Jump to content

worried about bank account seizure


sunnyboy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello, 1st post here. I'm in quite a bit of debt and one card co. is in the process of obtaining a judgement against me. Can they freeze my bank account, and if so, is there any way to avoid that? If I open up another bank account will they find it easily?

I'm working on improving my situation and would like to start making payments, but for now, my threatened mortgage has been the priority and keeping the phone on and the electric; keeping the car on the road, so i can work, etc. It seems I need the checking account to keep up with the essentials, but i'm worried i'll lose the paltry sum thats in there.

I'm in NY, if thats important. Thanks, sunnyboy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello, 1st post here. I'm in quite a bit of debt and one card co. is in the process of obtaining a judgement against me. Can they freeze my bank account, and if so, is there any way to avoid that? If I open up another bank account will they find it easily?

I'm working on improving my situation and would like to start making payments, but for now, my threatened mortgage has been the priority and keeping the phone on and the electric; keeping the car on the road, so i can work, etc. It seems I need the checking account to keep up with the essentials, but i'm worried i'll lose the paltry sum thats in there.

I'm in NY, if thats important. Thanks, sunnyboy

They can't do anything until they actually have judgment.

Once they have a judgment, how they try to execute the judgment/what assets they go after will be up to them. In most sates they can go after your wages and that's often where they'll start but yes, they can seize your bank accounts (checking, savings, etc) and if they are persistent they can find any new accounts you open.

It would be best if you could work out a voluntary repayment plan with them to avoid having your wages taken or bank accounts drained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're a NYS Resident check out this link:

http://www.nedap.org/hotline/defenses.html

A new law called the Exempt Income Protection Act (EIPA) went into effect on January 1, 2009! EIPA protects bank accounts that contains subsistence funds such as government benefits, pensions, and some earned income. EIPA prevents creditors and debt collectors from freezing these accounts to pay private debts, like credit cards.

There's criteria too on what basic weekly income is exempt from garnishments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Robert for the good info. Templar, i appreciate the link. Do you happen to know if this is a federal law or just for new york state? It appears from the guide that accounts w/ less than $1716 are protected ( and also up to $2500 if containing funds from specific protected sources). I'm gonna keep researching- its nice to be sure- I suppose I should talk to a lawyer...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is little point in seizing a bank account with $2.50 in it. Just sayin' :whistle:
That is exactly correct and a valuable lesson for those who have judgments against them.

But there are other considerations to worry about such as how to keep judgment creditors from getting any money by means of garnishment for one. It isn't cheap but why not sue yourself and garnish your own wages for the full 25% so there isn't anything left for them to garnish?

Now then, before anyone starts posting statements claiming that I am nuts because everyone knows that you can't sue yourself and garnish your own wages, let them hold their tongues because it can and is being done. To find out how it can be done go to google and search for the case of Stanley A. Brown vs. Stanley A. Brown. Or google for "how to sue yourself and win" and you will come up with the Brown case.

There are several instances of people suing themselves listed and most of them are tongue-in-cheek funny cases but there is nothing funny about the Brown v. Brown case. The way it is done depends on your personal situation but it always depends on using a corporate structure to sue yourself with. If you attempt to set up your own corporation to do that with and you are actually the sole owner of that corporation creditors can easily pierce the corporate veil and prove that you are using the corporation to defraud your creditors so that's not a workable solution but if you use someone else's corporation that sues you, garnishes your wages for the full 25% allowable under law and sends your money back to you via U.S. Postal money orders each month nobody else can get a dime through wage garnishment.

Yes, it is a bit expensive but let's look at the math. Just to make the math easy let's say you make $100 a week. A garnishment can take up to $25 of that $100. Let's assume that the costs to do that are the costs of buying the money orders and postage, keeping the books and paying the corporate taxes and other misc. expenses, comes to 30% of what is garnished. Thirty percent of $25.00 is $7.50 so you get back $17.50 a week.

Which is better, losing $25 a week or losing $7.50 a week? And if the corporation you hire to do the garnishment is an anonymous corporation that you do not own then the judgment creditor would find it difficult if not impossible to pierce the corporate veil and prove that you are using the corporation to defraud your creditors. If you actually own the corporation they can easily pierce your corporate veil but if you don't own any part of the corporation then they can't prove that.

Let's say you own a newer vehicle(s) free and clear. It is possible that in some states they can seize your vehicle(s), boat(s), trailer(s) or other titled items that have value you don't want to lose. That same corporation can also put liens on those items for at least double what they are worth. Judgment creditors won't even think of seizing them because they would have to pay off those liens before they could sell them and they can't make any money that way so you are home safe there.

