Jump to content

Clydesmom

Members
  • Posts

    6,366
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    134

Clydesmom last won the day on September 18

Clydesmom had the most liked content!

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Nevada via Michigan via Georgia

Recent Profile Visitors

7,566 profile views

Clydesmom's Achievements

500 posts and hasn't been banned yet....

500 posts and hasn't been banned yet.... (6/6)

1.3k

Reputation

  1. Yes, the title to the judgment would transfer in the sale to the new owner. They do not have to sue again. They can proceed to bank levy and wage garnishment (if there were wages) with the judgment. No signature is required. It can be sent with a typed one. Only 2 months worth of exempt funds are protected even if they go to court. They need to pay down rent/mortgage and all bills to reduce the amount in the account to no more than 2 months of pension/disability/social security. Is there a trusted person who could hold the funds for them without their name on the account? Another option is to put it on a prepaid debit card which would be nearly impossible to find. NO way to know for certain. I would state that the letter is DV requesting the name/address of the current owner of the debt and a copy of any judgment they believe applies to the account in question. I would also state that the letter is also formal notification that the consumer they are reaching out to is elderly, disabled and on a fixed income provided for by 100% exempt funds. Any attempt to violate federal law freezing protected funds will be handed over to a consumer attorney for litigation. DO NOT write it in third person as they can ignore one YOU send on their behalf. It must read as though the consumer sent it. DO send it certified mail return receipt.
  2. Have you lost your mind? They can use this admission as a basis to withdraw from arbitration as it being expensive and unnecessary as the Defendant admits this is their account and debt. To the OP. I would NOT use this wording unless you want to be fast tracked to a judgment. "This action arises from a credit card account as described in the compliant filed by [Plaintiff] on [date] as Citibank N.A. Pursuant to the terms of service governing the account as described in the complaint private contractual arbitration may be opted by either party at any time. Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration on (date). A hearing on said motion was held on (date) wherein Plaintiff expressly agreed to arbitrate."
  3. Refile. I don't know why they did it either but get the motion on the docket.
  4. Probably not. It should but any settlement with PRA would have had no affect on Cap1 if it were still reporting. I would lay low and stay quiet and both should stay off.
  5. It is true. Settling is about leverage. If PRA thinks you need or WANT credit you give up your leverage. Send a letter to PRA that doesn't admit the debt is yours but in the interest of starting fresh after recent challenges you are offering to settle for "amount." I would offer 20% since they can't sue you then negotiate from there until you reach a number you can both live with. For the medical debt see if the provider can recall it and you can settle with them.
  6. NEVER do a "no contact" in a DV letter. They can treat that as a cease and desist and go ahead and sue you. There is NO such thing as a partial no contact i.e. only write to me. That is because what ever JDB bought this debt gave it their own account number. They cannot continue to use the PayPal account number. There is no contract in credit card cases. The court knows this. Even if there was they have no requirement to provide a copy during DV. They only have to do it in court during discovery. Depends on who the JDB is. PRA has followed a few in to arbitration to the end. That threat is slowly losing potency. Who bought your debt?
  7. You need to call the clerk first thing Tuesday and ask what happened to the motion. Motions filed in JP court are supposed to be set for a hearing within 14 days. Are you certain you properly filed it?
  8. Many collection agencies delete a trade line right before suing to prevent counter claims. \ The laws changed a while back that they cannot report for 180 days to give insurance time to process the claims and pay the provider(s). It also gives the consumer time to pay their portion of the balance. Once 180 days has elapsed it can be reported.
  9. It was. This is their out of pocket portion for deductibles and co-insurance. Unfortunately having insurance does not automatically mean that the patient will pay nothing out of pocket on a claim.
  10. Understood. That puts you in a position to negotiate a settlement for less. Get the terms in writing before you pay if you are going to settle for a lump sum lesser amount. Settlement talks are not admissible in court and you can negotiate up until the gavel falls and a decision is made.
  11. You can settle. Whether you can settle for less depends on two factors. First: did you file through a health insurance plan? If so, then if this is your out of pocket expense they cannot settle for less it would be illegal rebating and breach of contract with your insurer as you would be getting a discount they didn't give the insurer. Second: what exactly is the bill for? A physician? Radiology service? If insurance wasn't used was charity care/discounts already applied? If they have already discounted the amount as much as possible then reducing the amount owed may not be possible. It is also possible they would settle for a payment plan vs paying lump sum. If settling for less is an option lump sum offers typically get the best reduction.
  12. Cooling and Winter is a law firm that is made up of former Freddie Hanna attorneys. While SOME law firms are also debt collectors C&W is not. I do not know of any law firm that farms out their correspondence as that would be a HUGE violation of attorney client privilege. They all have low paid drones who stuff, fold and lick the envelope. As @BV80said the burden of proof they are violating and using a third party service is on you. A suspicion is not enough.
  13. WARNING: This thread is over 5 years old. Chances are high the original issue has long been resolved. Check thread dates before resurrecting really old ones.
  14. If the court had ruled on the merits you didn't owe the money you could have it removed. Their failure to show up unfortunately is not enough from the bureau standpoint to do so. The JDB's last quiver in their arsenal is reporting to the bitter end when their lawyers screw up that bad.
  15. Agreed. The problem with their posts is that the scared consumer facing their first suit may latch on to the bad advice instead of doing some research on their own.
×
×
  • Create New...