Jump to content

Bottomless pit of debt?!


Recommended Posts

First of all, thanks for all your help with my legal problems! I am to appear for a summary judgement hearing in two weeks. I do not dispute the debt, and I have told the collection attorney as much. However, he wants me to pay an amount monthly that exceeds the 25% garnishment (maximum in Louisiana) he can be awarded in court. I have no assets, but good cash flow. So, if I crunch the numbers, I think that even if the lawyer gets a full 25% of a garnishment, that dollar amount will not pay down what I owe to Citibank (roughly $15K) after you figure in the ridiculous interest rate they will charge me. So, in this situation, am I just out of luck and Citi gets my 25% even though it is not actually paying down anything, or is there some form of relief where I can actually pay down my debt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, thanks for all your help with my legal problems! I am to appear for a summary judgement hearing in two weeks. I do not dispute the debt, and I have told the collection attorney as much. However, he wants me to pay an amount monthly that exceeds the 25% garnishment (maximum in Louisiana) he can be awarded in court. I have no assets, but good cash flow. So, if I crunch the numbers, I think that even if the lawyer gets a full 25% of a garnishment, that dollar amount will not pay down what I owe to Citibank (roughly $15K) after you figure in the ridiculous interest rate they will charge me. So, in this situation, am I just out of luck and Citi gets my 25% even though it is not actually paying down anything, or is there some form of relief where I can actually pay down my debt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its admirable that you want to take responsibilty for your debts, but in reading over your other posts, I'd like to ask a couple of questions.

1. Is this debt still with Citi, or has it been charged off?

2. Is the attorney working FOR Citi or as a collection agency?

And, I want to point out, that the FDCPA and the DV process has NOTHING to do with whether you owe the debt or not. Its all about making the CA play by the rules, and calling them on it when they don't. If this guy hasn't validated the debt for you, then you have no reason to pay him. I'd suggest when you go to the Summary Judgement hearing, you point out to the judge that you have not been provided with sufficient evidence to know whether this is your debt or not...

The attorney is counting on you just rolling over and coughing up the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its admirable that you want to take responsibilty for your debts, but in reading over your other posts, I'd like to ask a couple of questions.

1. Is this debt still with Citi, or has it been charged off?

2. Is the attorney working FOR Citi or as a collection agency?

And, I want to point out, that the FDCPA and the DV process has NOTHING to do with whether you owe the debt or not. Its all about making the CA play by the rules, and calling them on it when they don't. If this guy hasn't validated the debt for you, then you have no reason to pay him. I'd suggest when you go to the Summary Judgement hearing, you point out to the judge that you have not been provided with sufficient evidence to know whether this is your debt or not...

The attorney is counting on you just rolling over and coughing up the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On my credit report it says the debt has been "charged off"(what does that mean, anyway?). The attorney I am dealing with claims to be working on behalf of Citi, at least that is what all the court documents say. He got involved after I sent a drop dead letter to a collection agency Citi employed. And no, he has not validated the debt. I did not think that mattered at this point and that a summary judgement was basically a "do you or do you not owe the debt" type affair. If I am wrong, please advise!

As far as BK goes, forget it. My wife works, and our combined income is in the mid 80k range. She is not liable for any of the debt. We can pay the stuff off, and that is what I WANT to do, because I DID accumulate it. I just want to make sure I am not going to be taken behind the financial woodshed and beaten up too badly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On my credit report it says the debt has been "charged off"(what does that mean, anyway?). The attorney I am dealing with claims to be working on behalf of Citi, at least that is what all the court documents say. He got involved after I sent a drop dead letter to a collection agency Citi employed. And no, he has not validated the debt. I did not think that mattered at this point and that a summary judgement was basically a "do you or do you not owe the debt" type affair. If I am wrong, please advise!

As far as BK goes, forget it. My wife works, and our combined income is in the mid 80k range. She is not liable for any of the debt. We can pay the stuff off, and that is what I WANT to do, because I DID accumulate it. I just want to make sure I am not going to be taken behind the financial woodshed and beaten up too badly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Charge off" is an accounting term that means that Citi has charged off this debt against income on their income tax return. They may or may not still own it, but chances are the US taxpayer has already compensentated them for their "loss". Its really hard to tell if this attorney works for them directly, or more likely is a debt collector.

And, no, the Summary Judgement thing is not a forgone conclusion. You still have the right to dispute this guy's right to collect. Depending on what court in what county you may have to "educate" the judge on the FDCPA, but your basic stand at this point is "I don't know if I owe this debt or not. The attorney has not proviced with proof that its mine". Depending on the state your in, this guy may even need to be licensed as a debt collector.

Think of it in terms of somebody coming up to you on the street and saying "hey, I know you had a CC with CitiBank. I'm collecting for it. Give me the money.". Would you do it without some proof?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Charge off" is an accounting term that means that Citi has charged off this debt against income on their income tax return. They may or may not still own it, but chances are the US taxpayer has already compensentated them for their "loss". Its really hard to tell if this attorney works for them directly, or more likely is a debt collector.

And, no, the Summary Judgement thing is not a forgone conclusion. You still have the right to dispute this guy's right to collect. Depending on what court in what county you may have to "educate" the judge on the FDCPA, but your basic stand at this point is "I don't know if I owe this debt or not. The attorney has not proviced with proof that its mine". Depending on the state your in, this guy may even need to be licensed as a debt collector.

Think of it in terms of somebody coming up to you on the street and saying "hey, I know you had a CC with CitiBank. I'm collecting for it. Give me the money.". Would you do it without some proof?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, well within the SOL. Not even a year since last payment. Aggresive SOBs, aren't they? How do I find out if Citi sold the debt to this guy? Furthermore, is there some way to 'subpoena' all my records he has regarding me and Citi? Please forgive me if I seem naive about all this. :shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, well within the SOL. Not even a year since last payment. Aggresive SOBs, aren't they? How do I find out if Citi sold the debt to this guy? Furthermore, is there some way to 'subpoena' all my records he has regarding me and Citi? Please forgive me if I seem naive about all this. :shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the income that's attracting Citi's attention. Creditors have a greater propensity to sue when they can see something to collect. You should just go with a settlement if you can. Even a BK7 under the current rules may not work for you given the lattitude of judges to sweep those who can pay into a 13. Of course it gets worse in about six months. By the way, Citi typically assigns rather than sells their charged off accounts. They then amend their tax filings as they collect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the income that's attracting Citi's attention. Creditors have a greater propensity to sue when they can see something to collect. You should just go with a settlement if you can. Even a BK7 under the current rules may not work for you given the lattitude of judges to sweep those who can pay into a 13. Of course it gets worse in about six months. By the way, Citi typically assigns rather than sells their charged off accounts. They then amend their tax filings as they collect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.