Then let us say that you have a nice home with lots of valuable items such as furniture, appliances, big screen TV sets, computers or what have you. That same corporation can provide you with a rental agreement on all of those things and if the sheriff comes to your door to see what can be grabbed you have only to show the rental agreement and the list of items you have rented from that corporation and the sheriff can only go back and report that you own nothing that can be grabbed.

Yes, I'm sure that many posters can find flaws and problems with that scenario and if so, I'd like to hear their comments.

The next question that will probably arise is that I must be advertising something but let me hasten to assure one and all that I do not own any such corporation nor am I affiliated with any such corporation in any way but if I owed money to anyone that might sue me I would not hesitate to use such a corporation to protect what I have from garnishment or seizure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sue yourself and win...yeah...sounds like a plan to me....how about shoot yourself in the leg and then sue the gun maker; that would probably work too!

There are also any number of people who think they can avoid paying Federal income taxes as well...and it often works...for a while.

I would suggest that anyone taking the "sue yourself and win" route would be a fool and possibly setting themselves up for a criminal fraud charge.

If you have judgments against you and you've done all you can do to handle it/them but simply cannot then the next step is bankruptcy...while bankruptcy should never be the first choice it also has its purpose and there is no question of the legality of it.

Have a nice day.

Getting a little too cynical, Robert. Please lower the volume.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sue yourself and win...yeah...sounds like a plan to me....how about shoot yourself in the leg and then sue the gun maker; that would probably work too!
Well, it seems that at least one attorney did somewhat the same thing as you suggest. A google search turns up a case where an attorney sued himself for failing to adhere to medically acceptable exercise and eating routines and therefore suffered health problems. (LOL)

There are also any number of people who think they can avoid paying Federal income taxes as well...and it often works...for a while.

Quite so. Most of the anti-tax people either have served or are serving prison sentences or other severe punishments. Many claim that the reason the government comes down on tax protesters is that the tax protesters are thieves. The underlying theory is that the government is stealing from the people and the government hates the competition. (LOL).

I would suggest that anyone taking the "sue yourself and win" route would be a fool and possibly setting themselves up for a criminal fraud charge.

Ok. For the purposes of conversation only, please tell us what are the elements of criminal fraud and what it takes to prove criminal fraud in court. Furthermore, to aid in our discussion of what constitutes criminal fraud let us use only refereces to actual statute law, court cases involving the same or similiar situations or actual government web sites defining the elements of criminal fraud and what it takes to prove the charge of criminal fraud.

I think that since the United States Supreme Court has recently ruled that proving criminal fraud is almost impossible except in cases where the government was the victim of the fraud you will have an extremely tough time trying to prove to anyone that your argument has merit.

One of the elements is certainly going to be that the defendant must have made some statement he knew to be false that somehow deprived the plaintiff of certain rights or benefits or property that was rightfully his. In the scenario we are discussing the defendant would not make any statement to any plaintiff. In fact the plaintiff would not be aware that the defendant already had a garnishment against him until he tried to get a garnishment of his own. Then he would find out that another collection agency already had a garnishment in place beforehand. The first collection agency would be a legitimate collection agency or judgment recovery company. The garnishment would have been obtained as a result of a stipulated agreement for judgment based on a cognovit note signed by the debtor and adjudicated by a court of law to be a lawful garnishment. Now then, how could the second plaintiff prove that the first garnishment was fraudulent? Please explain to us how that second judgment creditor could prove that the first was fraudulent? If you can't do that then your arguement simply won't hold up.

If you have judgments against you and you've done all you can do to handle it/them but simply cannot then the next step is bankruptcy...while bankruptcy should never be the first choice it also has its purpose and there is no question of the legality of it.

Have a nice day.

Bankruptcy is most certainly an option and it is the most common route people take in order to attempt to resolve their financial problems. But filing bankruptcy is now a very expensive proposition that most people who can't afford to pay or don't have the funds with which to pay also cannot come up with the funds to pay for their bankruptcies even if they can qualify which is also not an easy thing to do these days. Bankruptcy is not a viable option for those who only owe a few thousand dollars, have no jobs, live on very limited incomes or have other adverse circumstances. These days you almost have to be a General Motors or a Chrysler or owe huge debts that you could not possibly pay in order to qualify. Of course, if you are a GM or a Chrysler you will come out a stronger entity than when you went into bankruptcy. That is not the case for the average consumer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got to love creative solutions :lol:

You must answer integoratories discovery etc truthfully. But as we all know the truth changes on an almost daily basis.

Q: List all bank accounts you have.

A: I have bank accounts at Bank A and Bank B

That is the truth today I have complied with the law.

Now tomorrow if I open a bank account at Bank C I have done nothing wrong and am under no obligation to run back to the original questioner and update the information. The onus is on them to re ask the questions.

Repeat ad infinitum.

