stressed Posted July 25, 2003 Report Share Posted July 25, 2003 I have 10 days to respond to a mailed sommons for a credit card debt. If I don't respond "to the complaint with the clerk" by writing to the CC's lawyer can I go to jail? What can they do to me other than issue a judgment against me after the 10 days go by and it is filed with the court?I have a physical disability and get SSI payments they are my ONLY income/asset. I do not own anything. Can they garnish my SSI payments?Thank you for your help! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kb9tbq Posted July 25, 2003 Report Share Posted July 25, 2003 You don't ever want to ignore a summons - that just gives up your rights to a fight in the matter. Leaving them with a defaulted judgment against you. And will hurt your credit report, plus if they are going to garnish you rather be there to explain your financial situation (so that consideration can be taken in your case).No, you can't go to jail! I don't think they can, but there are rules for each state on the specifics of what can be done... what state are you from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stressed Posted July 25, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2003 I live in Utah. Why is a defaulted judgment worse than another? I am seriously ill and don't know if I can bear to fight this out,which is why I lean towards ignoring it. How will my letter/answer to the sommons save my rights? They are going to issue a judgment anyway right?Thanks for your help! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kb9tbq Posted July 25, 2003 Report Share Posted July 25, 2003 For Utah judgment SOL is 8 years and can be 18% w/Agreement, 6% without.If you appear in court, you can present your case, and possibly have it dismissed (if they know you are financially challanged in this matter) if you don't at least send in a response explaining that with your health you can not make the appearance - maybe even doctors notice will give help here). But explain your situation in the matter.Will wait on one of the lawyers to see, that may have some other angles on this to help you better, then I am able to. I just responded since - in most cases I know this not to be a desired choice of action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capepuffin Posted July 25, 2003 Report Share Posted July 25, 2003 I live in Utah. Why is a defaulted judgment worse than another? I am seriously ill and don't know if I can bear to fight this out,which is why I lean towards ignoring it. How will my letter/answer to the sommons save my rights? They are going to issue a judgment anyway right?Thanks for your help!By responding to the summons they can't win a default judgement against you!You need to respond to the summons! Sens a copy to the court and a copy to yhe plaintiffs attorney. This will protect you from a defaulted judgement. You NEED to do this!Also ask the plaintiffs attorney to validate that this is your account. Have you done that yet? It might buy you some time.If you do go to court, and they don't validate this as being yours they can't win a judgement against you. If you go in prepared. If you are seriously ill, you could possibly postpone this indefinately with a note from your DR.The point is you want to protect yourself from having a judgement against you. I seriously doubt that they can touch your SSI income! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missinglink Posted July 28, 2003 Report Share Posted July 28, 2003 When you answer the summons you need to state on there that you are disabled and recieving S.S.I. The lawyer and judge need to see this. They might just drop the case. Maybe if you call the 1-800 phone number(social security) they can tell you better if they can garnish your check. I don't think they can. I do know they can't garnish social security retirement checks on past due bills. Its the same thing with anybody receiving welfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadynRed Posted July 28, 2003 Report Share Posted July 28, 2003 SSI, disability, pension pay-outs, and any public assistance monies are 100% EXEMPT from siezure and garnishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missinglink Posted July 28, 2003 Report Share Posted July 28, 2003 They can garnish for child support and alimony. I have a family member on Social security retirement and they are garnishing his check and interest accumulates on this money.Heres the info:http://www.aaml.org/socialsecurity.htm Anti-assignment statute and its exceptions. The Social Security Act contains an anti-assignment provision which states that "...none of the moneys paid or payable...under (the Act) shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process." 42 U.S.C. §407(a), (applicable to SSI by 42 U.S.C. § 1383(d)(1). The United States Supreme Court has given the anti-assignment clause a broad reach, extending protection to all claimants, against any legal process. Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Board, 409 US 413, 93 S.Ct 590 (1973). When Social Security funds are commingled with non-exempt funds in a bank account, the majority rule is that the anti-assignment clause still protects the benefits, as long as the Social Security funds are reasonably subject to tracing. See NCNB Fin. Servs. v. Shumate, 829 F.Supp 178 (WD Va. 1993).Congress passed legislation in 1975 carving out an exception to the anti-assignment rule for child support and alimony obligations. 42 U.S.C. § 659(a). In 1983, Congress amended the statute again to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts over the application of the garnishment provision. The 1977 amendment broadly defines child support and alimony obligations, and includes attorney's fees, interest and court costs "when and to the extent that the same are expressly made recoverable as such pursuant to a decree, order, or judgment issued in accordance with applicable state law by a court of competent jurisdiction." 42 U.S.C. § 662( and ©.While child support and alimony obligations are exempt from the anti-assignment clause and are subject to garnishment, equitable distribution is not. 42 U.S.C. § 662©. Most of the courts that have considered the issue have held that Social Security benefits are not part of the marital estate for the purposes of equitable distribution. See Cruise v. Cruise, 92 N.C. App 586, 374 S.E.2d 882 (1989). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymous Posted July 28, 2003 Report Share Posted July 28, 2003 Yes, but child and spousal support are an exception - for that they can take any kind of income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghacorp Posted August 1, 2003 Report Share Posted August 1, 2003 A man on disability who doesn't own a home, car or non exempt assets on SSI disability is one who should not get overly concerned over a summons! You should provide brief answers to the summons, request validation, however DO NOT admit that it is your debt. Unless however, you physically are able to go to court or appoint a lawyer to do so on your behalf, the opponent will PROBABLY win a judgment sooner or later. You will probably receive two sets of Interrogatories following your Answer which will have to completed in a timely manner. Most courts ONLY REQUIRE the opponent to produce only basic evidence that the debt is yours. Lawyers in Delaware actually can ignore requests for debt validation and win so long as the defendant doesn't show up at least for at the pre-trial conference. Should any documents not be received on or before due dates, the defendant loses. It is imperative that all correspondence to lawyers especially be CRRR as they often DO LIE about not receiving items. In your particular situation, quite frankly you could ignore the whole situation because chances are unless you are prepared to go to the expense to vigorously fight the matter, odds are in favor of the creditor who will prevail sooner or later. People in your situation with zero assets and in poor health are not good candidates for law suits and I'm quite sure if the lawyer or whomever is paying the expenses of the litigation against you knew your situation they would never have sued you in the first place! Discover Bank is a classic example of this litigation stupidity!In closing, if you don't feel like putting up a fight, don't get all choked up over a possible judgment. If push comes to shove, a BK filing may resolve the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts