• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Goody_Ouchless

  1. A few years ago I got a 1099-C from a debt buyer over a "settled" debt. I was able to argue that the language in my settlement agreement specifically said the agreement in no way recognized, or was "settling" any "debt," but was merely the most cost-effective way to resolve a case without further litigation. Today I received a 1099-C from an OC for an alleged debt that was charged off almost 10 years ago. I'm not sure if there's anything that can be done - I believe objecting to the 1099 gets it kicked back to the issuer for clarification. One thing that's interesting is that, prior to a statute change in 2016, creditors were supposed to send a 1099 after 36 months of non-payment - the debt was basically automatically classified as "this ain't getting paid." The statute was changed because there were cases of 1099s being sent for debts that weren't really cancelled. My thought is that if the "law of the land," 36 months after this alleged debt went bad, said that they were supposed to have sent a 1099, then the tax on that "forgiven debt" may have been lower (or non-existent, in the event of insolvency) than it would be today. Essentially the OC would be put in the position of proving exactly when they ceased collection efforts. Ultimately sorting it out may be more complicated than the tax is worth and the whole thing gets dropped. Thoughts? Any experience with getting a 1099-C so long after a debt was written off?
  2. @Carlos28 - I notice you have many threads going. Are you being sued on one card, or several? It will be easier to help if everything is one thread (topic).
  3. Lately, on YouTube, I've been getting Ads for Call Center jobs at Synchrony. I keep thinking how funny it would be to get a job there and then point out the arbitration clause to my "customers." Wonder how long it take for security to show up...
  4. Unfortunately those probably weren't the terms you agreed to when you took the loan...
  5. Because that part isn't your debt - they can charge legal fees, since they had to incur those costs to collect, but they can't charge you for what they bought it for, since they did that to make money. It's like if you buy a used car for 1K and fix it up so it's worth 4K - you aren't going to say "I want 5K - the 4K it's worth plus the 1K I paid for it."
  6. This is, perhaps, the biggest mistake people make in these matters - thinking that the debt value is somehow tied to what they paid for it. It's like if you bought a Picasso for a dollar at a garage sale - would you only spend fifty cents on a frame? If they paid 1K for your 20K debt and 8k to collect, then they doubled their money - why wouldn't they do that every time?
  7. LARA site is terrible, but, as we saw in Colorado, this looks like it applies to a collector working out of physical location in-state.
  8. I'm thinking these voluntary dismissals are the result of courts pushing back on them filing tons of suits and then not showing up for their own cases. This type of law is the bottom of the barrel, so they probably lose lawyers as fast as they can hire them. We saw a period in Texas where it seemed like every case that was answered was dismissed, yet in the midst of it we'd see stuff like them putting a ton of energy into arguing against someone's MTC Arbitration. Staffing and Scheduling probably have more to do with it than anything.
  9. This is good. Maybe they only deal with defaults, or were having staffing difficulties. The evolution of this is interesting. When we were first sued, almost 10 years ago, it was near the end of the era when they would sue with no (or false) evidence. Consumer Lawyers could win because it was still possible to compel the production of live witnesses - often from every link in the chain. By the time of our last suit, around 2014, plaintiff's had all the evidence they needed and adoptive business records statutes made these cases impossible to defend (no need for witnesses) - plaintiffs were aggressive to the point where one wouldn't fold, even after we hit them with a valid FDCPA claim. Within the last three or four years things have changed again - some of the large, skilled aggressive collections law firms have either closed or gotten out of the industry. Now we do see more cases of them either not showing up, or folding in the face of resistance - although that could be due to staffing or case load, as we have seen some cases that were dismissed without prejudice being refiled, which never used to happen.
  10. All true - the only caveat, from a practical perspective, is that case from, I believe, Massachusetts, where someone refused to take the "hallway offer" and insisted on presenting a "defense." At the end of the day, all of the people that accepted settlements got relatively generous terms. When Our Hero went up and asked for same deal, the plaintiff's lawyer said to her "oh, no. You decided to be difficult so we will now aggressively pursue the full amount of our judgement." They are not all that vindictive, but there is precedent.
  11. Unfortunately judges have seen enough of these cases to know that the plaintiff didn't just fabricate the case out pieces of paper found in a dumpster. When people go in to court and try to defend these things like they are murder cases, the judge tends to wait a few seconds and then ask if it's your name and address on the mountain of statements that the plaintiff will present and then rule in their favor. It could be a good experience, as a law student, to see why there are so few consumer attorneys, and why those that still exist don't bother fighting these case, but suggest bankruptcy.
  12. That strategy backfires - they either ignore your demand, or just add what you owe, as a counter claim, at which point you have essentially forced them into following you to arbitration. The Gold Standard is to get sued, get a Motion To Compel granted and let them dismiss case.
  13. Others will chime in, but I believe you are supposed to answer truthfully to your name and address, if they are accurate, and then there's a stock answer to the rest - either deny or "lacking sufficient information" - something like that. Otherwise you are deemed to have agreed with everything
  14. True - it's not a "lost art" but a "lost profession/" Once those adoptive business records statutes and precedents made live witnesses superfluous, there was no longer any way to inflict financial pressure on plaintiffs, in court.
  15. You should have said "yea, exactly - for your client. Do you want to dismiss now?"
  16. The problem is that fighting debt collection suits is pretty much a lost art. Lawyers don't really bother with it since they can't win - we've had quite a few people here, over the past several years, be unable to even retain an attorney - they all say "just settle." So, you may not find any fighting cases in your court.
  17. Depends on the time limits in your local rules. Civil courts tend to be more lax in terms of deadlines. Who is the plaintiff and what are you thinking of requesting?
  18. I don't recall Discover ever making a deal, but I could be wrong. Their business model was to extend credit to higher risk customers and back it up with hyper-aggressive collection methods. Weren't they the first to spend thousands in arb to chase a $300 debt?
  19. Not a whole lot to see there. Things have changed, dramatically, since 2012, in terms of the amount and quality of documentation that accompanies these debts. Also there was no result of the FDCPA claim - just the fact that PRA's MTD was denied on the grounds of sketchy documentation.
  20. Gotcha. At this point you need to do what @Robby8900 suggested - oppose MSJ based on existence of arb clause and file a motion to compel. They will counter argue that you have already engaged in substantial litigation, making arb not an option, but we can deal with that later.