Long story short, I had a credit card with a major retailer that I was unable to make the payments on. I'm finally getting things on track, but I was served papers on this debt. As I had an offer from a Collection Agency offering a payoff, I took the option and received a paper that the debt had been "Settled in Full". I called the lawyer and reported that the payment had been made and the debt settled, and he was quite upset. I faxed him the paper that I had received as well as a copy of the cashed check in the agreed upon amount. When I explained to him that the payment was made in good faith to an authorized agent, he told me that it didn't matter because I am being sued. He continued to come back to the point that I am being sued but didn't provide any legal reason as to why the case would need to be continued, other than he "needs to sort this out." He said he would put in for a continuance for a couple of months down the road and that he would be in touch.

As he didn't offer the fact that he was going to ask for a continuance in writing to me, I plan to show up on the appointed court date to present my side of things along with the documentation I have. It seems like it could be convenient for him to 'forget' our discussion and if a judgment is entered in against me I think this would be far harder to extract myself from.

All this aside, my main question is, do I have any legal responsibility to deal with the lawyer exclusively? It seems to me that if he entered into a contract with the current holder of the debt to provide exclusive representation, then it falls to the plaintiff to make sure they have revoked authorization from all other authorized representatives, and said representatives should've told me they were no longer able to service the account. Since this didn't happen and payment was arranged, made, and documentation provided to me, I should be free and clear of any further responsibility to the plaintiff or any of their representatives and it falls to the lawyer and the plaintiff to work out their contract between themselves.

Am I correct in my logic? If not, why not? Is there an implied legal responsibility (that would hold up in court) that says I can't take settlement to an authorized third party? I really feel the burden falls to the plaintiff and the lawyer to make sure they tie up all of the loose ends before bringing forward a lawsuit and because of their negligence then too bad for them.

Thanks in advance for any help that can be provided!

1. proof that the party you settled with was authorised, has the original debtor been contacted to see if they authorised them

2. Did the new party buy the debt, if they did, once it was purchased, any agreement with the original lender would have ended.


Are you sure you are really talking to a "real" attorney, many collection agenies use one attorneys letter head and you will merely talk to collect people who let you think they are attorneys