logo

Debtconsolidationcare.com - the USA consumer forum

Hired an attorney...now what?

Date: Sun, 02/08/2009 - 10:47

Submitted by anonymous
on Sun, 02/08/2009 - 10:47

Posts: 202330 Credits: [Donate]

Total Replies: 4


I recently retained an attorney to help me in a case involving a lawsuit for an old alleged credit card debt. I had answered the summons/complaint in the allotted time, was assigned a pretrial conference date later this month. I called an attorney who's name I got from the naca.org website. He told me to send him all of the paper work and a check for 1/2 of the amount that he'd charge and he'd look the materials over and contact opposing counsel. He told me over the phone that he's had successful dismissals of cases like mine as well as settlements to avoid going to court, etc. Now I get a letter from him stating that we agreed that his only function would be to settle with the plaintiff and would not be responsible for filing any motions or pleadings in the case. This is a little upsetting since I remembered our conversation completely differently! What do I do now? It's really too late to hire anyone else and I'm already out $500.

My other question is if we go the settlement route(which I feel forced into at this point), would it be based on the principle amount or the ridiculous amount of interest and legal fees that were tacked on making the amount they're suing for more than twice what the orig. alleged debt was? What's typical in a case like this? this debt has been bought and sold at pennies on the dollar since it was charged off 5 years ago (no, the SOL hasn't passed in my state).

Any helpful answers would be most appreciated!


Well if he told you that he would litigate this case in the beginning and now that you paid him he changed his mind, you might be able to report him for that. Someone correct me if I am wrong but I would tell him to stick by his word or else you will report him to the bar. $500 for him to just get a settlement is baloney and unjust.

For the settlement they would have to have the original contract to see what can be legally charged. It would go from the date the account was charged off calculated by the interest to the date of judgment. If the contract states that attorney fee's and collection fees can be added then you have to pay that also.

If they do not have the signed contract then it goes by what your state says for interest that is allowed. It could be 6% before judgment and then 12% after the judgment is entered, just an example. So after the judgment is entered then they can charge that 12% interest but before it's entered it would be 6%.

That is just an example, I don't know what your state laws say regarding that. If you post your state we can look into it. The other thing you could do is call the company suing you and set up a payment plan and agreement before a judgment is entered as a judgment will remain on your credit report for 10 years I believe, might be 7 but I forget. That is if it even makes it to your credit report.


Hope this helps.


lrhall41

Submitted by pokertramp on Sun, 02/08/2009 - 11:51

( Posts: 512 | Credits: )


Not sure if you are asking a question or if you are telling me they don't have a signed contract but either way:

If the debt collector does not have the original contract SIGNED outlining the fees and interest that can be charged then they can not make up numbers and charge you what they feel is right. It goes from date of charge-off to the date the judgment is entered. They can only charge the interest that your state allows.

If they do have the contract SIGNED, they can charge you whatever is outlined in the agreement. They HAVE to have a signed contract to charge you anything other than what your state allows. Most of the time debt collectors use credit card agreements that are not signed and they use these for hundreds of people, over and over again. It is NOT admissible evidence because it's not signed and most likely like I have seen many times, the agreement has a copyright date of say, 2004 when the original card was opened in say, 1997. That is why I say them agreement are not admissible in court.


lrhall41

Submitted by pokertramp on Sun, 02/08/2009 - 12:41

( Posts: 512 | Credits: )