[bretb]

This info is NOT accurate. First step is correct. The Second step is generally correct, though they will try to get a default judgement to avoid your showing they don't have the documentation. The third step is partially incorrect. With the judgement they can and WILL seize assets they find. However, I do agree that often, they will not be able provide the docs to win if you contest it. The sixth step is actually the 4th step. But its not as hard as bret tries to paint it. The judge CAN require that you tell them what assets you have. In the 4th step, bret doesn't understand that these people have atty's on salary. It doesn't cost them any more. In the 5th step, once they obtain the judgement, garnishment orders are a rubber stamp.

ScottGem,

Collectors have an attorney on salary, yes, but not a court, or a judge. It COSTS them money to bring legal action (just as it would cost you or I for an attorney AND court costs). You seem to know this stuff, so I'm not sure why you don't know this.

The rubber stamp that you reference is NOT FREE for collectors or any of us. There are fees associated with all filed documentation and court action. True, this may very state to state, but for the most part this is the case. You are INCORRECT when you state above, "It doesn't cost them any more." That is a false statement.

I never asserted that the judge could not order you to 'confess' where your accounts are and what balances you have. Where did you get that I'm implying a judge cannot do that? I'm making the point that victory in a lawsuit is a judgement. In many cases there are additional hearings to determine "what that means". Sure a judge can ask where you're money is and then include that in the judgement, but this is not standard procedure.

In most cases, a hearing would be held after a judgment is rendered to determine damages, amounts owed, sentencing, etc. etc. (based on whether this was a civil, criminal, etc. trial). THIS would be where the victorious plaintiff would request the judge put the debtor under oath and require his assets be reviewed for judgement execution.

You seem to lack understanding of what a judgement is, or perhaps you're just lumping the judgement and following hearings that would be required to "execute" a judgement all into one 'victory step' that the collection would have to accomplish in order to seize assets.

I think you're getting extremely obsessive/compulsive about the fine lines here bro.

[excon]

Hello again, bret:

Obsessive?? Yes. But, why not – especially when you're right. These are serious discussions that many people read. We should be accurate. Scott is.

Here's the point I think you miss, bret. But, before I get there, you are right about the gamesmanship that goes on in the collection business. It's all a matter of intimidation and BS. Nobody disagrees with you about that. Nobody disagrees with you that it's expensive to go to court, either.

The point both Scott and I are making, is that once a creditor decides to go to court, and wins a judgment, then he can drop a pretty hefty hammer on the judgment debtor, damn easily. You seem to think getting a judgment is hard and nobody does it. I strongly disagree!

excon

PS> Credit card companies didn't get rich letting people run away with their money.

[rbalmer]

Kind of new but would like to add my 2 cents. bretb you seemed to think they care about fees and costs, but don't they just charge them back to the debtor once they win? Sure they file for the judgement and that costs money, but I'm sure if they win they charge it to defendant or if the defendant wins then it's a tax write off as a business expense. Think the main thing is always keep records with court, give no info unless forced to and show up for all court dates.

[ScottGem]

Bret, you do make a valid point that there ARE costs to obtaining a judgement and there are costs to getting a garnishment order. And yes I do know it. When I said it doesn't cost anymore I was responding specifically to your statement about "attorney's fees". But these costs are minimal and they will not deter a collector when they are getting close to the pot of gold. You seem to think it will which just isn't the case. Most of the costs of the initial judgement are passed to debtor in the amount of the suit. In some cases they can add the costs of other filings to amount to be collected. So the costs of legal action do not act as a significant deterrent to the collector.

You said; "they must determine what bank you have an account at". I was pointed out that the judge can make give that info.

In most cases, when a creditor brings suit, the initial suit specifies the amount being sued for. Usually there are not additional hearings, once judgement is granted. Most of these hearings are pretty cut and dried:

Judge To Plaintiff: What proof do you have that the defendent owes this debt:
Plaintiff: Here is the original contract and here is the the record of purchases and payments
Judge To Defendent: Is this your signature? Did you make these purchases? Did you not make payments?
Defendent: Yes. Yes. No.
Judge: Decision to plaintiff

That's an oversimplification but not by much. Judges need to churn these out. If the answer to the first question doesn't constitute sufficient proof, then its Decision for Defendant.

I think you seem to lack the understanding of what a judgement is. A judgement is a decision by a court of law that the plaintiff in a law suit has won their case against the defendant. Part of that judgement is the awarding of damages to the plaintiff. The defendant is then ordered to pay those damages. However, it is the plaintiff's responsibility to collect the award. If the defendant refuses to pay, the plaintiff then goes back to the court with a request for an order to seize assets. Yes that order has to be specific about the assets being seized, but as long as it is, the order is granted. As I said such orders generally do not require an additional hearing. The judge's clerk makes sure the info is provided and then the judge signs the orders, probably without even looking at them.

And yes I'm obsessive about accuracy. My problem with your advice here is that you are minimizing the dangers. You are giving false hope to people that they will be able to avoid having their assets seized.