Debt collection like life is a game that has rules. The rules are not what make life difficult they are what make life fun :p

If the other side don't like them then they need to find a new game to play instead of taking their ball home and whining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok. For the purposes of conversation only, please tell us what are the elements of criminal fraud and what it takes to prove criminal fraud in court.

By definition Fraud is: Intentional perversion of the truth in order to induce another party to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right.

It's pretty self-explanatory.

But as we all know the truth changes on an almost daily basis.

And that comment about truth changing is simply silly. Something is either the truth or by its very definition is a lie. 99% truth is still a lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By definition Fraud is: Intentional perversion of the truth in order to induce another party to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right.

It's pretty self-explanatory.

Yes, that is quite true. Now then, let us apply that explanation to the discussion at hand. Let us suppose that someone who owes money agrees to a stipulated judgment, the attorney for that creditor or collection agency files that stipulated agreement with the court and the court issues a judgment against the debtor. The attorney then proceeds to garnish the wages of the debtor using the court's judgment.

How would it come to pass that a second creditor who has also done the same thing only to find out he has to wait his turn before his garnishment can take effect would ask any questions of the debtor? If he did so then he would be put in the position of having to do the same for any similar situation. It is simply not believable that any attorney would go whining to the court because he had to wait his turn. The court would not be inclined to pay any attention to his pleas. He would have no reason to believe that the court could be persuaded to vacate it's first judgment so his could be put in place, now would he?

So the question I have is how would it ever come to pass that the defendant would be put in the position of perverting the truth if he were never questioned? It is not a matter of theory. It is a matter of practicality.

The suspicion of fraud must be present first of all then the allegation must be proven by some practical means. So the question becomes one of what would raise the suspicion of fraud? The attorney read this thread on the internet and now supposes that any judgment and garnishment that was originated before he filed his might be fraudulent?

Defining fraud is difficult enough to start off with but proving it is another matter indeed. First of all the very act of failing to pay what one owes might well be defined as fraud but no court has ever ruled that failure to perform under the terms of a contract or agreement could be considered fraud and most especially not criminal fraud.

That is the only point I make. Another poster stated that it might be criminal fraud and my only contention here is that it could not possibly be construed as a criminal fraud. Any other arguments or positions are still open to friendly debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By definition Fraud is: Intentional perversion of the truth in order to induce another party to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right.

It's pretty self-explanatory.

And that comment about truth changing is simply silly. Something is either the truth or by its very definition is a lie. 99% truth is still a lie.

Nonsense.

Where is the fraud or perversion in answering the question you are asked truthfully? You are only required to answer what you are asked, no more no less.

I do not accept the veracity of your assertion regarding the definition of fraud for a number of reasons but they aren't really germane to this discussion. Suffice it to say the definition can and does vary for a variety of reasons.

Even if we were to accept the definition you have put forward and for the sake of argument I will you are making a huge leap by constructing "intent" there are very specific things that have to be fulfilled before you can prove intent.

What exactly is the truth you are alleging is perverted? I have not told anything less than 100% of the truth by saying that I have an account at Bank A and Bank B. There is no compulsion for me to hazard a guess at what may or may not happen in the future and if asked the same question in 24 hours 6 months or 3 years would my answer be different. No such question would be allowed.

Likewise what are the other side parting with in a question? What legal right are they giving up?

The question is normally something along the lines of will you identify any and all bank accounts that you have. NOT identify all and any mythical bank accounts that you may or may not have have in the future.

It is not my role to advise the other side how to win against me nor to tell them which questions they should be asking in an attempt to prove their case.

This strategy has been used effectively and without successful challenge for many decades. To my knowledge no one has ever been convicted of fraud for acting on the basis I have suggested. That isnt to say they stepped outside that basis, but then that would be a different situation.

The truth does vary. Ask me what the weather is today and I will say dry and windy. Ask me the same question tomorrow and the answer may well be different. Both statements are true yet there is a variance in the answer. What is true today is not necessarily true tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Billy Bauer, long time no see.
Billy is not how my name is spelled. Also my friends do not call me Billie. Only debt collectors call me by that name. That is how I always know that it is a debt collector on the phone. Of course it has been a great many years since I have had any calls from debt collectors either.

Seems that they don't like to answer my 18 questions for debt collectors.(LOL) They always end up creating more problems for themselves than they care to get tangled up in. They only want to talk to people who are compliant, beg for mercy and pay up quickly.

They also don't usually like to talk to people who are recording their calls for training purposes. Seems like they don't want to be trained so once they find out that the call is being recorded for training purposes they hang up quickly. (LOL)

Or maybe they don't like the idea that the recordings of their calls will be put on the internet for all and sundry to listen to.

So anyway, my friends and acquaintances call me Bill, not Billie.

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.