Jump to content

Call from attorneys office today at work


jeff6898
 Share

Recommended Posts

Got a call from a attorneys office called Wagner and Hunt today at work. THey are calling for a debt owed to Dell computers. I bought it i2006 so the it is still with in the SOL. THey wanted my bank account number to take out payments I can't afford. I said no. They said if I don't agree to it they will file a lawsuit. Amount owed with fees they said is $2,000. SInce our income is considered below poverty level can they still garnesh my wages? Also I asked them not to call me at work anymore and they said the can call me anywhere they want since they are attorneys is this true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got a call from a attorneys office called Wagner and Hunt today at work. THey are calling for a debt owed to Dell computers. I bought it i2006 so the it is still with in the SOL. THey wanted my bank account number to take out payments I can't afford. I said no. They said if I don't agree to it they will file a lawsuit. Amount owed with fees they said is $2,000. SInce our income is considered below poverty level can they still garnesh my wages? Also I asked them not to call me at work anymore and they said the can call me anywhere they want since they are attorneys is this true?

If the creditor (I'm assuming it's still Dell at this point but whoever the creditor is) decided to sue you then they can sue you and; assuming they have the goods; will probably win.

Florida has some pretty friendly consumer protection laws so you need to become very familiar with them. In any case, each state has its own limits on how much wages can be taken from a consumer's paycheck - whether your income falls below that level or not I can't answer; you'll need to figure that out based on what your specific income is (being below the "poverty level", however/whoever is defining that is immaterial; only the specific hard numbers matter).

As to their calling you, they "might" be able to depending on whether the FDCPA would consider this "attorney" as a third-party collector or not but it's most likely that he is a third-party collector and as such, is subject to the FDCPA; that means you have the right to restrict phone calls to your employment, cell phone, etc.

I would suggest that your next step is to start the DV process (there are plenty of threads/resources here about what that entails)...eventually, however, you are probably going to have to work out some sort of repayment arrangement on this.

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should you EVER give a collector (even if he's an attorney) access to your checking and/or savings (or any other) accounts...when and if the time comes, you'll need to find a way to pay that doesn't put your personal accounts at risk (such as a special purpose checking account; WesternUnion, money order mailed to them, etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got a call from a attorneys office called Wagner and Hunt today at work. THey are calling for a debt owed to Dell computers. I bought it i2006 so the it is still with in the SOL. THey wanted my bank account number to take out payments I can't afford. I said no. They said if I don't agree to it they will file a lawsuit. Amount owed with fees they said is $2,000. SInce our income is considered below poverty level can they still garnesh my wages? Also I asked them not to call me at work anymore and they said the can call me anywhere they want since they are attorneys is this true?

And if you had a tape recording of this conversation, they would already be defendants in the FDCPA suit you have filed against them. The law firm certainly is governed by FDCPA and a "do not call me at work" is binding on them. Next time they call you at work, they owe you $1000 Statutory Damages under FDCPA, and you should sue immediately.

You said you are at the poverty level. The limit for Garnishment is this:

1. Your Gross pay for the pay period, minus

2. Required deductions for Federal and State Income tax and FICA/Medicare,

3. Minus any other legally required deductions like alimony or child support equals

4. Your Truth in Lending Act Net Pay (TILNP).

5. Subtract your TILNP from $204.75 for weekly pay periods, $409.50 for biweekly pay periods and $442.26 for semi monthly pay periods. The difference is the amount subject to garnishment. If the Garnishment rate in your State is 10%, then the Judgment creditor gets 10% of the result in step 5. If the result in step 5 is zero, then they get nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....

Not every FDCPA violation, even if real and even if provable should be litigated nor does every case that should go a consumer’s way go that way.

Attorneys are not automatically covered by the FDCPA as your post tends to indicate (unless Florida law extends FDCPA protections – I’m not expect on FL law). While it’s likely this “attorney” is subject to it, to just assume so is risky.

I think you and I both know that even if this attorney is covered by the FDCPA, and while calling the OP again at work would then be a “violation” (based on the OPs’ request not to call there) with no proof the OP gave those instructions, any suit would be a waste of time and money. For that matter, suing on just one violation, even if 100% provable is unlikely to get a judge very excited.

Beyond that, the $1,000 you claim the OP would be owed is the maximum award; there is ZERO guarantee as to how much a judge would award even should he/she find in the OP’s favor.

I realize you have a zeal for litigation but IMAHO, remarks such as yours could easily get a consumer into a position they can neither handle nor escape from and only wind up costing them far more money than this debt represents.

Rushing into court fore every perceived (and even every real) FDCPA violation is an excellent way to make bad case law and also an excellent way for a consumer to expend money they likely don’t have and which would be better put to use in settling debts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two thoughts --

1. A "do not call at work" instruction needs to be made in writing. Preferably by certified mail.

Well...yes and no.

A verbal instruciton, such as telephone converstaion is/should be good enough to invoke the restriction. The problem is, there probably ins't one CA in 10,000 that would honor such a request made only verbally because of a lack of proof that the consumer made the request. Even a tape recording, while better than nothing, would make pursuing litigation difficult at best.

So...bottom line is, consumers simply have to use U.S. mail and really must use CMRRR in order to have some hard proof that the request was made and in fact, I go a step further than that, whenever I'm sending correspondence like that, I also mail a copy to the same address with POM and if I have a fax number, I also fax a copy. :)

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.