Ok, I don't make that much money and I had a credit card company kept harassing me thinking I had this card with them. I evidentally was getting bills thinking it was a offer of a credit card..I thru those away.
The only Credit Card I had with this company was like 4 years ago and I had reported it stolen. I did have a very small balance that I owed but there was other charges I didn't do. They gave me some info over the phone I wrote down after I reported it but I do not know where the info is.
I barely make enough $ to pay my bills, but when I got the first notice I tried calling this Lawyers office which I ended up talking to bill collectors that would not listen to anything I had to say including me trying to settle!!
A lawyer told me to write a letter and give it to the court that I wanted a copy of the charges made so I did.
I then got a letter later from the court house stating it was a default judgement hearing.
So I called information to see if I could get the lawyers real number finally I got ahold of this credit cards lawyer on the phone to see if they would settle, well they said he had to get with his partner to see what they could come up with, I just received a letter of settlement offer which was more interest then the card was charged up for.
Obviously I do not want to pay that amount. The original debt was less then $2000 they are trying to sue for almost $4000, the settlement offer was close to $3000. I need to know number one if cannot pay this will I go to jail ? Number 2. Can I fight this being a default judgement? Please helpASAP the hearing is in December

JudyKayTee

First - no, they cannot put you in jail for debt.

Second - it is very difficult to fight a default judgment unless you have good, solid grounds. Not opening the mail is not going to work. Somehow the Court got jurisdiction over you - perhaps nail and mail or sub (substitute) service.

Third - It is very, very possible that the $2,000 debt has become $4,000 with Court costs and interest.

Their offer of $3,000 (a reduction of 25%) is probably reasonable - have you approached them and stated your circumstances and attempted to negotiate a lower settlement?

What is the purpose of the December hearing?

You see this repeatedly on the various Boards - never, ever skip a hearing, fail to open your mail, close your eyes and hope the debt will go away, but I'm sure you know this now.

The best I can suggest is that you approach the Attorney honestly and openly and tell him what you can afford to pay - and then stick to the schedule.

ScottGem

Did you have a default judgement entered against you or did you received a summons for one.

If its a summons as it sounds, you need to file an Intent to Defend withthe court so they setup a hearing. At the hearing you advise that the card was reported stolen 4 years ago and therefore you are liable for no more than $50.

JudyKayTee

I am not familiar with the term "Intent to Defend." What is the difference between that and an Answer?

ScottGem

An answer is just a response to the summons. Intent to defend states that you plan on defending against the suit and request a hearing.

P.S. A belated welcome! Your answers have been very helpful.

earthsong

Scott,
I have a default judgement, I first received a summons then I went to the court house and turned in the sheets and hand wrote a response.
Now they sent me a letter with a hearing for the default judgement.
They offered me a settlement recently of 2954 so I am going to send them a letter of offer of $1000.
Someone said unless they have a Original signed copy of my agreement they cannot persue this I wonder if that is true.

earthsong

Also the lawyers sent me some questions to answer. Also they are requesting me to write my name 10 times on a piece of paper.

ScottGem

A default judgement is entered when you DON'T respond. So what you received was a summons to respond to to prevent a default judgement. Since you responded, a hearing has been scheduled. You need to request vericification of the debt from the plaintiff. They need to prove that you opened this account, that you built up the charges and that they weren't paid. If they don't have proff that you opened the account (a copy of the signed contract or application), then the judge may dismiss the suit. Often this original documentation was lost.

The signature thing bothers me. I suspect they DO have a copy of the contract and that's why they need the sig to compare.

JudyKayTee

Scott - to my understanding the way it goes is: Summons served on Defendant, usually a Complaint attached so you are served with the Summons and Complaint, very often Summons on top and Complaint on bottom, same page; Defendant replies with Answer and Counterclaim (if there is one). If the Summons does NOT include a Complaint Defendant replies with Notice of Appearance/Request for Complaint - perhaps this is where the Notice of Intent comes in?

Under common law some years ago there was a Notice which the Defendant could submit which basically said that the Defendant was not schooled in the law, was unable to respond in writing, requesting a decision based on a hearing and testimony with no exchange of papers. Judges eventually said that there are Attorneys working pro bono, Attorneys working for reduced fees, it is impractical and prejudicial for the Judge to make a decision based only on testimony with no sworn documents and they began to refuse to accept the requests. Feeling was that it was prejudicial to the Plaintiff which would not know what the arguments were before the Hearing as no papers were exchanged - easy to overturn Judge's decision based on that prejudice.

Has anyone used the Notice of Intent? Has it "worked?"

Not nitpicking - I really would like to know how this works.

I have one year of law school; daughter is an Attorney - we both must have slept through this particular class - !

ScottGem

It may be called different things in different venues, but the upshot is that in many cases the summons pertains to the plaintiff's request for a default judgement. So the defendant has to notify the court of their intention to defend against the suit. If they don't, the court will enter a default judgement against them.