Clydesmom

Members
  • Content Count

    5,772
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    100

Clydesmom last won the day on September 17

Clydesmom had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,158 Excellent

About Clydesmom

  • Rank
    500 posts and hasn

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Nevada via Michigan via Georgia

Recent Profile Visitors

4,945 profile views
  1. If you mean does the judge have the discretion to award them $2000 because you are unable to pay the answer is no. If they are unable to prove the amount of the debt the judge can lower the amount to what they can prove. That rarely happens with an original creditor. Capital One will have all their own records to prove the amount of $7200. Most BK attorneys will do a consult for free. You can probably even get one for tomorrow. If you can't get at least one before the trial date ask for a continuance then consult a few. They can advise you based on your circumstances what the best course of action is.
  2. There is a lot more to it than just what tasks are performed. I am in direct patient care and most people in those types of jobs are hourly non-exempt. However, due to what we do and the demands it is more advantageous for both sides to be classified exempt. More often than not employers get it wrong and classify someone as exempt when they are actually an hourly employee. Not the other way around. Typically the employer gets caught when trying to deduct for time off like a doctors appointment while paying exempt salary but not paying over time when going over 40 in a week. They can't have it both ways. I am sure she is an employee as well. However, the cursory conversation on the phone with the DOL is meaningless at this point. Until she actually files a complaint with the DOL and they do an investigation and rule she is an employee and classify her exempt or non-exempt the discussion is pointless. No attorney will pursue a civil case against the employer without a ruling from the DOL and the phone conversation is not proof.
  3. Not quite. Once classified as an employee there are two pay categories. Exempt and non-exempt. Non-exempt employees are paid by the hour and legally entitled to over time for all hours over 40 in each 7 day work week. Exempt employees also known as salaried are paid an annual rate regardless of the total hours worked in a week. If your wife can legally be classified as an exempt employee then she would not be entitled to back wages or over time even if she is an employee not a contractor.
  4. If you are happy with the outcome then it did work out. Congratulations. You are the only one who decides if it worked out because you have to live with it.
  5. OJ doesn't live in FL. He resides in Las Vegas Nevada. He is collection proof because his NFL pension cannot be garnished or levied and a buddy allows him to live in a luxury home in the most expensive community here RENT FREE. He drives a Bentley free as well. He wanted to move to FL when he was paroled but the state refused to accept him. Until he is off parole he is required to remain in NV. You can settle them yourself at much less expense. A debt settlement company will keep a huge chunk of what ever you pay as their "fee" and you likely will be sued anyway. Many creditors will not work with them because of this. First: consider removing your name from the deed on the home so that they cannot put a lien on it. Do this before you default. Have your retirement funds deposited into a separate account so that they cannot be levied. Take your name off the joint bank accounts so they cannot be levied. If your husband is still working you don't want his wages seized in a bank levy simply because your name is on the account. They cannot garnish his wages for your debt but any amount over your monthly retirement deposit would be fair game in a bank account you are listed on. There are ways to protect your assets when there is a risk of judgment but your income is exempt. Study up on those.
  6. It might but file it first thing Monday anyway. My guess is they won't oppose it or show for trial.
  7. Sadly in Texas that could very well happen. There are court rulings that said just that: engaging in the litigation process waives the right to arbitration. Nothing to lose by trying it could work.
  8. Unfortunately this will not help her with this lawsuit. Sadly one of several major problems with debt settlement companies is the creditor is not contractually bound by the agreement you made with Lexington Law. Many consumers find themselves being sued anyway and the debt settlement company is not going to represent them in the suit. The hearing should be a pre-trial one. If the MTC is denied you want to immediately motion for discovery. Justice Court requires that in Texas.
  9. I have to second this and the other opinion. Cap1 is one of the top 3 aggressive OCs in court. They also have the advantage that arbitration was removed from their card agreements almost a decade ago. Your options are limited and they know it. This is accurate as well. They have a hard line stance on not doing this.
  10. That you believe you can punish them through arbitration. CHASE has brought back FORCED arbitration as a clause in its agreements in order to prevent any customer from suing. They know exactly how to run up YOUR costs and drag it out. Go for it. You deserve it.
  11. Then they have a gold plated defense of the SOL being expired if you try to sue on the matter if they don't arbitrate. SOL only applies to litigation. When it comes to arbitration the arbitrator is not necessarily bound by the strict letter on the law on something like that. They have a LOT more leeway as to what they can and will consider. The major problem with this plan is they can motion to dismiss stating that if arbitration was the desired forum the case should have been brought there and not in court. The only way to force arbitration that I am aware of when you are initiating and not defending a claim is to file with the forum and if the other party refuses to arbitrate then you file a motion in Federal Court to compel arbitration under the Federal Act.
  12. In your opinion. You have absolutely nothing from a legal perspective to back up this belief. The reality is more likely a lot less nefarious. The odds are high the person on the phone had ZERO authority to extend the time frame on the settlement offer. Chances are really good that when the phone rep passed the paperwork from the conversation on to the next level it was vetoed for being expired. At that point if you were as charming and engaging as you have been here it is no wonder they became stubborn and refused to extend the offer. CHASE can withdraw a settlement offer at any time without legal consequences. They have no legal obligation to even offer you a settlement. You can sit there and be butt hurt that you didn't get your way or you can settle it for pennies on the dollar and forget about it. The choice is entirely yours. Either way CHASE is not the least bit concerned that you have a negative opinion of them. They are one of the top 5 creditors that black list consumers who default or file BK on them so they have no plans to do business with you ever again. They could care less if you think they are slimy, deceptive, or anything else.
  13. Those are not bank records under the law. They are not required to record the call or keep a record of it. My guess is that if you sued over this they will claim the phone call was not recorded or that the record was purged after 30 days.
  14. No. They withdrew their settlement offer. They are not obligated to make you a discounted offer at all under the law. Until you have a signed agreement in writing that spells out the terms then no settlement exists. It is only negotiations. Can you? Yes. Should you? NO. They can counter claim the entire amount you owe on the debt. The FDCPA does not apply to original creditors so on what basis LEGALLY would you sue? You have to file suit or be involved in litigation as a defendant first. The courts do not just issue subpoenas on their own. It is only done as part of litigation or court proceedings.