CA Law Firm Says They DO LIKE JUDGEMENTS?

[glasshalffull]

I just recently spoke with a law firm collection agency (I did validate they are part of our state bar) that just received my delinquent card account (around $4000).

The OC was Chase, then after 6 months it went to Pentagroup via Hilco for 6 months, then Hilco pulled it from Pentagroup and gave it to this new CA that is a law firm. They just contacted me with a letter giving me 30 days to reply.

Though currently I have no assets and no income (my newbie post with history, posted today, is in the collection agency section) she politely stated they ALWAYS prefer to sue and get a judgement because it is likely that in 10 years I'll be worth something. Of course she offered settlements I cannot afford at this time.

Though I know no one is truly judgement proof, I was surprised by her comments which are contradictory to most everything I have read. I am in my 40s, lost my home, truly have no assets and live in a rural, mountainous and nearly jobless area. Was this just manipulation attempt or is this mode of thought becoming the norm...sue and get what you can get.

Thanks!

[scardKaren]

I just recently spoke with a law firm collection agency (I did validate they are part of our state bar) that just received my delinquent card account (around $4000).

The OC was Chase, then after 6 months it went to Pentagroup via Hilco for 6 months, then Hilco pulled it from Pentagroup and gave it to this new CA that is a law firm. They just contacted me with a letter giving me 30 days to reply.

Though currently I have no assets and no income (my newbie post with history, posted today, is in the collection agency section) she politely stated they ALWAYS prefer to sue and get a judgement because it is likely that in 10 years I'll be worth something. Of course she offered settlements I cannot afford at this time.

Though I know no one is truly judgement proof, I was surprised by her comments which are contradictory to most everything I have read. I am in my 40s, lost my home, truly have no assets and live in a rural, mountainous and nearly jobless area. Was this just manipulation attempt or is this mode of thought becoming the norm...sue and get what you can get.

Thanks!

95% of people fail to defend themself in any way. Then the CA can clean out their bank account attach their wages etc. Why would a CA not like this? They don't care if your kids can't eat.

How much do they claim you owe? The threat of a BK might be more of a barging tool than poverty.

[FlaLawyer]

In some states judgments are good for up to 20 years. So, if the plaintiff waits until the last year of SOL to file the lawsuit, then gets a judgment the plaintiff has a better chance of recovery with a nice amount of annual interest to boot. Odds are at least some creditors will be worth something within the next 20 years.

[glasshalffull]

Thanks for your replies...

I understand what you are saying and nothing ever surprises me much anymore...and I know there are no consistent expectations to have...

But for the past year I continually would hear/read the same messages, at least where someone with no current income/no assets was concerned:

• CAs prefer settlements vs. BK or court
  
• Court is costly and time-consuming
  
• CAs handle tons of accounts...can't possibly sue everyone
  
• CAs want you to feel like they are giving your case special attention, but they are overwhelme
  

d

CAs can certainly see on my report that we are losing our home and haven't paid, have delinquent accounts, etc., no assets. I always knew the threat was there but just never heard of "suing 'em all to see what will stick."

[Baggins]

That's alot of what they do, buy a bunch of debts, wad them all up in a ball and throw them against the courthouse wall. Surprising how many stick just for the fact that the consumer no shows court. These ca atty's will tell you anything to make it look like you will lose no matter what you do. There's more than a few here, myself included, that can say alot of the time, that's not the case.

[FlaLawyer]

That's alot of what they do, buy a bunch of debts, wad them all up in a ball and throw them against the courthouse wall. Surprising how many stick just for the fact that the consumer no shows court. These ca atty's will tell you anything to make it look like you will lose no matter what you do. There's more than a few here, myself included, that can say alot of the time, that's not the case.

Even worse are the ones where the people get the summons and complaint and respond with a statement admitting they owe the debt to a JDB, but can't make a payment at this time. It's one thing to quietly go into default, but why waste the time, paper, and postage?

[pulpfiction]

While this is not at all my area; aren't there accounting (balance-sheet) issues that do much to improve the financial outlook of an OC, even if they won't be able to collect on the judgement for a decade, if ever?

Judgements are part of the return-on-investment for a JDB. Several JDB's (most notably Uniscum aka Unifund and CACH/Collect America) pretty much sue their entire portfolio--ESPECIALLY home owners. As 90%+ of consumers never fight back, the JDB sits back and waits to garnish wages and/or take a bank account--even if it takes years. Considering they paid $10-20 for a $1k debt, they can afford to be patient (of course, as the judgment continues to rack up interest).

