Neveragain

Members
  • Content Count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Neveragain

  1. In April 2015 I received a debt settlement letter from Synchrony bank to pay off my account for 1/3rd of the balance. I was in a bad spot financially so I jumped on the offer. The offer letter said I had to contact them by a certain date which I did. I spoke to a rep who gave me instructions to send a check along with a copy of the settlement letter via CMRRR which was done. Synchrony received my check but never processed it because they signed for it 2 days PAST the date to contact them on the settlement letter. They claim since they received it past the settlement date on the letter it was not accepted. My case is that I DID contact them PRIOR to the date and arrangements were made and followed through to pay the debt, Synchrony is saying that since they received my check past the date on the settlement letter to contact them they did not process the payment. Subsequently they sent me to collections and now a civil lawsuit. I have the signed green card, copy of the settlement letter sent to me and a copy of the letter I sent to them along with my check. The lawyer's office for Synchrony has sent me INTERROGATORIES to answer which I have no problem with because its all information I've provided to them previously but my question for the forum is: Can I serve the Plaintiff (lawyer's for Synchrony bank) interrogatories of my own? They are telling me "Synchrony refused your payoff because it arrived 2 days late" and I would like to know if I have the right to know who at Synchrony has the authority to say that + I would like to bring in the recorded conversations done by the attorney's office if it comes down to it in court. I think a judge would find all of this to be a waste of time but I will not pay Synchrony 4 times the amount I believed I settled for.
  2. Here is what I found for NJ 12A:9-406. Discharge of Account Debtor; Notification of Assignment; Identification and Proof of Assignment; Restrictions on Assignment of Accounts, Chattel Paper, Payment Intangibles, and Promissory Notes Ineffective. (a) Discharge of account debtor; effect of notification. Subject to subsections ( through (i), an account debtor on an account, chattel paper, or a payment intangible may discharge its obligation by paying the assignor until, but not after, the account debtor receives a notification, authenticated by the assignor or the assignee, that the amount due or to become due has been assigned and that payment is to be made to the assignee. After receipt of the notification, the account debtor may discharge its obligation by paying the assignee and may not discharge the obligation by paying the assignor. ( When notification ineffective. Subject to subsection (h), notification is ineffective under subsection (a): (1) if it does not reasonably identify the rights assigned; (2) to the extent that an agreement between an account debtor and a seller of a payment intangible limits the account debtor's duty to pay a person other than the seller and the limitation is effective under law other than this chapter; or (3) at the option of an account debtor, if the notification notifies the account debtor to make less than the full amount of any installment or other periodic payment to the assignee, even if: (A) only a portion of the account, chattel paper, or payment intangible has been assigned to that assignee; ( a portion has been assigned to another assignee; or © the account debtor knows that the assignment to that assignee is limited. © Proof of assignment: Subject to subsection (h), if requested by the account debtor, an assignee shall seasonably furnish reasonable proof that the assignment has been made.[/B] Unless the assignee complies, the account debtor may discharge its obligation by paying the assignor, even if the account debtor has received a notification under subsection (a). (d) Term restricting assignment generally ineffective. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (e), 12A:2A-303 and 12A:9-407, and subject to subsection (h), a term in an agreement between an account debtor and an assignor or in a promissory note is ineffective to the extent that it: (1) prohibits, restricts, or requires the consent of the account debtor or person obligated on the promissory note to the assignment or transfer of, or the creation, attachment, perfection, or enforcement of a security interest in, the account, chattel paper, payment intangible, or promissory note; or (2) provides that the assignment or transfer or the creation, attachment, perfection, or enforcement of the security interest may give rise to a default, breach, right of recoupment, claim, defense, termination, right of termination, or remedy under the account, chattel paper, payment intangible, or promissory note. (e) Inapplicability of subsection (d) to certain sales. Subsection (d) does not apply to the sale of a payment intangible or promissory note. (f) Legal restrictions on assignment generally ineffective. Except as otherwise provided in 12A:2A-303 and 