Harry Seaward

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Harry Seaward last won the day on September 19

Harry Seaward had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,261 Excellent

About Harry Seaward

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

Profile Fields

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

4,402 profile views
  1. Wow what? It's the law and there was a contract. The landlord is entitled to be made whole by everyone that agreed he would get paid what is owed to him.
  2. Each person named in the lease is 100% responsible for the entire amount. It's not the landlord's problem that you rented a house with 3 deadbeats.
  3. This is astounding! When this thread started, I was certain they had obtained a default judgment. Once again, The Cheez comes through!
  4. OP was asked by me if she had any interest in having a discussion to possibly clear up any misunderstandings, and her response was to insult the message board. Also, as others have pointed out, the content she has created on her own website is consistent with what is being percieved in her posts here. And then when you take a look at the things she has said in her previous threads on this board, the totality of evidence pretty much rules out any possibility that this is a case of misunderstanding. Of course, OP is more than welcome to correct anyone that she feels misjudged her, but that requires a meaningful dialogue, which she has thus far refused. Going forward, let's keep the tone of the posts here respectful and inviting, in the event OP does want to rejoin the conversation.
  5. How do you plan to argue they charged the wrong billing rate without acknowledging a contract exists that establishes a correct billing rate? It sounds to me like you want to have it both ways. You want to say they breached a contract that doesn't legally exist, but still try to bind them to certain terms of said contract. I think a court is ultimately going to make you choose one defense or the other. Based on what you've said about them not billing according to the contract, i think that argument will have a more predictable outcome vs. letting them have the option to present evidence that they obviously provided legal services and $500/hr is a reasonable rate for the services they provided.
  6. In order to use this argument, you have to agree there was a contract.
  7. I think you'll have an uphill battle on the 'not signed' argument. They obviously represented you, and you ultimately received benefit from their representation. I think the only real defense you could have is that they overcharged you, but even that will be a slog when they produce work logs and 'reasonable' hourly rates. I liken this kind of argument to someone using an emergency room to treat a cold, and then being outraged when they get a $1,500 bill to have the hospital staff take their vitals and send them home with a prescription for tylenol.
  8. Anyone is free to post anything here that is appropriate, whether i like it or not. To my knowledge, OP has not tried to post anything since her posting status was changed to moderated. If she had, and if it was appropriate, it would have been approved. Incidentally, one of the admins said he would have banned OP, so I guess I'm a softie.
  9. You might want to do some digging to be sure personal service is in fact required, but if it is, and they haven't returned an affidavit of service, i would lay low on this one until you are personally served.
  10. Florida requires personal service. Have you checked to see if they returned an affidavit of service?
  11. They can't "sue again", but since they have a judgment, they can just get a wage garnishment order, as well as levy your bank accounts and put liens on all of your property.
  12. It's making a come-back, as evidenced by more and more jurisdictions giving a nod to adoptive business records doctrine and handing down $1 judgment awards. Anyway, I'm sure you see where i come down in these kinds of tactics. Is clear that I'm not going to charge your mind any more than you'll change mine. Best of luck.
  13. It's been a good, long while since I've seen it, but consumers have reported harassing phone calls at all hours of the day and night, been threatened with going to jail and have been fired from their job because debt collectors showed up and made a scene. I personally believe those people are what Congress had in mind when they drafted the FDCPA. I'm trying to not be too hard on you, but saying your rights were violated following a trojan horse attack is a slap in the face to consumers that found themselves in the scenarios i described above.
  14. The entire purpose of the FDCPA is to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive collection practices. What have they done to you that was unfair and deceptive?