Clydesmom

Members
  • Content Count

    5,971
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    108

Clydesmom last won the day on March 21

Clydesmom had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,182 Excellent

About Clydesmom

  • Rank
    500 posts and hasn

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Nevada via Michigan via Georgia

Recent Profile Visitors

5,563 profile views
  1. First you need to get copies of all your paper reports and see what is reporting. Either your file has been mixed with someone else or there is identity theft going on. What you do next depends on which issue it is.
  2. Not all courts require that their entire case be submitted when they file. Most don't even require the evidence be attached to the summons you are issued. Most courts require that you engage in discovery if you want to know what evidence they intend to use at trial. Just because you don't have it right now does not mean they will not have it a trial for the court.
  3. Yup, its backwards. I too have no answer why they would move away from JAMS either then.
  4. JAMS does not allow the award of fees to the winner of the case and is WAY more expensive. AAA does allow fee shifting. That means if/when Discover prevails they can ask that their costs be assessed to the consumer as part of the award. Nothing on mutual walk away. What it means is that both parties are supposed to pay their own fees in arbitration or court. While the court has the ability to waive fees for poverty arbitration does not. This clause simply says if the consumer cannot afford the fees Discover will pay them. Rejecting the arbitration clause simply means that you cannot invoke that if they sue you for a debt or you have an issue with them. ALL issues would have to be settled in court. With Discover it doesn't matter. My opinion they refined these terms in order to eliminate JAMS as a forum so that they can ask that the consumer be saddled with all their fees if they win. Discover has not been afraid to arbitrate even going as far as appeals at great expense. Like AMEX they are acutely aware that a bad case for the consumer in court is equally bad in arbitration.
  5. This is also true for testifying in court or representing yourself pro-se. One of the first things taught in law schools is NEVER ask a question you do not already know the answer to.
  6. The courts in most states especially those with a Covid 19 hot spot like California are closed at least until the end of April. First verify the court is even open to file anything. If they aren't sit tight until the rest of this lunacy slows down or ends. Another reason to wait is the huge impact to the economy from the shut downs across the globe. It is entirely possible that with the fall out they never pursue this at all because of that.
  7. They do that because those people with judgments who have no exemptions would empty out their accounts if they knew what was going to happen.
  8. Crown is trying. Legally they can't but it doesn't prevent them from the attempt. After the last recession a law was passed requiring that when banks receive a levy they have to determine if the funds in an account are exempt from levy before freezing the account and seizing it. So if the levy had come in they would have looked at the source of your deposits (SSDI) determined if there were any non-exempt amounts (anything over 2 months worth of benefits is fair game) and if no non-exempt funds are there they do not freeze the account. A notice is returned to the court that the funds are exempt. The Judge will ask why you object to the garnishment. You show that you are only receiving SSDI not a paycheck which is legally exempt from garnishment. If the Plaintiff mentions bank levy you inform the judge the bank will not levy the account either under the law and Section 207 of the Social Security Act. (assuming the Judge doesn't stop them cold on their own). The Plaintiff MIGHT ask you about other assets. You state you have none. They go home with nothing. If it were me I would go. I would want the court to know that the Plaintiff is wasting their time and resources knowing full well they cannot legally touch disability payments. I would also want ot ensure that the court didn't presume the account was eligible for seizure and cause me problems that I would have to fight.
  9. Horse manure. That nonsense has been tried in defending collection suits for almost 2 decades and failed. NO ONE here is going to help you with that garbage. Waste of time.
  10. Congratulations! I am so glad I could help. Keep all paperwork from this hearing for at least a couple of years past the SOL expiring to sue again. That way if they do get stupid and try again you have it ready at your disposal.
  11. Opposite here in NV. Courts closed except for absolutely necessary criminal hearings. ALL non-essential businesses closed. Cops show up if you are in violation. Warning/citation/fine or loss of license. No gatherings public or private of 10 or more people. Possible misdemeanor if you violate. Take out and delivery open. Nothing else. Alcohol to go though!
  12. At the Covid 19 rate I am surprised they are even open to take the motion for garnishment let alone the hearing.
  13. I know she requested it but I don't know OH procedure and it could end up being both. Regardless I would still go and want the court to know I am on SSDI and exempt.
  14. It is possible this is also a debtors exam. That is where they will try to determine if you have any assets they can get to collect on the judgment. If you have none then the hearing is over. The court may require proof of the SSDI then deny their garnishment request when they get that proof. In my opinion it can't hurt to have the court be aware that your only income is exempt from garnishment and levy.
  15. While judgment proof is the popular phrase the correct term would be collection proof. Your SSDI cannot be garnished it doesn't matter how many forms they file with the courts. It also cannot be levied from your bank account provided you do not keep more than 2 months worth of benefits in the account. Winning the lawsuit is not based upon whether or not they can collect. It is only based on whether the Plaintiff proved that you do owe the money. The can win a judgment and never collect. Some never try. Others try all tactics. There is no set way to handle it. While you may be collection proof today that could change. You could win the lottery, inherit the house etc. Some creditors choose to drop it when the see SSDI others do not care.