• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Goody_Ouchless last won the day on October 10

Goody_Ouchless had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

460 Excellent


About Goody_Ouchless

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

Profile Fields

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

2,423 profile views
  1. It's totally standard. The actual verbiage provides standard coverage in case of a clerical error, but in no way asserts that the records are flawed and inaccurate.
  2. Yes - I'm just saying that many things sound good on paper, but if the enforcing authority is woefully understaffed it may take a while, especially considering the reported extent of the problem, for anyone to get around to investigating "employer." I just don't know how much attention this will get, especially if she makes herself scarce.
  3. I was being nice, which always seems to get me in trouble. Instead of "worthless" I should have said "dangerous."
  4. Wow - congratulations. Sounds like you got extremely lucky with an ignorant judge.SC has the same Adoptive Business Records as most States, which your judge chose to ignore. Plaintiff's lawyer messed up, as well, by not correcting the judge. Sounds like they were shocking by the goofy ruling.
  5. Absolutely, if this can be handled with a letter. Unfortunately it's probably safe to assume that "employer" is well versed in gaming the system and will probably calculate that this won't be a priority for a government agency decimated by budget cuts.
  6. My engaging in an argument that is best handled in a Meeting, or Session, is probably not in your best interest.
  7. Since others are, admirably and thoroughly, covering this from a legal perspective, I'll comment from street level. It seems pretty obvious, from what has been posted, that the "employer" is what I would call "sketchy." When Parent Company sent a non-compete to protect their investment, "employer" did exactly what Parent Company feared and became a poacher. Having seen the effect of poaching, she sought to wield the same sword (going so far as to just copy what Parent Company sent.) When people here get called by debt collection scammers they sometimes want to seek justice. They are all told not to bother because these "companies" will just fold up their tents and set up shop across town. Seems like the same situation here. "Employer" has a "nasty" lawyer on retainer and will use him to cost OP's wife more than 2K in expenses and aggravation to pursue this. In the end, "employer" will just fold up her Spanx resale "business" and start up again in her boyfriend's garage. If you have the time and energy to joust at windmills then, by all means, proceed. Frankly, I''d advise letting it go and chalking it up as a "teachable moment" in not making the same mistake in the future.
  8. I think I did, but OK. There was a time when debts bounced around between owners and documentation either didn't exist or was cobbled together (often using methods that bordered on forgery). Sites like this came along to help people, and various State's took the industry to task over these practices. Also (and perhaps most importantly) advances in the use of computers allowed for these debt records to be accurately and thoroughly bundled and transferred to their new owners. For example, when I was first sued (around when this article was written), the "evidence" consisted of bills-of-sale that were dated before the account ever went into default. When were last sued, two or three years later, the plaintiff said "how many statements of charges and payments do need, because we can get them all." And, finally, most States have adopted Federal Rules of Evidence regarding self-authenticating business records, meaning that correctly worded affidavits can take the place of a live witness. So his advice old, stale and worthless, since the industry has adapted to the challenges mentioned, above: "Standing" doesn't work because the bill-of-sale, affidavits and billing statements prove they own the account. "Chain of Custody" doesn't work because settlements of the various lawsuits brought by States have led to an industry-wide policy of debt buyers not reselling debts. As for legal technicalities and "magic discovery," most judges look at a pile of credit card statements with your name and address and put an end to the party right there. There are only four things that work in today's environment: 1) Arbitration 2) Identity Theft 3) Statute of Limitation - in the extremely rare case that they bring a time-barred case (can't recall last time we saw on of those) 4) Unique State Rules - California has the whole CCP thing that seems to work. Texas has rules about discovery that appear to make some plaintiffs move on to easier targets. A couple other States may still have case law that, if push comes to shove, requires things like a live witness, but even those can fall to Adoptive Business Records rules.
  9. The problem with counter claims is coming up with 25K in bogus violations - it seems, if anything, that would rise to the level of frivolity.
  10. That article was probably cutting edge stuff when it was written, but is worthless today. The industry has changed, so things like broken chains of custody and flawed documentation are things of the past. Anyone who follows the advice given will probably hear the judge say "Ha - that's adorable! Judgement for Plaintiff."
  11. Thank you for reporting back and congratulations on an outcome that works for you. I understand that with such a high debt, and that AAA letter, that you didn't want to risk the judge messing up and having to go to appeal. EDIT: So you sure there was no Consent Judgement? I can't figure what Cavalry gets out of this, except resetting SOL. Is there any verbiage? Seems like if you didn't pay on this agreement, and they sued, it would have to be for the 4200.
  12. I read the original question as being more about getting money now, and worrying about IRS later. How much money are we talking about, and is it worth it, considering that the employer will probably contest it until just dissolving the entity in question.
  13. We should probably have a "Sticky" for each of these objections and how they were overcome. I believe we've seen judges that look at stuff like this and ask the plaintiff "really, dude?"