WhoCares1000

Members
  • Content Count

    3,881
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    57

Everything posted by WhoCares1000

  1. The issue is that because this is a business debt, the FDCPA does not apply. I would however send the collection agency a letter and copy the original creditor stating that you dispute the amount and list the initial bill and payments. However, check the contract carefully because they could add charges for collections accounts (and interest). Beyond that, the only other option is to refuse to pay and wait to go to court (since you are in Texas, the courts are open for business) and make your argument there that the amount is wrong.
  2. It would be helpful if you created your own thread. We would need to know who the Original Creditor (OC) is so that we can determine if the arbitration strategy would work here since that is what the OC used.
  3. You might need a consumer attorney or if you had a BK attorney to work through this. It should have never been included in your BK because you obtained the loan after you filed for BK and the Credit Union might use that against you if you default. You do need to find out where the payments went though because they are required to apply them to the loan, even one that was discharged in BK because you are allowed to pay off a loan that was discharged. Again, the attorney can help with that. Also, avoid making multiple threads of the same topic. It helps to keep everything in one thread.
  4. The way to reduce hear is to become informed. Learn the rules of the court so that you know if you have to preemptively start arbitration to avoid small claims court or if you can wait until a case is filed. Learn how arbitration works. You need to replace fear with information and when you do that, you will find that there is nothing to be scared of. Even if they are not calling, don't hide your head in the sand because you may find that it is too late to do something when they finally do act.
  5. That simply means that if you own a house or any real estate and they did not take action to recover via the real estate AND they did not renew, they cannot take the house or any real estate that there was a lien (meaning you can sell or refinance without paying off the debt). Bank accounts or anything else is considered personal property and is open game although PA restrictions are such that they will have a hard time taking personal property. As far as a possible late renewal, it might be in your interest to come up with $100 - $200 for a 30 minute consult with a consumer attorney (or see if a law school does free consults) and ask these questions. I know nothing about PA and although there are some members that do, they have not come to this thread as of yet.
  6. Wow, PA has some pretty strict garnishment laws, even on joint accounts. I would still move the funds to your wife's name only to keep them from being grabbed because they might still grab them and make your wife fight to get them back while other bills are looming. That said, the only other argument is that they think that you must want your credit report to be cleaned at this point for some reason and they are hoping that you will pay anything to clean it up.
  7. You are far away from arbitration right now. That is usually done when they sue you. Note that Citi might have a small claims exception to arbitration so you need to see if Citi can use small claims court or not. In the meantime, if the lowest they will go is 55% and you cannot afford to pay that, just let them know that and that you will be turning to other creditors. Then just talk to them once every 2 weeks until you either have the 55% or they come up with a lower deal. If they sue you, you can deal with it at that point.
  8. A judgement in Pennsylvania is good for 20 years so they have 3 more years to try to collect on it. In any case, with the judgement they can garnish wages and levy bank accounts as well as attach real property so why should they settle for anything less than the full amount plus interest. In fact, the fact that you are offering to settle suggests that you have funds somewhere and the attorney is probably looking for them right now. They can also force you into a debtors exam to reveal where you funds are. So at this point, they are playing hard ball because they know they don't have to settle for anything less and that they have the leverage. If they wanted monthly payments, they would garnish your paycheck to the max allowed by law and it would probably be more than what you are offering.
  9. That is where your husband should have answered and demanded they stop calling (and send a separate letter). In fact, he might still have a TCPA violation if you have those records since he never gave anyone permission to call him on his cell phone. I would suggest getting the stuff ready for arbitration now and understanding how the process works. Until you have these people backed into a corner and realizing that this is going to cost quite a bit, they will probably not settle for too much.
  10. OK, at this point they have validated the debt so the whole mailing thing is moot. However, you can still request a refund from the postal service. I was able to get one for the full postage when I sent out an appeal to my health insurance company CMRRR and never got the green card back (it was delivered and I won the appeal). In any case, I would not have called them or emailed them at all once the letter was sent. I would have continued to let the USPS do its thing until either the letter was delivered or it was sent back to me. If I did get the letter back, I would put it unopened and not remove the green card into my my file until a violation occurred and then presented it to the judge as proof that they refused the letter. The legal principle BTW is Willful Ignorance. As for COVID 19 as an excuse, that would be dependent on the judge. Some might rule that it is due to the nature of everything shutting down, some might rule that by June/July, the JDB/DC should have had processes in place for this, and other might rule that the FDCPA must be followed regardless if the collectors are working. Again, this is moot at this point because they sent you a response to your DV so they covered their bases. Next time, be patient and don't try to rush the process if you are looking to elicit a violation.