12A:9-407 and subject to subsections (h), (i) and ( j), a rule of law, statute, or regulation that prohibits, restricts, or requires the consent of a government, governmental body or official, or account debtor to the assignment or transfer of, or creation of a security interest in, an account or chattel paper is ineffective to the extent that the rule of law, statute, or regulation: (1) prohibits, restricts, or requires the consent of the government, governmental body or official, or account debtor to the assignment or transfer of,or the creation, attachment, perfection, or enforcement of a security interest in the account or chattel paper; or (2) provides that the assignment or transfer or the creation, attachment, perfection, or enforcement of the security interest may give rise to a default, breach, right of recoupment, claim, defense, termination, right of termination, or remedy under the account or chattel paper. (g) Subsection ( (3) not waivable. Subject to subsection (h), an account debtor may not waive or vary its option under subsection ( (3). (h) Rule for individual under other law. This section is subject to law other than this chapter which establishes a different rule for an account debtor who is an individual and who incurred the obligation primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. (i) Inapplicability. This section does not apply to an assignment of a health-care-insurance receivable. Subsection (f) does not apply to an assignment or transfer of, or the creation, attachment, perfection or enforcement of a security interest in, a right the transfer of which is prohibited or restricted by any of the following statutes to the extent that the statute is inconsistent with subsection (f): R.S.34:15-29 (workers' compensation claims); section 13 of P.L.1970, c.13 (C.5:9-13) (State lottery winnings); and P.L.2001, c.139 (C.2A:16-63 et seq.) (structured settlement agreements). (j) Section prevails over specified inconsistent law. Except to the extent otherwise provided in subsection (i), this section prevails over any inconsistent provision of an existing or future statute, rule or regulation of this State, unless the provision is contained in a statute of this State, refers expressly to this section and states that the provision prevails over this section. L.2001, c.117, s.1; amended 2001, c.386, s.62. 12A:9-407 Restrictions on creation or enforcement of security interest in leasehold interest or in lessor's residual interest. 12A:9-407. Restrictions on Creation or Enforcement of Security Interest in Leasehold Interest or in Lessor's Residual Interest. (a) Term restricting assignment generally ineffective. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (, a term in a lease agreement is ineffective to the extent that it: (1) prohibits, restricts, or requires the consent of a party to the lease to the assignment or transfer of, or the creation, attachment, perfection, or enforcement of a security interest in, an interest of a party under the lease contract or in the lessor's residual interest in the goods; or (2) provides that the assignment or transfer or the creation, attachment, perfection, or enforcement of the security interest may give rise to a default, breach, right of recoupment, claim, defense, termination, right of termination, or remedy under the lease. ( Effectiveness of certain terms. Except as otherwise provided in 12A:2A-303 (7), a term described in subsection (a) (2) is effective to the extent that there is: (1) a transfer by the lessee of the lessee's right of possession or use of the goods in violation of the term; or (2) a delegation of a material performance of either party to the lease contract in violation of the term. © Security interest not material impairment. The creation, attachment, perfection, or enforcement of a security interest in the lessor's interest under the lease contract or the lessor's residual interest in the goods is not a transfer that materially impairs the lessee's prospect of obtaining return performance or materially changes the duty of or materially increases the burden or risk imposed on the lessee within the purview of 12A:2A-303 (4) unless, and then only to the extent that, enforcement actually results in a delegation of material performance of the lessor. L.2001, c.117, s.1; amended 2001, c.386, s.63
  3. Where can I find out if adebt collector is licensed to collect in my state (NJ)? Thanks
  4. Hello, I've been searching but cannot find a definative answer to NJ's SOL - some sites say it is 6 years, some same 3 years for credit cards... anyone have a link to an OFFICIAL site that I could print and take to court? N.J.S.A.12A: 3-118 ??? Thanks
  5. the $12.00 is the smallest issue it is the 65 day wait... anyone have any thoughts if having an attorney handle this in court is a good idea? Although it seems pretty cut and dry to me the law can be tricky - also I have been reading up on SOL and it appears this particular debt has a DOLA date of 2002-in NJ the cc SOL is 3 years so I should also be able to use that as a part of the "defense" correct?
