Ask Me Help Desk - Collection agencies

Collection agencies

Can a collection agency for a medical company threaten or take me to court for an unpaid medical bill of $48.00?

Anyone can threaten a small claim suit, however, following through with it would be ridiculous. These aggressive style collection agencies will threaten you, mock you, and harass you until you pay the bill. If I was you, for $48.00, save yourself the aggravation and pay the bill. Otherwise, they will continue to add compounded interest and penalties, then what was once a $48.00 bill can quickly become hundreds of dollars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nanniejo8

Can a collection agency for a medical company threaten or take me to court for an unpaid medical bill of $48.00?

Is this a trick question?

Why do you figure they might not be able to?

Yes and yes. And they won't take you to court for $48. They will file for the 48, plus legal fees (potentially many hundreds) plus interest.

You could quickly be looking at a thousand dollar lawsuit... that you would surely lose since you don't claim the debt is not valid (the only defense)

Sadly Tgoble has no idea they are wrong, once you owe the money, they may sue you even if you are paying, unless you have a payment plan in writing from them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TGOBLE

Under common law any person paying on a debt can not be sued.

Hello T:

Please link us to the common law you are referring to, and which country. I suggest that in the USA, contract law is in effect. Therefore if the creditor didn't pay AS AGREED to in the contract, they are in default and are subject to a lawsuit.

You're suggesting the debtor can unilaterally CHANGE the contracted payment amount to 10% of the balance, just because he wants to, with NO consequences... That ain't the way the law works.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by TGOBLE

Under common law any person paying on a debt can not be sued. The standards that are applied is voluntary non payment. In otherword's if you are making no attempt to pay than its voluntary. A collection can demand the money in full. However, if you send them a minimum payment and 10% is the guidelines that judges use to develop a payment schedule but there is no harden rule that it must be 10%. This is the standards used in court and the collection agencies are well of aware of this. If the person has made no attempt to pay then the judge will likely order full payment usually within 10-15 days, plus cost, plus prejudgement interest. An agreement doesn't have to be in writing. Verbal agreements are legal valid although difficult to prove. However sending payment by money order, certified cheque or some other trackable method demonstrates good faith. A collection agency will only pursue legitigation if payments stop without explanation or in a breach of an agreement.

Please cite your source of this 'law'

Common law is not really used anywhere expcet for study in law school but in real priactice there are 1000s of other laws, legal rulings and the such.

Please don't post in forums where you have no actual knowledge

Quote:

Originally Posted by TGOBLE

I am utterly amazed that people are uneducated about the law.

Hello again, T:

If you KNOW so much about the law, you KNOW the law is based upon precedent. This Google machine is so versatile these days, that ANY law or precedent you cite CAN be linked to an authoritative source.

You have been asked to provide the source for your proclamations. You have failed to do so. Instead, you spout rumor, innuendo, and opinion as law. We don't do that here. As long as you do, you WILL be challenged.

excon

You are also citing canadian law. The vast majority of questions here deal with US law and any that do not need to be stated to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TGOBLE

I am utterly amazed that people are uneducated about the law. There is nothing to stop a collection agency to taking you to court I am stating it would not go anywhere if the person is making a earnest effort to repay the debt. However, if the persons income establishes that they can make full payment without causing long-term or significant financial harm they would be ordered to pay. If the person is meeting a minimum payment allowed by law under (in Canada Consumer Protection Act) and I believe its the same in the USA a person will be afforded a period of time to repay the debt however, if that is not meet the payment will become immediately enforced including garnishments, seizure and sale of property (depending the size of the debt), direct seizure of bank accounts to the amount of the debt, ect... Under the interest of justice providing the debtor can establish they have been paying a "reasonable" amount and again 10% has been the benchmark in most decisions a judge will not TOTALLY side on the payer or the person owed. In order for a judge to do that there has to be sufficient evidence the person has been unco-operative or has demonstrated inconsistant ability to pay. In this case $48 is not a large sum and it is most likely the judge would order immediate payment or 2 distinct payments paid by a certain date. It would most likely include court cost and interest to the terms of the original debtors note.

To Excon, I never said unilaterally change the contract. If the person signed a contract that the debt is due and payable in full upon receipt you would be correct that the creditor has the legal right to pursue legal action. However if there is a dispute to that amount billed the person has full right to challenge but should pay what they believe is owed. If material circumstances has changed from the point of signing to today that will be taken into account at any hearing.

Keep in mind this answers a generic and not specific to the situation. People who post questions without the completely background on the situation inherent run the risk of getting bad advise or direction. Naturally a complete synopsis to date would have to be ascertained to provide some proper direction. Honestly, I feel the person here is trying to find a way out of paying a bill. But that is my opinion.

And I am constantly amazed by the misinformation that you post. The Judge isn't going to set up a payment plan. The Judge is going to order that a Judgment be filed. You can be making payments and STILL get a Judgment against you if you don't have a written agreement with the creditor, "earnest payment" or not. Once a debtor is in arrears the creditor can make a move toward Judgment.

I don't know where you are located but your "legal advice" is consistently incorrect.

I am also amazed that you think Para Legal is two words.

