
    1 point
  2. Usually if you enter a settlement, it will contain language, something to the affect of you waiving or agreeing to release any and all claims against whoever you settle with. Have they offered to settle with you? Mind you my experience with settlements are when I have sued or threatened to sue someone and received a settlement from that party. I have never received or been involved in a debt settlement. Always only had dismissals with those.
    1 point
  3. I wouldn't think so. Again, simply making her an authorized user on his credit card doesn't mean her prior present or future bad credit goes on his reports other than that specifically used with that specific card she is authorized to use. Now, if Bob on the same account he authorizes a card for Alice on, destroys his credit with that card, in turn that negative credit will also appear as it relates to the use of that card account specifically on Alices reports as well.
    1 point
  4. If he wanted to make it a joint account, pretty much the same scenario. It would only limit his exposure to her credit debt on his reports relating to that account. But to that point, Bob may want to consider this all again carefully. Considering her prior woes with debt. Any JOINT account, will affect both Bobs and Alices scores for one and the others credit mishaps.
    1 point
  5. We are speaking of Bob simply adding her as an authorized user to his already established account, correct? Not opening a new joint account or making it a joint account?
    1 point
  6. Bob getting Alice a card on his account doesn't mean her credit goes on his. If it did, it would only be specific to her use of said credit card he provided, not her entire credit history.
    1 point
  7. I understand what you are saying. I was just pointing out that as he thinks TCPA doesn't apply in his case to defend himself counter wise against them, that he may still have an FDCPA claim, relating to the call.
    1 point
  8. 1692c(a)(1) (1) at any unusual time or place or a time or place known or which should be known to be inconvenient to the consumer. In the absence of knowledge of circumstances to the contrary, adebt collector shall assume that the convenient time for communicating with a consumer is after 8 o’clock antemeridian and before 9 o’clock postmeridian, local time at the consumer’s location; The OP stated that he has received collection letters at his current address. Considering that fact, the debt collector should be aware that the calls are being made before the time allowed in the FDCP
    1 point
  9. I meant that my lawyer notified the DC about my BK but my case with PRA is in county so I don't know if that information trickled down or not.
    1 point