  11. If they are garnishing her paycheck, they sued her at some point. Did she file an answer or anything or assume that "someone will take care of it." That is why you never assume. She should have filed an answer and attached the letter as an exhibit. She may not have many choices now other than a complaint to the state and hope that the state gets involved because it is probably too late to get the judgement vacated.
  12. What you go to jail for is contempt of court, not on debt, and you stay in jail for however long the judge thinks it will take to coerce you to cooperate which I am sure the JDB will be arguing to keep the person in jail as long as possible. What they want it to "convince" someone to give them a chunk of money to then not be so aggressive on the contempt charge. This is mostly used against the debtors themselves but it sounds like in this case, the debtor would just as rather sit in jail (or they might have tried it already and the judge ruled that they could coerce the debtor) than make any move to get out of jail. That said, I am shocked that they did not subpoena the 2 adult children unless they already have and found no assets there either. I think the parties should go to court and review the case file to find out what is going on (I doubt there is a charge to review a case file at the courthouse, I know there is not a charge to do that in Minnesota). I think @Clydesmom might be correct and that all parties should try to quash the subpoenas on the grounds that they have no financial relations to the judgement debtor and did not have any financial relations with the judgement debtor at the time the debt was created. Make them prove their assertion that the subpoenaed parties have discoverable evidence. I am sure they would have no such proof for the girlfriend and very little for the father-in-law. They might have a case for the ex-husband but he can demand that they limit the scope of the subpoena if he fights it to the divorce decree and any assets that they couple might have owned in the marital estate in 2009 (which will most likely be a house if they owned one and any joint accounts). None of the parties should be required to fill out a financial deposition as they are not the judgement debtor and are not financially related to the judgement debtor today.
  13. According to the OPs original post, all parties are supposed to be lawyering up anyways so this will be interesting to see how this pays out. My question is one of expense vs compliance. Litigation is expensive, even when you are not in the wrong. I would like to hear how this all ends up too because I feel this is an attempt to make someone make a mistake to put one of the 3 parties in jail for a shake up because they know they are not or probably never will collect from the debtor.
  14. I think they are grasping at straws at this point hoping that someone messes up and they can put that person in jail until someone pays the debts because it is obvious they cannot collect from the actual debtor. She has no assets or income that they can levy. This is a tactic used in Minnesota quite a bit too. My next question is, does this couple have any children? They might be looking at money going to minor children that they can possibly seize by saying that the debtor has control of the money if the debtor has custody of the children. Again, grasping at straws here. The one with the most to lose would be the ex-husband because he would have to prove that he took his ex-wife's name off of all his real and personal property. If her name is on anything, they can attach it. I would check and see what the subpoena is asking for regarding records (and if they just say bring in everything, he should object to it as overbroad and demand that they list what records they want) and supply those records. They will probably want the divorce decree, his will and proof that all previous marital property was transferred properly to him. The girlfriend should probably object to the subpoena and try to quash it because she would have the best chance to get it quashed by stating that she is not related to the debtor in any way other than a non-legally binding relationship with the ex-husband and since there was no marriage, her property is her property only. I am sure they would not push too much with the girlfriend because she would be the least likely of the group to have anything they can get. For the ex-father-in-law, he would probably need to bring in any will, life insurance, and trust documents (or an affidavit stating that he is not the beneficiary or trustee of any trust). I doubt they can do anything however other than wait if the ex-wife is a beneficiary of a will or life insurance because those are not the ex-wife's assets. They might be looking to document when the ex-wife might come into money.
  15. OK, first off, the only person that has the opportunity to quash the subpoena will be the girl friend but she also can simply answer and state that she had no financial interest in either your friend or the your friend's ex husband. Since they are not married, there is no community property. She just happens to live at the ex-husband's house. For the ex-husband, was the debt incurred before the divorce or after. That is important because California is a huge Community Property State. If the debt was incurred before the divorce, then he might be liable. I think though that the debt was incurred after the divorce because otherwise, if they knew where to find the ex-husband, they would have sued him too. All he has to show is the divorce decree showing the division of the marital assets, that his assets after the divorce are in his name only, and if he pays alimony to your friend. As to alimony being exempt from garnishment, you would need to check California law. As for your friend's father, they are looking to see if your friend is the beneficiary of any trust, life insurance, or estate to see if something can be attached now or after your friend's father passes away. They also want to see if your friend's father has any joint assets with your friend that they can seize. Lawyers are a good idea just so that everyone knows that to provide to the plaintiff. However, I think the plaintiff is on a fishing expedition because your friend does not have any assets or income to garnish.
  16. No, this is not a violation. You have to send in your dispute within 30 days. They have all of the time in the world to answer (barring SOL of course). It would only be a violation if they continued to try to collect without responding. They could simply send the debt back to the OC saying that you are playing hardball and that the OC (who is not bound by the FDCPA and the validation letter) should just go to court so you would never get any response.
  17. Are you sure you did not sign a blanket lien or anything like that (even if on the business)? Have your read the itty bitty small print that is in legalese that lawyers cannot even understand? If there is a clause in the contract that allows them to secure your business and personal property, then yes, they can do this. I would suggest reviewing all of the paperwork and figuring out if they can do this. If your brother and/or your mother are co-signers on the loan, they can go after their property too. Understand that small business loans are very risky and these people know it so they will want to make sure they are first in line in the event of a default or BK. They know that most of these loans will probably default and even in what you thing are unsecured loans, there is probably a security clause.They are doing this because they probably see paid off assets and a method to collect. So I would suggest reading the contract in full (and getting a lawyer friend to read it with you so that you understand the legalese. If you find that there is a clause that property can be secured, then you will have no choice but to either pay off the loan or declare BK. If you find there is no such clause, you will probably have to go to court to have it removed.
  18. Quite possible due to the closures related to COVID 19. Since those happened so fast, it would not have been fair to the plaintiffs to not have extended the SOL. Not something worth arguing about.
  19. Who is the original creditor for the debt? I just want to see if the arbitration strategy will work as that would gum up the works more than long enough for you to do a BK.
  20. If this ever happens again, on the 2nd time, motion for a dismissal with prejudice and bring up the 1st case and state that being continually sued on the same debt and dismissed is prejudical to your right to settle the matter and is costing you time and money everytime they do this. Same if they try again on the above alleged debt.
  21. Congrats and yes, they can sue you. The odds of them doing so are small because they are more interested in the easy cases that they can get defaults. They would spend too much money and time on you.
  22. You can want something all you want, that does not mean it is not going to happen. The way I see it, the lawyer is correct. The only 3 options you have are to let them garnish your paycheck, try to settle the debt, or declare bankruptcy. You are not going to get this vacated because this is a proper judgement which has not reached the statute of limitations for judgements. Here is why I think the lawyer is correct: You were properly served You went to court and presented your case and the judge found against you or you signed a consent judgement as a settlement. Either way, you lost and a judgement was issued against you. If the original debt SOL had passed, you should have brought that up in 2007, not now. You usually have 30 days to appeal a ruling against you. You did not do that. The SOL for a judgement in Florida is 20 years so that has not passed yet. I see nothing wrong with the judgement or the manner in which it was issued. If you try to get it vacated, the judge is going to laugh at you so don't waste your time. If this is not what you want to hear, then you are in the wrong place because we will tell it like it is without any nonsense and in this case, you cannot do anything at this point except pay the debt, including the 13 years of interest which I sure has been added. The debt collector does not have to offer a favorable settlement to you because they hold most of the cards and you really have no leverage here.
  23. In your case, because the MSJ was granted, the case is done and it would be a regular appeal. An interlocutory appeal is one done while the case is still open. However, if the appeal is successful, the MSJ can be set aside and the case reopened and the judge has to act accordingly to the appeals ruling. I suggest doing a separate thread for you discussing so that people can deal with your unique situation.
  24. This sounds more like a trial and judgement than a dismissal. If you can post the finding of facts, that would help us advise you. It is was a judgement, they cannot sue you again anyways under the legal term res judicata which is Latin for "A matter that has already been decided." Also, if you do have a bona fide FCRPA issue, contact a consumer attorney. If they think you have a case, they will take on the case for free from you end because under law, they can collect their fees from the CRA and/or PRA. I would do the above first however before going to an attorney, if just to show the judge that you tried everything before running to the court.
  25. To answer your question about obligation, they are not required to tell a CRA that they lost in court. They are required to tell the truth in a dispute however. One other option would be to send a letter to the attorneys for PRA demanding that under the FCRPA, that PRA tells the CRAs the truth about the judgement and that they are given 30 days to do so. After 30 days, dispute with the CRAs as mentioned above and see if they still come back as verified. If the attorney calls you, inform the attorney that they sued, they lost, and that you want the tradeline removed from your report under Federal law.