Hi,

I have a garnishment judgement against me that was won by default.It was from a payday advance company.After they garnished my check I asked for an istallment order.I was granted that but have since defaulted on payments. They have filed to reinstate the garnishment but in the meantime I have found they were not even legally entitled to the damages they claimed in the original judgement.They charged me 3 times the loan amount under the bad check laws.I have found out that payday companies are not allowed to collect under these laws. They have a cap of $25 for a returned check.
I have a new hearing asking to make payments again but whagt should I do with this new information?Will the judge even want to hear it?
I am located in macomb county,MI.

Thanks for any help

hi,

I have a garnishment judgement against me that was won by default.It was from a payday advance company.After they garnished my check i asked for an istallment order.I was granted that but have since defaulted on payments. They have filed to reinstate the garnishment but in the meantime i have found they were not even legally entitled to the damages they claimed in the original judgement.They charged me 3 times the loan amount under the bad check laws.I have found out that payday companies are not allowed to collect under these laws. they have a cap of $25 for a returned check.
I have a new hearing asking to make payments again but whagt should i do with this new information?Will the judge even want to hear it?
I am located in macomb county,MI.

thanks for any help



In many of the payday places you sign an agreement basically handing them the ability to collect as soon as you default.

Why do you think bad check laws apply? You are referring to the amount a bank can charge for a check that is returned insufficient. I don't see that situation here.

What is your defense to not paying? That and the contract are what the Judge will want to hear.

I don't understand why, if they have a garnishment order, there's another hearing - why aren't they just enforcing the garnishment which they apparently withdrew?

In many of the payday places you sign an agreement basically handing them the ability to collect as soon as you default.

Why do you think bad check laws apply? You are referring to the amount a bank can charge for a check that is returned insufficient. I don't see that situation here.

What is your defense to not paying? That and the contract are what the Judge will want to hear.

I don't understand why, if they have a garnishment order, there's another hearing - why aren't they just enforcing the garnishment which they apparently withdrew?


When they tried to withdraw the money the check was returned due to insufficient funds.
In reality it is a bad check but my state(MI) does not allow payday advance companies to go after consumers using these laws.My defense is I didn't have the ability to pay.
I objected to the original garnishment and asked for an order for installment payments.
I was granted the right to make payments but I stopped doing that also.
Now they want the original garnishment to be upheld.The new hearing is because I objected AGAIN to their renewal of the garnishment.
ANYWAY the charges that they won in the judgement didn't even comply with the law.

When they tried to withdraw the money the check was returned due to insufficient funds.
In reality it is a bad check but my state(MI) does not allow payday advance companies to go after consumers using these laws.My defense is i didn't have the ability to pay.
I objected to the original garnishment and asked for an order for installment payments.
I was granted the right to make payments but i stopped doing that also.
Now they want the original garnishment to be upheld.The new hearing is because i objected AGAIN to their renewal of the garnishment.
ANYWAY the charges that they won in the judgement didn't even comply with the law.



I'm still confused here. You took out a pay day loan. You didn't repay it.

Did you then write a bad check to cover repayment, that's what was returned and that's what they got the Judgment for?

Okay - got it. So you are going back to Court to try to set the Judgment aside, not for a new Judgment.

Inability to pay is not a defense but it's good that your State does not allow contracts to override the law - and payday companies have pulled some pretty terrible stuff.

Come back and let us know how you make out - your experience could very well help someone else.

hi,

I have a garnishment judgement against me that was won by default.It was from a payday advance company.After they garnished my check i asked for an istallment order.I was granted that but have since defaulted on payments. They have filed to reinstate the garnishment but in the meantime i have found they were not even legally entitled to the damages they claimed in the original judgement.They charged me 3 times the loan amount under the bad check laws.I have found out that payday companies are not allowed to collect under these laws. they have a cap of $25 for a returned check.
I have a new hearing asking to make payments again but whagt should i do with this new information?Will the judge even want to hear it?
I am located in macomb county,MI.

thanks for any help

The problem that you have here is that you didn't show up for the trial and the plaintiff was awarded a default judgment. You cannot take new evidence and try to present it to the court; that should have been done at the trial, which you chose not to attend.

Exactly which laws are you claiming the plaintiff violated? I can't see how you can say that their judgment doesn't comply with the law when you weren't there for the trial; you didn't argue any of the costs or fees that were being asked for by the plaintiff. They didn't come after you just because the check was bad; they came after you because you defaulted on payment. The loan amount tripled due, in all likelihood, to late fees, interest, attorney fees, etc. not just because you bounced one check.

Your defense, which you state is "inability to pay," is not a defense. Any sane judge is not going to accept that as an answer because it's not an answer, it's an excuse. If you didn't have the funds to repay the contract with the plaintiff that you willingly entered into, then you shouldn't have entered into it.