Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Just a quick update. It turns out the whole thing was indeed a process server, some guy knocked on my door again earlier today. Being that it was broad daylight outside I didn't feel as afraid (plus my neighbors were out on their front porch), so I went ahead and answered the door.

They were trying to serve an acquaintance of mine who apparently has a trouble-making teen daughter, I glanced at the paperwork and it's something about a "juvenile" case or something like that. I told the guy that person doesn't live here and that was that. I'm guessing there was a simple mix-up in addresses, or this acquaintance of mine has been dodging the paperwork, causing these guys to go looking around.

I don't know how they "tied" him to my address, but now that I think of it I have been getting mail every now and then from a nearby high school, even though I don't have any kids. I've also gotten occasional voicemails  from this same high school, the message is always about some girl being absent, not attending classes, getting multiple F's, etc. It all makes sense now..

Anyways, I'm relieved it wasn't MY name on any legal paperwork, although that first incident did spook me.
2
Of course the lawyer won't think there are any claims...

That's not the point.

The point is to spin the merry-go-round enough to make them think that jumping off will be a much better business decision.

If he or his client can's see any claims, that's not your problem...Keep the meter spinning,
3
The latest from this lawyer. 

"Synchrony does not see how you could have affirmative claims against it under the FCRA, the TCPA, or the TILA.  Synchrony did not receive any notice of dispute from the credit reporting agencies, so no obligations were triggered under the FCRA.  No call attempts were made on the debt, so there is no basis for a TCPA claim.  And Synchrony is unaware of any basis for a TILA claim.  If you have no affirmative claims against Synchrony, there is no reason for the case to have been moved into arbitration, although you do have the right to seek arbitration of Synchrony’s collection claims against you.
 
At this time, Synchrony is not willing to accept your offer of a mutual release."
 
4
Lawsuit Fundamentals - the Laws / Re: Judgements and Enforcement
« Last post by Flyingifr on Today at 02:29:14 AM »
Attached please find the fruits of being Judgement Proof. It's not that they CAN'T sue you - it's just that they realize you won't go down without a fight that will cost them a LOT more money, and they will get nothing in the end.
5
1215

Bruno - If you thought the debt was three years old in 2011, what would that make it now? Answer: A clear violation. Perhaps you missed that?

The debt was NOT 3 years old in 2011.  It started in 2011:  "My last CC activity was on April 26, 2011."
6
Lawsuit Fundamentals - the Laws / Re: Judgements and Enforcement
« Last post by Clydesmom66 on Today at 12:07:43 AM »
So since I am pretty much judgement proof as far as any bank accounts go, how can they come after anything if they do not know what I have?

They can haul you into court for a debtors exam.  If you get that summons you HAVE to go.  If you don't the court can have you arrested on a failure to appear warrant. 
7
Lawsuit Fundamentals - the Laws / Re: Judgements and Enforcement
« Last post by head22 on Today at 12:03:54 AM »
So since I am pretty much judgement proof as far as any bank accounts go, how can they come after anything if they do not know what I have?
8
General Credit Forum / Re: Pressler & Pressler Midland Funding NJ
« Last post by Roozdad on Yesterday at 11:25:00 PM »
I didn't see Brunos reply until just now (Apr 25th). I mostly followed the advice I sent a DV letter just before the 30 day Mark and I received validation today. I file in JAMS right now, Correct? I'm concerned that they sent validation then filed the next day based on Brunos comment above. Please Help! LOL
9
 1215

Bruno - If you thought the debt was three years old in 2011, what would that make it now? Answer: A clear violation. Perhaps you missed that?

10
D S S FINANCIAL GROUP LTD v. DEBORAH WALROD

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Lower%20Court/012009/m3538792.pdf

L V N V FUNDING v.LESLIE THOMPSON

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Lower%20Court/022008/m3059648.pdf

Those cases from 2008 and 2009 don't generally represent the court's current thinking on SOL.  One commissioner, who previously agreed with the 3 year SOL, now doesn't even grant that the SOL was ever 3 years.

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Lower%20Court/042016/m7312323.pdf
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10