• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About jbmex3

  • Rank
    CIC Member

Profile Fields

  • Location
  1. is the adverse hearing something i can do or am i better off hiring an atty for that.
  2. I had no idea what I was walking into. I was only told to fill out a form and wasn't aware it was a Q&A session or I would've looked this info up sooner as it is public record. I've been told by a bankruptcy atty that what she owes me is not dischargable and to persue in civil court where I have the judgement against her. I'm sure her lawyer is going to play the run around game. I'm just so tired of her getting away with everything. She has committed perjury in civil and small claims and fraud in bankruptcy court and is getting away scott free.
  3. all the information was provided and public records. he had to provide a paystub which stated his year to date at the end of june was $62k and in the means test they stated income for the year as $82k. she also signed an affidavidt stating she didn't file 2009 and 2010 income taxes and didn't mention anything about their 2011 income tax. my claim was from our divorce decree for child care expenses and she was also ordered in civil court to pay again. i went to the creditor meeting and trustee told me she had no assets. only after it was discharged did i go to the federal building and get a copy of all documents she turned in.
  4. Here is my situation. My exwife filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy last year and had everything discharged. However she did it fraudlantly. She is not working so on the means test she had to use her husband's income even though he wasn't filing for ch. 7. They understated his income by 45,000. My grip is that she listed me as a creditor on childcare expenses which I don't believe is allowed. When I informed the trustee of this and showed them where in the public filing records this was all there and that they didn't disclose 2011 taxes only an affidavidt stating she didn't file 2009 and 2010 taxes, my answer was "we only get $60 a case and don't have attorney's that will work for free to go after her, but I was welcome to do after her myself." If I decide to do so what will they make her do, I don't want to chase my tail and spend all this money and she walks away unpunished.
  5. I'm just tired of her cheating to get ahead at every turn. She has cost me 10's of thousands of dollars, ruined my credit, but worst of all she is only giving me the standard allowable visitation. She has me on alert at my daughters school and they had to call her last week to give me permission to have lunch with my kid. I understand money will come and go, but she is interferring with me seeing my kid and is lyeing and cheating me every step of the way
  6. The ex was the only one who filed bk, but he has the only income so that is what they used on the means test. I'm not sure when the bonuses and stock options were obtained. On the means test it ask for household gross salary, bonus, commission, etc. They only listed his salary and nothing else. They put an annual salary of $82,000 but on a June paystub he had already received bonuses in excess of $23,000 which totalled a gross of $63,000 at the time of filing. Also on the means test they listed payroll taxes and ss at $2300, Ins at $370, and 401k at $375. Adding the figures on pay stub the payroll taxes are about $1500 monthly, Ins at $250, and I believe the 401k deduction would be biweekly so that num would be $650. It sounded like she said DA over the phone
  7. Here is my update. I finally had the money to go down and file an adversary proceeding, have until the 22nd to do so. While I was there I asked since I was listed as a creditor am I allowed to see what she turned in because I don't believe the ex should be able to file because of her husbands income and passing the means test. She directed me to the public computer and while I was looking I was able to find a paystub where they conveniently omitted bonuses and stock options he receives. Doesn't this constitute fraud? Those items should come out to about $40k this year and at the time of filing was already an additional $20K. I called the bankruptcy trustee to tell her what I found and she told me she would forward to the DA and get back to me. For her to get involved it would have to be for everybody and they don't have lawyers that work for free. She didn't sound too enthused to do anything.
  8. How strong are your violations? Is the OC the only respondent named? Do you have any violations against the collection attys? If you do, you need to add them before the arbitrator is appointed.
  9. Awesome that was my understanding too, and I filed it as a priority since it is due to child care expenses from the divorce. I took my original divorce decree from 2008 and also our latest order 2011 to attach with the complaint form. The trustee didn't seem too interested. She said my ex didn't have anything and I was more than welcome to file.
  10. thanks for the forum beergoogles, good place to vent and see i'm not alone. usc I called one and am waiting to get a call back was hoping not to spend anymore money on the wench but looks like I will have to. Was told to do that and then turn around and file contempt charges too.