  6. Is a computer purchase from Dell A "goods" purchase?
  7. I am confused about the SOL on credit cards in NJ. One website says 6 years another says 3 years..... how do I contact the CRA's by phone to get definative DOFD for the accounts that show up on my CR? ANy help would be appreciated...
  8. contacted the company who issued the money orders - they are kept on file for 5 years only and you have to pay $12.00 and wait 65 days minimum and IF the info is available they will send it to you..... Isn't the burden of proof on the CA who is suing me to prove the other CA did not pay the debt? I tried to contact the CA I paid and the phone # is disconnected, I checked to see if they were listed on D&B - they are - with the same contact information..... even if this CA had to change business name and address for whatever reason is there anyway to find out if they are doing business under a different name? I try to pay debts with money orders because I don't want too muchof my banking info out there.... any opinions as to if this is just overcaution? I filed the answer and guess now I just wait to see what the court has to say... any opinions on what I can expect from here? Do these things ever settle by arbitration? When/if it settles is the court or the CA required to give me soemthing in writing in case this pops up again in 4 or 5 years? Thanks for the opinions
  9. Outrageous! The CA who issued the summons has called twice without leaving a message so I called the CA that issued the summons as they told me last week to call and see if everything was "verified" with their client. I believe it is important to maintain a calm tone with these idiots because they are just that; idiots! While speaking with CA rep he stated he "could not read the fax" and "nowhere does it say there is a zero balance-did you get a zero balance letter"? "You have to get us something more concrete than this - we are proceeding with collection in court". I have not told this CA that I did try to obtain a "zero balance" letter from the CA I paid in 2002 but the CA who took my money is out of business and I don't want to give this CA any more fuel for the fire - he also stupidy stated there are no names of who the money order was paid to (although the amounts on the money orders specifically match the settlement amount). I will file an answer to the summons immediately and include the same photocopy of my receipts - A) I KNOW I NEED TO SEND THE ANSWER CMRRR TO THE COURT BUT DO I SEND A COPY OF THE ANSWER TO THE CA WHO SENT ME THE SUMMONS ALSO? Is this CA correct? Is it up to me to dig up all this proof? Thanks
  10. Thanks for the reply-I have contacted the CA twice by phone and they cannot tell me when the paperwork will be "verified" and refuse to even tell me what the next steps in their process is so after spending many hours reading this forum I will absolutley follow up with sending in an "answer" letter to the court, hopefully this will stop this CA in his tracks. Now.. any suggestions on if I should continue to contact the CA to get some sort of concrete proof that this debt is completely paid and then start the arduant process of correcting the credit reports or should I expect to see more "court actions" from this CA? I really think I can bring my score from the low 400's up to at least 600's within a year if I work hard at it-my report is a mess and once this one is "clear" I can begin to study the report and seek more specific resolutions - thanks again for all the input everyone
  11. I have copies of the money orders
  12. I contacted the court and found out it is indeed a valid summons along with information from the clerk on how to file the "answer form" online! Which I will immediately do after writing this reply... thanks again
  13. I do have the letter sent to me by the CA offering me the "settlement amount" - they reduced the debt by about 20% provided I paid it within a 60 day time frame I think so that is what I did - I just have never received a letter from the CA saying anything like "ok, we got your payment and the records will be updated" - do you think I still have a leg to stand on with this one? The company still shows up on Dunn & Bradstreet !?! I know, no legal advice.... any opinions are welcome Thanks
  14. I paid a CA a settlement on a cc acct (department store account) in 2002. Several letters were sent to ca to get a "letter of satisfied debt" becaue I recently started getting letters from different ca's and even a summons but have found the ca I paid is out of business... where do I go from here? Thanks
  15. By answering the complaint does that mean contacting the court?
  16. Hello, Thank you for such a useful and informative forum! I recently received a summons from a lawyers office. I contacted them, faxed in a copy of the money orders showing the debt was paid but the lawyers office will not give me any further info on how to proceed!? They keep telling me that the paperwork I sent in was being "verified" and to call back in a couple of days and when I do call back and ask how I should proceed from here they say "We cannot give you legal advice" Do I need to contact the courts? How long does this lawyers office have to "verify" the info I sent them? Any advice would be helpful Thank you