Goody_Ouchless

Members
  • Content Count

    2,142
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    61

Everything posted by Goody_Ouchless

  1. Yet something tells me you are used to that, out in the world.
  2. In our situation it was a case of "be careful what you wish for." When things went south most of our debt was in my wife's name. Even though we are in a community property state, my score improved quickly, while her's remained ruined. Once things fell off CR, she started getting credit offers and opened an Amazon card. Of course the intention was for it to only be used for "point,s" and to be paid off each month - in reality it quickly ballooned to a $3500 debt and arguments where the word "divorce" was used more than once. I've paid it down to about a $1000 and need to start having daily "don't use that stinking card for Christmas" sessions. I guess the silver lining is that the routine $300 or $400 per month that's been going to that card can soon go to savings without being missed. So, in answer to your original question, we found the improvement to credit score to be quite rapid.
  3. All that means is that they can attempt to recoup fees if you violate the agreement. As @fisthardcheese said - don't over complicate things.
  4. So you believe they are pretending you are dead in order to collect from your live self? Can't believe they are that desperate for business.
  5. Wow - that could be best deal we've ever seen from Discover.
  6. So you can show that you requested validation within 30 days of the first letter they sent you, and they continued active collection efforts in the space between when they received your validation request and when they validated?
  7. Keep checking, but otherwise just wait until you get served.
  8. Because we've grown very perceptive over the years, and when things don't make sense, we get suspicious,
  9. I wouldn't sweat the validation stuff. I'm of the school that believes all it does is tell them that they found the right person. Usually if something has been picked up by a law firm they will sue, regardless. Spend your time reading the arbitration thread and that is the best way to win, in the end.
  10. We dealt with this in AZ when our case was dismissed for same reason (lack of prosecution) and SOL expired in interim. Plaintiff tried to "re-open" the same case, keeping it within SOL, but their motion was denied (which was a life-saver as debt was over 10k.) I would think same thing would apply here - they either get the original case reinstated, or they have to start over and are out of luck. Our case was only dormant for a few months, so if TX works the same way, it seems like a gap of years would mean they have to start over.
  11. Still amazes me, even after all these years, that the only value in any of those accounts was general ignorance of the arb strategy. All of those people that agreed to pay (money they probably still don't have) could have walked away free and clear.
  12. I suspect their response would be laughter. Debt buyer's typically have two settlement options: full amount via monthly payments, and a small discount for a lump sum payment. Follow the advice about arbitration - it sounds strange and confusing, but is actually quite simple and puts them in a position where it will cost as much as the debt in order to collect, so they just walk away.
  13. Your understanding is incorrect. In Civil cases it usually comes down to the preponderance of evidence. Since the debt buyer legally purchased your debt, they will provide the court with enough evidence to prove that point. The amount owed will be a final balance. Unless you are prepared to prove that the plaintiff never bought your debt, and fabricated all of the evidence in Photoshop, the trial will be a pretty quick ruling for plaintiff.
  14. Also, does Statute of Limitation come in to play? If how old is the debt? If the court dismisses the original case due to lack of prosecution, they may have to start over.
  15. I think this speaks to what OP observed, in terms of the prevalence of pro se's appearing on the appeal rolls. I don't have hard numbers, bur it feels like the majority of posters that have consulted a lawyer over the past several years have been told to either "settle" or "consider bankruptcy." With the wide spread adoption of self-authenticating business records, reputable consumer lawyers (in most jurisdictions) are not going take on cases that are lost before they begin. I suspect that in the OP's area lawyers will only take on cases where there are clear violations, leaving the vast majority of appealed plaintiff loses being cases like this one, where a debtor got lucky.
  16. This sounds logical. Perhaps, in an effort to streamline proceedings and save money, the first phase of these proceedings are handled like parking tickets, with more complicate cases "appealing" to Stage Two. Kind of like reaching a Level One support representative - I believe, out here, calling Motor Vehicles leads, initially, to someone in a prison call center, who's only task is to route the call.
  17. So your contention is that an affidavit that is sufficient for Summary Judgement loses it's validity at trial? That must be something quite new.
  18. Forgive me if I missed the detail, but what happened in the original case? I know we've seen one or two cases, lately, where judges have made horrible rulings, so maybe this is one of those and they are trying to nip the problem in the bud. Usually it's stuff like judges misunderstanding the rules of evidence and requiring a live witness when the self-authenticating business records suffice.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. I was being nice, which always seems to get me in trouble. Instead of "worthless" I should have said "dangerous."
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. My engaging in an argument that is best handled in a Meeting, or Session, is probably not in your best interest.