  11. I think you're right. calling on one today. I just hate to keep throwing money at her. WOMEN ARE EVIL!! Atleast this one.
  12. Thanks for your insights but you have no idea what this woman has put me through. She listed a joint mortgage so basically dropped it in my lap. She has made no attempt to get a job, she told the judge in Sept she would be working in 2 weeks already had offers. She has spent money on atty cheating me out of money she owes me and not just the child care expenses she wants to discharge. She did this out of spite to hurt me just as she is limiting my visitation to only the standard visitiation. Its a very long story. On top of that she has cost me tens of thousands of dollars already since our divorce. What about me and my family? I need the money she owes me and then some.
  13. When evidence is introduced in Court, one critical element that must be established is the authenticity of the evidence. When the evidence changes hands from one party to another, that is the beginning of a concept called "Chain of Custody", and that chain must not be broken. The reason the Chain of Custody must be intact is that it eliminates (or isolates) the possibility of altering or falsifying the evidence. The ideal Chain of Custody would be like this: Q (to Mr Jones, President of OC): Are you the person who issued that invoice? A. Yes. Q: What did you do with the account? A. I sold the account to JDB1 on July 15, 2004 Q (to Mr Doe, President of JDB1): Did your company purchase this invoice? A. Yes, on July 15, 2004 Q: Is this a true and correct copy of what your company purchased? A. Yes. Q: What did your company subsequently do with the account? A. We sold it on August 9, 2005 to JDB2. Q (to Mr Roe, President of JDB2): Did your company purchase this invoice? A. Yes, on August 9, 2005. Q: Is this a true and correct copy of what your company purchased? A. Yes. Q: What did your company subsequently do with the account? A. We sold it on January 11, 2006 to JDB3. Q (to Mr Poe, President of JDB3): Did your company purchase this invoice? A. Yes, on January 11, 2006. Q: Is this a true and correct copy of what your company purchased? A. Yes. Q: What did your company subsequently do with the account? A. We presently are the owners of that account and are suing to collect the balance. This is a Chain of Custody. Notice the following: 1. The invoice is the evidence in question. 2. It takes a Human Being to testify as to the authenticity of that invoice. 3. The human being must have first-hand knowledge as to what is being testified to about that invoice. 4. That there are people there to testify as to the ownership and conduct around that invoice from its creation to the time of the trial. The "Chain of Custody" is unbroken. Notice that the testimony did NOT go like this: Q (to Mr Poe, President of JDB3): Do you recognize this invoice? A. Yes. My company purchased it from JDB2 on January 11, 2006. Q: Can you authenticate it? A: I was told by Mr Roe of JDB2 that he was told by Mr Doe of JDB1 that Mr Jones of OC assured him it was authentic. Q: So you have no first-hand knowledge on your own that this invoice is authentic, do you. A. No. In this instance the Chain of Custody has been broken. It was broken at JDB1, because there is the point where the ability to authenticate the evidence is lost - there is no person to testify to its authenticity. Merely being assured that it is authentic by someone else who has no first-hand knowledge of that authenticity is not sufficient. This is called "hear-say" evidence, and it is not admissible. The Achilles Heel that the JDB's have in Court is the Chain of Custody. The burden is on the party introducing the evidence to establish its authenticity, and by attacking the Chain of Custody, you will force a JDB to bring in Officers of all previous owners of the debt to establish the authenticity of the debt. If they can't (because the company is out of business and no officers can be located) or won't (because of the cost of bringing these people to the Court) then there is no one to testify as to the authenticity of the evidence and the Chain of Custody is broken. After establishing that the Chain of Custody is intact, the next question involves how the records were maintained and protected. This will necessarily have to be testified to by a Officer of the OC, since that is where the alleged debt was created and the books and records of the matter originated. What would this Office have to testify to? Generally, the following: 1. That the Officer testifying has personal knowledge of the methods used by the OC to maintain their accounts; 2. That the Officer testifying was employed by the OC ina capacity to have the knowledge in #1 at the time the alleged debt was created and thereafter until it was sold, and 3. That the officer in question personally examined the books and records as to this exact matter and has personal first-hand knowledge (like when the debt was incured, in what