[bretb]

PS> Credit card companies didn't get rich letting people run away with their money.

Good point. Credit card companies get rich by offering many offers of lines of credit to students that are just starting (building credit), but are also usually attending college and not only not making much money, but also borrowing money via student loans as well.

If you're dumb enough to think the credit cards are not sending out these offers seeking maliciously to entrap young people (who usually haven't learned better yet) in a massive net of credit, then you're not as bright as I had originally thought.

Then again you have situations like mine... Where Fleet Bank allowed me to transfer something like a $9,000 balance to their promised 9.99% fixed rate card and then 9 months later sent me a letter stating the interest rate was going up to 19% for NO REASON. They admitted that I had never made a late payment, had not gone over the $15k liimit on the card, or had done anything else that would have triggered a default rate on the account.

Long story short, They were going to screw me (dishonestly and unethically, like most credit card companies do to a LOT of people) and there nothing I could do about it... except NOT PAY.

Yeap, they chose not to keep their end of the "service agreement" to honor a "fixed rate" and therefore I chose not to keep my end of the 'agreement' by repaying the money that they 'loaned' me. The account was charged off and of course sold to a few other collectors of the course of a few years.

A few years later, Class action was brought against Fleet for this. I opted out of the lawsuit primarily because the class included approximately FOUR MILLION people (that's a lot of people getting screwed by a evil, dishonest and unethical credit card company) and the proposed class action settlement was $FOUR MILLION Dolloars!

Lame as hell!

I had a $9,500 balance when Fleet raised the APR from 9.99% fixed to 19%. It really doesn't take more than SIMPLE math to see that a ONE DOLLAR settlement was not enough of a punishment for doing that to FOUR million people. My interest increase ALONE was a MORE than $100 per MONTH.

So, You ARE RIGHT! Credit card companies do not get rich by letting people run away with their money.

THEY GET RICH BE SCREWING EVERYONE AND THEIR BROTHER OUT OF THEIR HARD EARNED MONEY IN ANYWAY THEY CAN... whether that is loading up college students with 15 credit cards when they already are pulling student loans and not even working a full-time job or changing the terms of a credit card after they have you locked in to a $10,000 balance.

You're sympathy for these MULTI-BILLION dollar companies that prey on the folks like us who visit this forum is both disgusting and completely unattractive! I'm think you may need to evaluate which side of 'the force' you're on. Because it appears to me you sympathize with the 'dark side'. :)

My problem with your advice here is that you are minimizing the dangers. You are giving false hope to people that they will be able to avoid having their assets seized.

And yet you have gone through my post and pretty much agreed or repeated what I posted..

Let me made this clear... :) If the collector has some kind of "contract" as you state, perhaps that they received from the original creditor, with a signature, etc. and you mentioned perchases, etc. That sounds like more of a solid case to me than what I feel 99% of these cases are.

Scavenger colletors buy these accounts in BULK... by the hundreds or thousands. They usually have NO information other than what they need to mark your credit report and convince you they have your social and address. (most don't even have your birthdate - though that's not hard to find - try searching your name on zabasearch.com)

Therefore, unless incriminating (sorry, lack of better term) information is voluntarily given to the colletor, a judgement will just NEVER come. Such as was the case with my collectors when both sued me and promtply DROPPED the suit as soon as I filed the paperwork showing I'd be in court to defend myself. Those "pots of gold" (as was stated earlier) totalled almost $40,000 together.

I know it doesn't cost $40,000 to bring a law suit, so common sense says that they just flat out did not have a case. This really boils down to common sense guys. We're really starting to split fine hairs here and just getting stupidly anal about the details that most of these folks will never see because of the fact that the scavengers just extremely rarely bring people to court.

Bottom line, they're looking for default judgement... do nothing, and they got it. However, if you fight it and file the needed paperwork with the court... you're likely to fall in the 99 out of 100 that do NOT end up in court.

Sorry, these are just simply the FACTS... like it, or not.

[excon]

You're sympathy for these MULTI-BILLION dollar companies that prey on the folks like us who visit this forum is both disgusting and completely unattractive! I'm think you may need to evaluate which side of 'the force' you're on. Because it appears to me you sympathize with the 'dark side'. :)

Hello again, bret:

I used to think we just had different experiences. But I now find out that the reason we disagree is that you can't read.

excon

[ScottGem]

Bret, while we agree on many points, you are mistaken on the points where we don't agree.

1) Most actions by collection agencies (not the original creditor) are based on the hope that they can get a default judgement without having to present evidence. This we agree on.

2) Debtors should fight such actions, demanding proof be submitted. In most cases, the collector will not be able to prove it and back off. Again we agree.

3) If a debtor obtains a judgement, either by default or by proving their case, then they can seize cash assets once found. Here is our primary point of disagreement. You seem to think this is unlikely, I know it isn't.

[bretb]

Hello again, bret:
But I now find out that the reason we disagree is that you can't read.
excon

Huh? What? What does that say?


Hmm! Duh... maybe he's right :confused: