Judgement Bank Levy Midland

[credit2011]

I had two legal order fees showing for small amounts taken out of my checking. I called the bank and the local Sheriff and was told it was Midland Funding. They have a judgement against me from a few years and to note- I never received a notice of Levy as of today - so far nothing. The judgement is about 3K.

The Sheriff's office said I can file a CLAIM OF EXEMPTION HERE IN CALIFORNIA - I was directed to file it with my local courthouse. I have 15 days to file from the date of levy. The lady said they have 10 days to oppose. If they answer and oppose, a hearing date will be set.

Question  is- Should I do this and take the chance they wont be able to come up with proper docs or whatever at the hearing? Do I have a right to supoena a witness? 

What are my chances? Should I call them to make a settlement after I file my exemption?

Help !!

[Clydesmom]

4 minutes ago, credit2011 said:

I never received a notice of Levy as of today - so far nothing.

I think the only state that requires they notify you of an intent to levy is Florida.

8 minutes ago, credit2011 said:

The judgement is about 3K.

Were you ever served for the lawsuit itself?

9 minutes ago, credit2011 said:

I can file a CLAIM OF EXEMPTION HERE IN CALIFORNIA - I was directed to file it with my local courthouse.

California does provide an exemption of levy if you qualify due to disability and other circumstances.  The worst that happens is you don't qualify.  You should file for it.

10 minutes ago, credit2011 said:

Should I do this and take the chance they wont be able to come up with proper docs or whatever at the hearing? Do I have a right to supoena a witness?

They don't need to have proof to levy you.  Only the judgment.  The only witnesses would be you and them. It is too late for a defense to the suit. The time for that was before they got the judgment.

16 minutes ago, credit2011 said:

What are my chances? Should I call them to make a settlement after I file my exemption?

Depends on whether you have valid exemptions according to California law.  Simply not being able to afford it isn't enough.  File the exemption.  If you were never served with the suit you should also immediately call a consumer attorney.  It may be possible to have the judgment set aside and force them to start over. This is not easy but if they didn't serve you properly the attorney most likely will take the case at no cost to you.

 

[credit2011]

Just now, Clydesmom said:

I think the only state that requires they notify you of an intent to levy is Florida.

Were you ever served for the lawsuit itself?

California does provide an exemption of levy if you qualify due to disability and other circumstances.  The worst that happens is you don't qualify.  You should file for it.

They don't need to have proof to levy you.  Only the judgment.  The only witnesses would be you and them. It is too late for a defense to the suit. The time for that was before they got the judgment.

Depends on whether you have valid exemptions according to California law.  Simply not being able to afford it isn't enough.  File the exemption.  If you were never served with the suit you should also immediately call a consumer attorney.  It may be possible to have the judgment set aside and force them to start over. This is not easy but if they didn't serve you properly the attorney most likely will take the case at no cost to you.

 

I had a court case and I lost on this one and the judgement was entered in 2015 or  2016 I dont remember. It is not on my credit report as I see so far. Do I have a chance to beat this or lower the amount of judgement? I do not qualify for  disability and other circumstances. The bank was Wells Fargo and my main concern is improper charges to begin with.Wells Fargo is so fraudulent to begin with.

[credit2011]

I am not sure it its too late to defend an amount for the judgement. They still would have to provide information docs and witnesses if it went to a hearing. They screwed up one time before in court against me and I won on another case. 

[credit2011]

I read this but what I am trying to find out is if I should make a payment arrangement with them to sop additional levies-

http://www.socaladvocates.com/Bankruptcy-Blog/2013/September/How-to-Stop-a-Bank-Levy-in-California-File-a-Cla.aspx

[Clydesmom]

1 hour ago, credit2011 said:

The bank was Wells Fargo and my main concern is improper charges to begin with.Wells Fargo is so fraudulent to begin with.

The time for that was when you were sued.  It is WAY too late to bring that up now.  It will have no affect on the levy.

1 hour ago, credit2011 said:

Do I have a chance to beat this or lower the amount of judgement?

Legally?  No.  The only way to lower the amount of the judgment is to make a lump sum settlement offer that they accept as payment in full.

40 minutes ago, credit2011 said:

I am not sure it its too late to defend an amount for the judgement.

It is.  Once the court ordered the judgment and the time for appeal and a calendar year elapsed it became set in stone.

41 minutes ago, credit2011 said:

They still would have to provide information docs and witnesses if it went to a hearing.

Not the same way they would at trial.  You file for exemption.  They read the paper asking for it and determine that they do not believe you qualify.  If you don't meet the court definition for exemption there won't even be a hearing.  If they oppose it and there is a hearing they only need to have their judgment.  The burden of proof you are exempt from levy is on you.  This is about the levy.  Not how much you were ordered to pay in judgment.

44 minutes ago, credit2011 said:

They screwed up one time before in court against me and I won on another case. 

At trial.  BIG difference.

43 minutes ago, credit2011 said:

I read this but what I am trying to find out is if I should make a payment arrangement with them to sop additional levies-

http://www.socaladvocates.com/Bankruptcy-Blog/2013/September/How-to-Stop-a-Bank-Levy-in-California-File-a-Cla.aspx

Did you read this part:

"At the hearing the judge will review the claim of exemptions and determine whether you are entitled to claim the exemptions."

What that means is if there is a hearing Midland doesn't need documents and witnesses. You DO.

"When the claim of exemptions is allowed it only means that the funds that were levied were exempt. It does not mean that the judgment is not valid"

Even if you get the exemption per CA law it doesn't mean the judgment isn't still valid.  It means they cannot take your money right now.

The judgment will continue to accrue interest.  Clearly Midland isn't going to go away since they levied your account.  I would beg/borrow the money from a friend or family for a lump sum settlement then pay the person loaning it back ASAP.  The sooner you settle this judgment the better.

[credit2011]

I called Midland and they said that they will not work with me regarding a payment arrangement and they said NO absolutely not

 

 

[Goody_Ouchless]

...and they won't take any less in a lump sum?

[credit2011]

5 minutes ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

...and they won't take any less in a lump sum?

No I tried - I dont know how to do this further- This is part of their BS

[Pericles]

3 hours ago, credit2011 said:

I had two legal order fees showing for small amounts taken out of my checking.

Those are the fees charged by your bank for the processing of the levy legal documents.  Your bank has likely frozen whatever funds are left in your account, or at least some multiple of the judgment amount.  If some substantial amount is frozen, then you don't have much leverage to negotiate.  Unless you can offer more than the amount that is frozen.

 

3 hours ago, credit2011 said:

I had a court case and I lost on this one and the judgement was entered in 2015 or  2016 I dont remember.

If the levy is based on a judgment for a case that was decided on the merits, then it is unlikely that any arguments about the judgment amount will be considered.

 

2 hours ago, credit2011 said:

I read this but what I am trying to find out is if I should make a payment arrangement with them to sop additional levies-

http://www.socaladvocates.com/Bankruptcy-Blog/2013/September/How-to-Stop-a-Bank-Levy-in-California-File-a-Cla.aspx

All you can argue at this point is why funds that your bank has frozen might be exempt from levy.  From your link;

Quote

Under California law certain types of income and funds are exempt from creditor collection and are not subject to a bank levy. The following funds are exempt from a bank levy:

1. 75% of Paid Earnings that were Paid 30 days before the Levy
2. Social Security Benefits
3. Worker's Compensation Benefits
4. Unemployment Benefits
5. Funds that are necessary for basic necessities.
6. Veterans Benefits
7. Supplemental Security Income
8. Disability insurance benefits

If the funds in your checking account are earnings deposited within 30 days prior to the date of the levy, then 75% of that amount should be exempt.  If the amount that they can levy is reduced, this may increase your leverage to negotiate a settlement of the remaining amount of the judgment.

[credit2011]

2 hours ago, Pericles said:

Those are the fees charged by your bank for the processing of the levy legal documents.  Your bank has likely frozen whatever funds are left in your account, or at least some multiple of the judgment amount.  If some substantial amount is frozen, then you don't have much leverage to negotiate.  Unless you can offer more than the amount that is frozen.

 

If the levy is based on a judgment for a case that was decided on the merits, then it is unlikely that any arguments about the judgment amount will be considered.

 

All you can argue at this point is why funds that your bank has frozen might be exempt from levy.  From your link;

If the funds in your checking account are earnings deposited within 30 days prior to the date of the levy, then 75% of that amount should be exempt.  If the amount that they can levy is reduced, this may increase your leverage to negotiate a settlement of the remaining amount of the judgment.

 The funds in my account  were deposited from a company that paid me to work for them via independent contractor via their direct deposit into Pay Pal, but then I transferred the funds to that bank account. 

[credit2011]

Is this information on stipulated judgement request applicable to after judgement stuff or not? 

https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/credit-card-stipulated-judgments-1282.php

[Harry Seaward]

10 minutes ago, credit2011 said:

Is this information on stipulated judgement request applicable to after judgement stuff or not? 

No.  The purpose of a stipulated judgment is to prevent a creditor from getting a judgment in court.  Since they already have a judgment against you, there's no place for a stipulated judgment.

[Pericles]

1 hour ago, credit2011 said:

The funds in my account  were deposited from a company that paid me to work for them via independent contractor via their direct deposit into Pay Pal, but then I transferred the funds to that bank account. 

See CCP § 704.070.

"Paid earnings that can be traced into deposit accounts or in the form of cash or its equivalent"

But "earnings" (as defined in CCP § 706.011) means "compensation payable by an employer to an employee".

I don't know if the section would apply to non-employees such as contractors or the ubiquitous "gig" type stuff that has replaced "wages" paid by an employer.

[Clydesmom]

5 hours ago, credit2011 said:

The funds in my account  were deposited from a company that paid me to work for them via independent contractor via their direct deposit into Pay Pal, but then I transferred the funds to that bank account.

I suspect that the transfer of the funds from the  Pay Pal account to your bank account may have rendered it simply "money" rather than wages.  I could be wrong but a lawyer would know for certain.

[credit2011]

Midland has this website set up where you can make payments via credit card or send them cashiers checks, even Western Union. I have not logged on there yet but the page does say " Access your MCM account to setup and manage payment plans."

So why on earth was I told it full payment or the highway, I am trying to find if there is a law with a judgement that allows you to set up a payment plan. 

 

[BV80]

13 minutes ago, credit2011 said:

Midland has this website set up where you can make payments via credit card or send them cashiers checks, even Western Union. I have not logged on there yet but the page does say " Access your MCM account to setup and manage payment plans."

So why on earth was I told it full payment or the highway, I am trying to find if there is a law with a judgement that allows you to set up a payment plan. 

 

Midland wants full payment because it has a judgment against you.  This is no longer a simple collection account. 

I doubt there is a law that requires the company to allow you to set up a payment plan. That is usually the choice of the judgment creditor.  

[credit2011]

19 hours ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

...and they won't take any less in a lump sum?

So far no, but I will speak to someone again there  and see what I can do. I would like  to make an offer less than the amount. I know Midland is the worst.  I am not sure if it is worth to speak to an attorney about it cause we are trying to be masters in negotiation. What sucks is that California collection agencies do not have to be licensed as far as I know...

[Goody_Ouchless]

6 minutes ago, credit2011 said:

I know Midland is the worst.

They are actually probably the best, in that they do work with people and seem to stand by their hardship pledge. Did you fight and lose the original case, or just ignore it and let it go to default judgement? They may feel like they were open to making a deal, in the beginning, but now aren't really in the mood since they've had to go to the trouble of levying funds.

 

[Harry Seaward]

7 minutes ago, credit2011 said:

I am not sure if it is worth to speak to an attorney

I get the feeling that you don't understand that this case had its day in court, and now Midland is ramping up their attempts to collect money that a court has already determined is rightfully theirs. There is nothing an attorney can do for you, unless you believe the court violated your rights in some way. So far you haven't given any indication whatsoever that this could have happened, so I'm going to go out on a limb and tell you that speaking to an attorney will be a complete waste of your time. But it might be helpful to the rest of us for you to hear it from someone else, so I'm going to recommend, for our sakes, to go ahead and let an attorney tell you the same thing we've been saying. 