dollar amount, at what place, what was purchased with the debt, etc.... So, in a nutshell, here is the burden of proof the JDB has at trial: 1. They have to bring in as witnesses people who were officers of the OC at the time the alleged debt was created and at alltimes thereafter until it was sold who have first hand knowledge of the accounting policies, procedures and controls (no Marketing executives, please), plus 2. They have to bring in as witnesses people who were officers of each and every subsequent owner of the debt who were officers at the time each and every subsequent owner of the debt owned the debt to testify as to their first-hand knowledge of what their company purchased, when and how its accounts were maintained (once again, no Marketing executives, please) Then, each witness has to so testify (at the JDB's expense) as to their knowledge. You have the right to cross-examine each witness and impeach (bring into question) their testimony. How would you do that? You can (and should) determine that they were in fact employed by the company they say they were at the time the alleged debt was with that company; You can (and should) determine that they were employed in a position and capacity that would enable them to testify as to their own personal knowledge of their employer's recordkeeping and accounting practices; You can (and should) determine that they in fact remember the matter at hand - not what they were told to say. If they are familar with the account, they should be familiar with all aspects of the account (and you will get all this in Discovery, which you have already put the JDB through). Not remembering one detail brings into question the memory of all details. Q. Mr Jones - you testified that I allegedly purchased a sofa. What model and color? A:........ Q. Don't your records or memory indicate that? If you remember to the penny what this alleged sofa cost, why can't you remember details like the date it was allegedly delivered, its model or its color, or to where it was allegedly delivered? A:....... This works not only on the OC's officers, but on the JDB's also. Q. Mr Poe, you testified that your company purchased 1,750 accounts on January 11, 2006 and that this alleged debt was one of them. You also testified that you are familiar with all the debts purchased by your company on that date. Other than my name, address, social security number, amount allegedly owed and the company it is allegedly owed to, what else do you recall about this alleged debt purchase? Once again, if they will testify that they are familiar with the matter, they should recall it. There probably will be nothing else because that is what the JDB typically purchases. In summary, the concept of the Chain of Custody of a debt is a serious problem for a JDB in Court because of the trouble, time and expense of bringing the witnesses to Court who can establish the Chain of Custody. This weakness can be used to obtain a favorable settlement: "You have a choice - settle with me for 5 cents on the dollar - knowing you paid 2 cents - and save yourself the expense of a long drawn out trial where you will have to fly witnesses from the OC and every prior JDB in to testify - or see ya in Court." The above post is from a very reputable and highly regarded member from anohter site. The chain of custody is just as important in arbitration as it is in court.
  14. My exwife was ordered to pay me a few thousand dollars by the judge. The debt was because she didn't pay for child care expenses from our divorce. She files for Ch 7 and lists me as a creditor. I go to the hearing and file paperwork that says it shouldn't be dischargable because its concerning our child and list the amount as a priority. The trustee informs me I can file the paperwork but my ex doesn't have anything to go after. I was under the impression it didn't matter if she had anything at this time since she just got her nursing licence and is in her thirties she still has potential of future income. Also since the creditor hearing I've been reading online and I saw where in the means test that her as well as her husbands income are counted in the means test and I believe that she/they may have committed fraud since he is a computer programmer and makes a pretty good salary, at a custody hearing their atty asked how much he made, trying to show that they are stable, so I know. I would say $82k a year plus bonus is pretty good. How do I find out if they put his info on their and I also believe that they have a joint checking account and she probably only listed her individual bank account.
  15. Are you currently employed by Big Bank, N.A.? Who is your employer? How does your employer pay you? What company name is on your paycheck or paystub? For how long have you worked for the company? Did you receive a W-2 from this employer for work performed in 2011? If so, what company name was on that W-2? Try to trap them into admitting that they don't work for the OC.