Jump to content

Lost civil case to Midland and can't afford to pay them. What do I do??


Recommended Posts

I lost a case to Midland for a debt to Chase bank. I don't have the money to pay them. I am the single wage earner in a family of 4 and we scrape by week to week as it is. How am I going to come up with 1500 to pay Midland? I am in Texas and I rent and do not own my vehicle, and we do not have anything that we can liquidate to come up with the money.

What do I do??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Texas wage garnishment is not allowed.

 

 So don't rush to pay midland anything they have lots of money.

 

When you have a judgment against you the plaintiff will serve you notice to come to a location such as the court house or the plaintiffs law office and they will ask you how much you can pay or they will ask if you would like to set up payments always say you have nothing left to pay them anything.

 

If you have money in the bank remove it asap.

 

They may give you a debtor exam that asks you a bunch of questions about your $$$$.$$

 

Each time they call you down say you don't have any money to pay them.

 

If you have to go to the court house don't have any money, gold, rings on you sometimes they may have you empty your pockets, purse, wallet, they can take it if you have it, so have nothing but your drivers license on you.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jurisdiction of the court can be challenged at any time, even after a judgement.....if you can show they had no standing to bring a claim or their pleading or the trial itself was handled wrong you can challenge jurisdiction and get a void judgment.

 

Did they have an affidavit or a witness? without either of those they had no standing and the court had no jurisdiction. Do not file in the same court file in another court. this is called a collateral attack. The reason you file in another court is a court can not determine for its self if it has jurisdiction,

 

Whitmore v Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990)
Before a Court can consider the merits of a case, the person seeking to invoke the courts jurisdiction must establish the requisite of standing to sue. To do so he muse prove that their is a case or controversy by clearly demonstrating that he has suffered an injury in fact that is concrete in both qualitative and temporal sense. He must show that the injury can be traced to the challenged action and is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.
First, a plaintiff must demonstrate an "injury in fact," which is "concrete,” "distinct and palpable,” and "actual or imminent.”

Standing to sue would mean did they actually own the debt, they can not prove it so they lacked standing which in turn means the court lacked jurisdiction. If they did not prove they owned the debt at the start of the case, the judge did not even have the jurisdiction to even hear the case, let alone review any of the evidence.

 

How could they prove an injury in fact if they have not proved they even own the debt in the first place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jurisdiction of the court can be challenged at any time, even after a judgement.....if you can show they had no standing to bring a claim or their pleading or the trial itself was handled wrong you can challenge jurisdiction and get a void judgment.

 

Did they have an affidavit or a witness? without either of those they had no standing and the court had no jurisdiction. Do not file in the same court file in another court. this is called a collateral attack. The reason you file in another court is a court can not determine for its self if it has jurisdiction,

 

Whitmore v Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990)

Before a Court can consider the merits of a case, the person seeking to invoke the courts jurisdiction must establish the requisite of standing to sue. To do so he muse prove that their is a case or controversy by clearly demonstrating that he has suffered an injury in fact that is concrete in both qualitative and temporal sense. He must show that the injury can be traced to the challenged action and is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.

First, a plaintiff must demonstrate an "injury in fact," which is "concrete,” "distinct and palpable,” and "actual or imminent.”

Standing to sue would mean did they actually own the debt, they can not prove it so they lacked standing which in turn means the court lacked jurisdiction. If they did not prove they owned the debt at the start of the case, the judge did not even have the jurisdiction to even hear the case, let alone review any of the evidence.

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.