Jump to content

Miranda Question?


done hiding
 Share

Recommended Posts

Another thing to remember is that most collection suits are handled in small claims (different name in different states). The "wanna be" judges have very little "schooling" in legal matters and are less likely to act on your claim

As it was once explained to me, and forgive me if I get the terminology wrong, but “small claims” courts where we do often find ourselves in these matters, are supposed to be courts of “equity” or “fairness” and not necessarily tied to the letter of the law meaning that it isn’t a problem of the Judge not being well versed in the law but rather that the Judge is trying to reach a fair decision even if the letter of the law might require a different outcome in a higher court.

Therefore, if a consumer goes to court and that consumer truly does legally owe a debt to the plaintiff then it’s likely that the Judge is going to find in favor of the plaintiff if they can prove the basic elements of their case.

Yes, there may have been technical violations of the law by the CA/OC but the Judge is probably not going to be too concerned with those unless they are really abusive/substantial (and you can prove it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I strongly disagree with the inference that because a consumer is in a position to enforce his legal right, he is somehow taking advantage of the system.

Maybe those of you who advocate this postion would be more comfortable if the "least sophisticated consumer" test were replaced with the "financial means to enforce your rights test". Then, consumer protection laws could be made to apply only to those who don't have the means to protect themselves when those rights are violated.

"We're sorry, this law doesn't apply to you; you have a job and can read."

I don't believe that inference was that a consumer is taking advantage of the system by enforcing his/her rights; I believe what is being said is that there are consumers who DO take advantage of the system and who use the law to hide from their legitimate debts or use the laws to generate a second income...those are the people who could eventually erode the protections we have (IMHO).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe that inference was that a consumer is taking advantage of the system by enforcing his/her rights; I believe what is being said is that there are consumers who DO take advantage of the system and who use the law to hide from their legitimate debts or use the laws to generate a second income...those are the people who could eventually erode the protections we have (IMHO).

I would never want to consciously erode the protections that have been established, however I do find myself wanting to capitalize on any violation a CA may make.

Several years ago when dealing with the terminal illness and eventual passing of a loved one, I walked away from not only my debts but life. At the same time I took a pretty big hit to my income. When I started to get on my feet again, I started managing my finances and addressing my debts. Through this process I dealt with a few CA's who made threats and accusations, I remember how this felt, it still makes me mad.

I've been managing my finances for several years with the assumption that my credit would eventually come around. It was only by accident that I found this site and began a proactive approach to addressing how my credit is viewed by others.

It may be revenge but I find myself wanting to get them (CA's) back, if not for myself but for others. I'm fortunate to be in a financial situation that I can afford an attorney.

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.