• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


WhoCares1000 last won the day on March 10

WhoCares1000 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

728 Excellent

1 Follower

About WhoCares1000

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

Profile Fields

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This almost sounds sleezy but if you cannot get a straight answer from whoever you think holds the 2nd mortgage and you can find a lawyer willing to do this (and be able to pay the legal fees), you could always file a quite title action. At least it will get the mortgage holder to take notice that they have to prove that you owe them the money right then and there and might bring them to the table for a settlement. The worse that can happen is that they are able to prove that you owe them the money and the lien stays. The best that happens is that no one can prove that they are owed the money from the 2nd mortgage and the lien is removed by the court. However, you might also want to come up with a reasonable settlement that they can agree on in order to stop the action (such as the home is sold and they get whatever is left over after the 1st mortgage and selling fees are paid in return for releasing the 2nd mortgage). Again, this is a sleezball move and you would probably need an attorney that you will feel like you need a cold shower after meeting with them to pull this off.
  2. Oh wow, then I am sure the bank already told them no way because there are only exempt funds in the account. If that is the case, they might not even send a lawyer and you simply present that the funds are from SSDI to the judge and he will most likely deny the order for garnishment. I doubt this is going to take more than 5 minutes (will take you longer to find parking and get to the courtroom that this will take).
  3. The bank has probably not seen the request you because you filed a timely objection to the motion for order to garnish. The hearing has to now be held before the order can be granted (or denied).
  4. They can send an attorney to defend their request and they might or might not. They can also request a continuance due to the pandemic and it would more likely be granted, however their request for garnishment is also put on hold until the hearing can be held. I am kinda surprised that the court in your jurisdiction is still handling cases too. Most courts have gone to doing only the bare minimum to protect the constitutional rights of those charged with a crime and that is it.
  5. In your original answer, it did not matter if you mentioned that you were on SSDI. Someone receiving SSDI can still have a judgement entered against them under law. The only thing that matters was whether you owed the debt. Now that they want to levy a bank account, it does matter because the funds in that account are exempt from levy. So yes, you need to go to that hearing and prove that the funds are exempt from levy under state and federal law and I believe that this judge will tell Crown Asset that and deny the motion for levy. This will also avoid issues if the bank does not do its due diligence in ensuring that the account does not have non-exempt funds. (Note that I would clean out anything above 2 months of SSDI payments from that account and keep that as cash to avoid that rule).
  6. Now to the OPs issue. First thing to the OP is to get that form off of this thread until you can black out the private information. You do not want that going around the internet like that. Now here is what I think happened. Crown Asset filed a case against the OP and the OP answered and tried to fight the case and lost so that Crown Asset got a judgement against the OP which is legal and right. All Crown Asset had to prove is that you owed the money. There is no consideration on ability to pay when in a judgement case. Some companies will back off if the debtor is collection proof and others will continue anyways figuring that they can collect at some point as judgements have a very long shelf life vs ordinary debt. Crown Asset is now attempting to collect on the judgement, probably by trying to levy the OPs bank account. The OP has requested a hearing to deny the judgement because said account is only filled with SSDI payments which are exempt from garnishment. The OP needs to attend this hearing with proof that the payments and with the correct cites and case law to show the judge that Crown Asset is not allowed to garnish this account. In reading the request for hearing, it is vague (but I am sure the judge will allow it as you are pro se and that you got your point across in showing that you have standing for such a hearing). If the judge rules for the garnishment, then the OP will have to appeal that ruling (and probably try to find an appeals court lawyer) as the appeals court will most likely overturn said ruling. Now, Crown Asset can try to do a debtors exam at the hearing but if what the OP says is true, there is not much they can get at this time and the judgement is only worth its value on paper as it cannot be collected on as the OP has no assets.
  7. Colorado actually tried to do that (close liquor stores) and it was crazy with long lines and no one practicing social distancing at all. They had to back track on that one just to keep people safe.
  8. I am not shocked, I think right now, most courts are doing just enough to avoid a criminal walking because of a constitutional issue. Everything else is on hold.
  9. With the advent of computerized business records and government crackdowns on JDBs, the JDBs are demanding and the OCs are providing all of the records on an account now. This includes what bank the payments were made from.
  10. Except that you can be sure the other side will use their money and clout to ensure that the changes are not so onerous as to render them impotent.
  11. The thing is, for someone like me who has not lost their job, there should be no reason why I should not continue to pay on my mortgage.
  12. Technically, Midland does not ignore C&D letters and tell people to commit suicide over their debts either but the OP has proven that wrong. I am wondering if now that the governments attention is turned elsewhere, they are going to try to see what they can get away with and that would include selling any debts considered uncollectable by them.
  13. First off, we will tell you when something does not sound right and this did not sound right at first. That is why I said that if this is true, go talk to an attorney. As for getting what you want, you are going to have to sue to get them to state that you do not owe the debt because they want to be able to sell the debt down the line. Indeed, if they are suggesting that you commit suicide and are ignoring your letters, they have no intentions of stating what you want unless a court, or government regulatory agency, forces them do it so you will probably get some monetary settlement out of this. There, however, is nothing wrong with you donating any money you get to a worth while charity and you can even recommend in the settlement that a charity gets the monetary part of it. What you get from this board is the truth, even if it is not what you want to hear.
  14. Maybe but probably not. It will not benefit those who default and I think arbitration will remain as it always has. The benefit will be for those who answer as the courts will try to convince the overworked creditor attorneys to come up with deals (or maybe use some veiled threats such as slowing down on signing off on the default judgements). As for rules, right now I doubt debt collection will be able to do much beyond calling someone's phone. Even if they file a case, it will not be heard for a while. There might be some temporary measures too, especially under the emergency powers. As for anything lasting, it will probably depend on who control the federal government come 2021.
  15. I did not see one from Mayo Clinic for my care. Then again, the MN Attorney General has consent decrees with ALL hospitals and major medical providers in the state for debt collection so it may be with private practices only. Also, with the pocket docket rules, it is easier for keep their misdeeds from becoming public record by convincing injury attorneys to use that process.