As far as this goes: "who post questions without the completely background on the situation inherent run the risk of getting bad advise or direction. Naturally a complete synopsis to date would have to be ascertained to provide some proper direction. Honestly, I feel the person here is trying to find a way out of paying a bill. But that is my opinion" this is a legal board, not a "my opinion board." You seem to use big words that you don't understand - "who post questions without the background ... inherent run the risk of getting bad advise" (I trust you mean advice) makes no sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TGOBLE

Yes. A debt is a debt and the collection agency is hired to collect all funds owing. However if you pay them $4.80 per month which represents 10% of whats owed they must stop their collection efforts since reasonable payments are being met. If you do not owe this amount pay it and sue them. You will get cost usually in the $250-$500 range.

You are absolutely, positively, without a doubt, incorrect. Creditor must either get current and live up to the original terms OR pay the total amount.

There is no "pay 10% and no one can touch you" law.

Were you posting a few weeks ago under another name? Seems odd that this same advice was given by someone at that time. Also wrong at that time, I'd like to add. That person also claimed to be a Paralegal, although he/she could actually spell "Paralegal."

Hello T:

You offer nothing but opinion... and a WRONG opinion too. That ain't what we do here... But, keep coming back. You are just proving how stupid you are.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by TGOBLE

Judy Kay Tee "expert" paralegal is one word (see wikipedia) so who doesn't know how to spell. As I read the answers it is clear how many people are so conditioned and really don't understand "applied law" and "application of law". Civil law operates on not "beyond reasonable" but "what is reasonable". While there is nothing to prevent the collection agency to take the person to court at anytime as long as money is owed they would not be successful if the person has been paying a reasonable amount voluntarily. Under the application of law the Collection Agent can file a claim in court since the debt is paid down, however the court will practice "applied law" or how the law should be applied. A judge will balance all factors to reach a decision.

I know it's one word. You're the one who thought it was two.

Anyway - more dancing around, lots of words, no substance to what you are saying.

You are totally incorrect that a collection agency taking a creditor to Court would NOT be successful in an attempt to obtain a Judgment as long as the creditor is paying a "reasonable amount voluntarily." This is, in effect, contract law. You promise to pay $X a month (or X% a month) and you don't, you have broken the contract.

The Judge isn't going to refer to "applied" law or "how the law should be applied" or anything else. The Judge is going to use THE LAW AS IT'S WRITTEN.

Instead of giving us your opinion, please give us some Statutes.

You are wrong and are doing people looking for advice a big disservice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TGOBLE

Judy Kay Tee "expert" paralegal is one word (see wikipedia) so who doesn't know how to spell.

You don't. You're the one who announced that you were a, direct quote, "Para-Legal."

Like excon said, please keep coming back. Your insistence on continuing to argue what you don't know is bringing joy to me.

I have been trying to avoid this pissing contest, but, despite the fact that I have not posted to this thread since near the beginning, the forum, for some reason, keeps sending me e-mail notices.

So I cannot resist any longer.

Why is it that some people insist on randomly capitalizing certain words whether they are proper nouns ("Paralegal", "Judge", "Statutes", and "Judgment" being four exampes found on this page)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by AK lawyer

I have been trying to avoid this pissing contest, but, despite the fact that I have not posted to this thread since near the beginning, the forum, for some reason, keeps sending me e-mail notices.

So I cannot resist any longer.

Why is it that some people insist on randomly capitalizing certain words whether or not they are proper nouns ("Paralegal", "Judge", "Statutes", and "Judgment" being four exampes found on this page)?

I well realize you are speaking to me - and this has been addressed by and between us and also involved a moderator. At that time Scottgem covered your criticism of my use or caps as well as your attempting to pass off something as a quote which was actually not a quote as follows:

"First, the purpose of the quote feature is to reference what a previous poster said, EXACTLY. It is OK, to delete parts of the quoted text that you don't want to refer to (as I just did) as long as you don't change the meaning of the quote.

If, however, you want to add something to the quote like you did, then instead of using the quote feature, you can copy and paste the text you want to quote, within quote marks. You can then add your owen comments but indicating what changes you made (using italics, brackets, etc.).

For general courtesy we do not comment on small grammatical or formatting errors that do not affect the meaning of the posts.

That is how the MODs view this type of thing."

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/real-e...-378970-2.html

I still don't know why my use of caps is so important to you, how it relates to law, how correcting information is a "pissing contest" and why you deliberately misquoted me the last time around.

I notice your spelling isn't too on mark, either, but I don't follow you around making corrections. It's examples, by the way, not exampes.

I suspect a moderator is going to remove this but I thought it was worth the time to spell it out.

So what is your legal advice - if you have any - on this subject?

Quote:

Originally Posted by AK lawyer

I have been trying to avoid this pissing contest, but, despite the fact that I have not posted to this thread since near the beginning, the forum, for some reason, keeps sending me e-mail notices.

So I cannot resist any longer.

Why is it that some people insist on randomly capitalizing certain words whether or not they are proper nouns ("Paralegal", "Judge", "Statutes", and "Judgment" being four exampes found on this page)?

Not going to give you a reddie, but I think it's cute that 400+ posts in, you're suddenly confused as to how this site works and "why" you're getting notices. Seriously? It's come to that now?

So would the correct capitalization be DouchBag, douchbag or Douchbag?

Quote:

Originally Posted by this8384

Not going to give you a reddie, but I think it's cute that 400+ posts in, you're suddenly confused as to how this site works and "why" you're getting notices. Seriously? It's come to that now?

Oh, no, it's come to this before - https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/real-e...-378970-2.html.

Perchance you missed it with the wedding and all -