[credit2011]

1 minute ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

They are actually probably the best, in that they do work with people and seem to stand by their hardship pledge. Did you fight and lose the original case, or just ignore it and let it go to default judgement? They may feel like they were open to making a deal, in the beginning, but now aren't really in the mood since they've had to go to the trouble of levying funds.

 

I lost the case on a technicality and won another one with them. Midland is the worst to deal with. So is the bank that they bought the debt from.

[credit2011]

3 minutes ago, Harry Seaward said:

I get the feeling that you don't understand that this case had its day in court, and now Midland is ramping up their attempts to collect money that a court has already determined is rightfully theirs. There is nothing an attorney can do for you, unless you believe the court violated your rights in some way. So far you haven't given any indication whatsoever that this could have happened, so I'm going to go out on a limb and tell you that speaking to an attorney will be a complete waste of your time. But it might be helpful to the rest of us for you to hear it from someone else, so I'm going to recommend, for our sakes, to go ahead and let an attorney tell you the same thing we've been saying. 

Yes, I do know the issues with judgements. I was trying to get some indication here from the board regarding payment plans for these kind of things. I see that it is up to the creditor. And for what I went through years back and watching the other cases called before me in court, how people were violated and taken advantage of not necessarily by the CA, but the unfair judges who are in cahoots with these companies bringing in massive business to the courts. While there are some good fair judges, justice seems to be a crap shoot.

[Goody_Ouchless]

Midland is like any other company. I'm guessing that if someone where to approach them with contrition and an honest desire to work something out that they would be amenable. Just as they are probably likely to say "get stuffed" when someone calls them with an attitude.

 

[credit2011]

3 minutes ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

Midland is like any other company. I'm guessing that if someone where to approach them with contrition and an honest desire to work something out that they would be amenable. Just as they are probably likely to say "get stuffed" when someone calls them with an attitude.

 

I was very sincere and nice with the three times I called. Ya know, sometimes you gotta speak to different people to get things resolved. There is always bad apples in every company as some are more aggressive than others. Not sure, but these reps are trained to be hard nosed and scare you. Mean while they makes tons of $$ but also sit on uncollected debt that they resell and also buy for pennies on the dollar. 

[WhoCares1000]

You need to understand this.
 

1. You had your day in court and as a result of the trial, they won and got a judgement. Whether it was based on what you consider a technicality or the merits, the legally won. In court, you are required to know the rules and law (even if you are pro se) as any attorney does. The judge might cut a pro se some slack but they are not required to. In this case they legally won and got a judgement.
2. With that judgement, they are allowed to wreck havoc on your financial life at will and without warning contingent to the laws of the state and the rules of court. They are allowed to garnish wages, levy bank accounts, levy account receivables, dip into a cash register, put a lien on your home and other real estate, and possibly take assets. Again, that is within the rules of the state. The State of California allows certain exemptions to garnishments and levies but you need to tell us where you think an exemption applies and then you need to tell the court why an exemption applies and prove that it applies. Also, unless there are state rules that say differently, they are not required to inform you before taking action.
3. Midland does not need to deal with you at this point and are not required to accept payments or settlement. They legally can demand no less than the full judgement in one lump sum and will get it one way or the other (with statutory interest) as long as it takes (especially in your case because they now know that they can continue to levy bank accounts and will renew the judgement if the SOL nears which is 10 years).

From what we see about Midland, they are perfectly easy to work with if you come to them with contrition, are humble, and have a real need. In your case, it sounds like you fought them all the way and lost and now they have no interest in settling because they don't have to. If you have a valid exemption, that might give you some negotiating power but right now, they are holding a full house while you don't even have a pair. You are not in a good position here. If the levied funds are enough to satisfy the judgement, let them have them and move on. If not and you insist in not paying them, you are going to need to find a way to do gig work without the funds hitting a bank account.