More consumers than ever have done their homework and have learned how to fight back against these predators. The information era has its benefits

I just recently spoke with a law firm collection agency (I did validate they are part of our state bar) that just received my delinquent card account (around $4000).

The OC was Chase, then after 6 months it went to Pentagroup via Hilco for 6 months, then Hilco pulled it from Pentagroup and gave it to this new CA that is a law firm. They just contacted me with a letter giving me 30 days to reply.

Though currently I have no assets and no income (my newbie post with history, posted today, is in the collection agency section) she politely stated they ALWAYS prefer to sue and get a judgement because it is likely that in 10 years I'll be worth something. Of course she offered settlements I cannot afford at this time.

Though I know no one is truly judgement proof, I was surprised by her comments which are contradictory to most everything I have read. I am in my 40s, lost my home, truly have no assets and live in a rural, mountainous and nearly jobless area. Was this just manipulation attempt or is this mode of thought becoming the norm...sue and get what you can get.

Thanks!

[BrokeBob]

A few questions to the OP:

Was this always Chase, or was it a different card, such as WaMu, that Chase bought out? The reason I ask: Chase has an arbitration agreement, but it allows for suits under $25k. WaMu has an arbitration agreement, with NO lower limit. It would probably be a good idea to send them a DV with an election of arbitration, that may or may not prevent them from suing.

Also, Chase will have to validate the debt for the case to continue if you send a DV. Chase has horrible records, and they will often NOT send the info for a DV even when they still own the debt. In other words, this case should be winnable in court. It is doubtful that the JDB has the records. Ifr you fight this, you have an excellent chance at winning.

[glasshalffull]

This was initially a Providian card, then WaMu, then Chase...once delinquent, it went to Hilco Receivables who had Pentagroup "working us" - then Hilco pulled it from Pentagroup and recently gave it to the CA atty.

We still have more learning/reading to do on the arbitration issue we hear mention of...we're trying to get all the reading in but it takes time, for sure!

Would this arbitration take place when sending the DV request?...or is it a separate entity?

Thanks!

[BrokeBob]

Include an arbitration election with the DV. I recently sent one to Pentagroup, collecting on behalf of Hilco. I said something to the effect of:

"I hereby invoke all arbitration agreements associated with this alleged account", or something like that. The idea is you are invoking ALL the arbitration agreements. The WaMu agreement is much better for you than the Chase agreement.

[debtfreein18]

CAs can certainly see on my report that we are losing our home and haven't paid, have delinquent accounts, etc., no assets. I always knew the threat was there but just never heard of "suing 'em all to see what will stick."

Given all this, BK may be your best route. Even if you can beat the Chase debt, you may get stuck on your other debts. BK wipes it all clean, then when you do get back on your feet, you won't have the vultures waiting in the wings. Your credit is shot anyway, BK won't make it any worse. And by the time your finances recover, the BK will be old enough that you'll likely be able to qualify for new loans at decent rates. I think the biggest mistake people make is waiting so long to file. If the creditors aren't going to get their money no matter what, you may as well take the protection the law gives and make it official.

[KentWA]

Keep in mind it is very possible that the treat was made to get you to settle with them. Some of these JDBs will threaten suit even if they do not intend to. That is an FDCPA violation. I would not run off to BK court because on JDB said they are going to sue, make them file.

[BrokeBob]

There are some of us who are in a position where just about any rational person would file for BK. However, if we can keep the wolves at bay with arbitration and litigation and negotiation, why rush into BK?

[P.A.'er]

Even worse are the ones where the people get the summons and complaint and respond with a statement admitting they owe the debt to a JDB, but can't make a payment at this time. It's one thing to quietly go into default, but why waste the time, paper, and postage?

In PA this is a death sentence, if you admit to the debt you reset the SOL. I read a recent case where a guy answered this way on a debt from 1994, the judge seemed to feel bad for the guy but he had to rule against him. I hope he appeals it and wins.

Edited February 7, 2010 by P.A.'er

[eber3]

In PA this is a death sentence' date=' if you admit to the debt you reset the SOL. I read a recent case where a guy answered this way on a debt from 1994, the judge seemed to feel bad for the guy but he had to rule against him. I hope he appeales it and wins.[/quote']

That really doesn't seem right. Even a lot of criminal cases you can't be tried for after the SOL ends. I've heard of people stealing big amounts of cash, sitting on it until SOL for the crime expires, then spending it and even admitting to the crime. Worst thing that can happen then is making them pay taxes on it.

