E. Normis Debtor

Members
  • Content Count

    666
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

E. Normis Debtor last won the day on October 26 2006

E. Normis Debtor had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

27 Excellent

About E. Normis Debtor

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

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Oklahoma
  1. Not true. The FDCPA applies to debt collectors attempting to collect student loans. However, as admin pointed out, there is no SOL.
  2. It would depend a great deal on what laws might apply to that particular creditor, such as TILA or the FCBA. As I read your post, there would be no notification requirements. You agreed to pay a certain amount at a certain time, and didn't. End of story.
  3. It's unclear what you're asking, but I'll assume from the title you had a default judgment entered against you. The time limit to which you refer likely applies to a motion to set aside the judgment, which would begin from the date the judgment was entered. Such a time limit may not necessarily apply to a motion to vacate a voidable judgment, and there is no time limit to motion to vacate a void judgment (which is different from a voidable judgment).
  4. This one time......at band camp.....I had to go to the bathroom real bad.....so I stopped at a house.....and it turns out that a Supreme Court Justice once used the same bathroom. Personal attacks are uncalled for and benefit no one. It would be best for everyone if the content, rather than the poster, is the subject of differing opinion.
  5. Not necessarily starting from scratch. The new attorney has imputed knowledge of everything that has occurred relative to your account and must conduct themselves accordingly. In other words, the transition to another "collector" has absolutely no bearing on the law firm's, the attorney's or your, obligations and rights.
  6. Probably just another attorney has been assigned to work the account.
  7. Yes, real world always sent all correspondence CMRRR, otherwise you'll have a difficult time proving you sent it. Of course, then you'll have the undaunting task of proving they read it
  8. I wish you well with your "pro-se" career. That statement, however, would indicate you have no real legal knowledge. Questions of law and questions of fact are entirely different.
  9. For those of you that don't understand what a rebuttable presumption is as it is understood in the realm of jurisprudence, allow me to give you an example. You are a married male and your wife gets pregnant and gives birth to a child. You know with absolute certainty that you're not the childs father because 1)You've had a vasectomy. 2)You can't get an erection with a truckload of viagra. 3)You haven't slept in the same bed or had sex with your wife for 2 years. You divorce your wife. Your wife requests child support from you because you make a million dollars a year and the real father is a deadbeat. Guess what? The law presumes you are the father because you were married to her when she became pregnant. You can stand in court all day and state till you're blue in the face that you're not the childs father and she hasn't proved that I am (ie; you never got the letter). Guess what? You'll be paying child support because the law must presume you to be the childs father. The law must presume, however you are allowed the opportunity to rebut that presumption with credible proof. Such as a DNA test. A rebuttable presumption is a larger matter than just "he said, she said," as is being suggested. It is quite simply a matter of "guilty until proven innocent," and the burden of proof is yours.......not your wife's. If a CA can show standard mailing practices are in place, the law presumes you received any letter they send shortly after it was mailed. You would need credible proof to rebut that presumption. Your 30 day clock begins upon that presumed receipt of the letter they show was mailed.....not whenever you choose to decide to request it because you state "I never got the letter, prove I did."
  10. Not true. You can be estopped by laches under law as well as equity.
  11. Probably could squeeze in a defense of laches as well. Unless, of course, the body is still warm.
  12. Actually, they can pursue the claim against your estate after you die.