I can understand resetting the SOL if it hasn't already expired, but you shouldn't be able to incriminate yourself and bring a dead SOL back to life.

[P.A.'er]

I can understand resetting the SOL if it hasn't already expired, but you shouldn't be able to incriminate yourself and bring a dead SOL back to life.

That's the way it is in PA and there is tons of case law to support it. Don't get me wrong PA has a lot of consumer protections and really looks out for its citizens in tons of ways. But this little detail is what all consumer lawyers in PA preach about. Do not admit the debt. Do not acknowledge the debt. Do not make payment arrangements, because a judge may see this as an admission on an already SOL debt.

[CATLOVER777]

In some states judgments are good for up to 20 years. So, if the plaintiff waits until the last year of SOL to file the lawsuit, then gets a judgment the plaintiff has a better chance of recovery with a nice amount of annual interest to boot. Odds are at least some creditors will be worth something within the next 20 years.

This makes no sense because if you put your money in an IRA or 401k by the time 20 or so years came into being, what could you get? All your money is stashed in a retirement account that is protected. Just go ask OJ! In Texas and Florida they can't attach your home or garnish wages, if you're the head of house in FL. Sorry, but there are ways around all of this. Collection lawyers are just trying scare tactics.

My friend lives in Florida, and I am in charge of his finances. He had a default judgment issued against him about 12 years ago (he was improperly served). He never fought it, but to this day, he has a bank account, a home paid for in cash, a ton of credit cards and he just got a loan for a new car that he's driving around town. So, I know from personal experience that there are ways around that. You just have to play your cards right!

[jq26]

I can understand resetting the SOL if it hasn't already expired, but you shouldn't be able to incriminate yourself and bring a dead SOL back to life.

One of the theories behind an SOL is that old claims shouldn't be viable because they could be fraudulent and they are tougher to defend against (people die, move, records are archived, lost, etc.). By admitting to the debt, the defendant has defeated the purpose of the SOL because it isn't fraud by their own admission, so it makes sense to allow a plaintiff to recover at that point.

[scardKaren]

This makes no sense because if you put your money in an IRA or 401k by the time 20 or so years came into being, what could you get? All your money is stashed in a retirement account that is protected. Just go ask OJ! In Texas and Florida they can't attach your home or garnish wages, if you're the head of house in FL. Sorry, but there are ways around all of this. Collection lawyers are just trying scare tactics.

My friend lives in Florida, and I am in charge of his finances. He had a default judgment issued against him about 12 years ago (he was improperly served). He never fought it, but to this day, he has a bank account, a home paid for in cash, a ton of credit cards and he just got a loan for a new car that he's driving around town. So, I know from personal experience that there are ways around that. You just have to play your cards right!

That only leaves 48 states. And in 2 you have to know how to play your cards right.

[jq26]

This makes no sense because if you put your money in an IRA or 401k by the time 20 or so years came into being, what could you get? All your money is stashed in a retirement account that is protected. Just go ask OJ!

In many states, that isn't the case. Liens attach to homes. Vehicles are levied on. Bank accounts and wages are garnished. And if you die, creditors will be paid before your heirs under state law.

Just ask OJ. In 1999, the court auctioned his personal stuff, including his Heismann trophies to pay the Goldman family.

[debtfreein18]

Keep in mind it is very possible that the treat was made to get you to settle with them. Some of these JDBs will threaten suit even if they do not intend to. That is an FDCPA violation. I would not run off to BK court because on JDB said they are going to sue, make them file.

There are some of us who are in a position where just about any rational person would file for BK. However, if we can keep the wolves at bay with arbitration and litigation and negotiation, why rush into BK?

If Chase was the OP's only alledged debt, I'd agree with you. But it sounds like they have several accounts that are in default, plus a looming forclosure (arbitration won't help there!). And these accounts sound recent, meaning account info, statements, and other evidence aren't as likely to be lost by the plantiff should she be sued. Even if she fights Chase and wins, she may not be as lucky on some of the other accounts, and there is still the forclosure and owing on any deficiancy from being under water.

OP, by all means research all of your options. I just wanted you to be aware that BK is one of the options you have. If after trying to fight it, it looks like a losing battle, you can file BK and be done with it all, have a fresh start, and not worry about judgements and liens. And research BK just as much, as with anything else, there are pros and cons.

[Bigwoodystyl]

...

Just ask OJ. In 1999, the court auctioned his personal stuff, including his Heisman trophies to pay the Goldman family.

Trophy, singular. There is only one who owns two stiff-arming statues