Share post
Debt Consolidation Forums Collection agencies and creditors forums

Oh my gosh, something fishy is going on!

member profile picture


Posts: 17345
Credits: 0
[Donate]

This is the link to my original thread:
http://www.debtconsolidationcare.com/collection-agencies/arrow-financial.html

Today, at work (I work in an office), I received a letter addressed to my employer from Javitch, Block & Rothbone, it says to the payroll department. It has to be about me! I just received a judgment from the court to vacate the original default judgment, and am in the process of answering the original claim. What in God's name is going on! I am panicking right now because I can NOT open this, yet I know it's about me. This is so humiliating, all I need is for my employer to know how many financial problems I am having right now. What should I do?? :(




I don't understand how a judge could grant a default judgment with out asking if the defendant had been served. In this case if the question was aksed then they should have responded that they sent service via certified mail and it was returned unsigned. At that point the judge should have said improper service or no service and required them to serve properly as opposed to just granting a default judgment. I bet the lied about the 4/6/07 service. It might be worth pulling the court clerk notes to read exactly what happened in the court room. I would think the judge would at least have to cover the basics including service before granting a default judgment if the defendant does not show up.

Sub: #81 posted on Thu, 08/07/2008 - 10:26

DOLLARSandSINCE DOLLARSandSINCE
Moderators Cum Industry Expert
(Posts: 1078 | Credits: )

Well, I called the court house, at first they couldn't find my case at all! Then she asked me to read off the numbers again, she still couldn't find it. So she asked if I had some other paper work with the case number on it, so I pulled that and we discovered they (the CA's Attorney) had the wrong freakin case number on it, one number difference!! Anyway, it was explained to me that according to Ohio State codes (I can't remember the numbers) states that a CA has to send a certified summons first, and if it is returned unclaimed, they have to send out another one USPS, and apparently it's assumed it was received, so that's why they got the default judgment against me the first time!! Sooooooo, now I need to answer these interrogatories within 28 days. The thing is, the questions which are asking me to provide documentation which I don't have. Also, it's asking me to admit that I had a credit card blah blah blah, and admit I used it, and admit everything basically. So, how does a person answer in a situation like this?? If I totally deny it, I will be lying, if I admit it they WIN!!

Sub: #82 posted on Thu, 08/07/2008 - 15:42

Shazzers Shazzers
Moderators Cum Industry Expert
(Posts: 17345 | Credits: )

Shazzers, llw posted an interesting thread earlier:

http://www.debtconsolidationcare.com/collection-agencies/ about49584.html

I don't know if there is anything in there that will help you, but there is a section about lawsuits. . .

Sub: #83 posted on Thu, 08/07/2008 - 16:48

alias1958 alias1958

(Posts: 1230 | Credits: )

hang on a second there--I think that the part that nascar posted was misrepresented. The quote he posted clearly says "CONTINUING legal action is not a fdcpa violation...." It doesnt say that INITIATING that legal action isnt. The way that is written, it could be that the person tried to stop legal action by sending a DV letter. The FDCPA is quite clear that ANY collection efforts are illegal if they take place while ignoring a timely DV request. The FTC opinion letters also echo this, if i remember right. There is no provision within the FDCPA that allows legal action while prohibiting any other "collection activity". It is quite easy to argue that filing a lawsuit is nothing other than collection activity--their sole purpose in doing so is to get paid. It's also kind of difficult for me to agree with what nascar posted because of the specific wording of the law itself--it actually says that a debt collector "must cease collection of the debt" if a DV letter is sent and received within that 30 day period. There is no way to "cease collection of the debt" if youre filing a lawsuit to collect on the debt. That is continuing collection efforts, it is most certainly NOT "ceasing collection of the debt".

Sub: #84 posted on Sat, 08/09/2008 - 19:56

Unregistered


Legal action is not a collection activity

Sub: #85 posted on Sat, 08/09/2008 - 21:38

NASCAR_Devil NASCAR_Devil
Moderators Cum Industry Expert
(Posts: 4671 | Credits: )

Hmm, both interpretations sound reasonable to me. I wonder if it would depend on the judge?

Sub: #86 posted on Sat, 08/09/2008 - 21:42

Unregistered


it would depend on what is legal in your state ---very simple --either ignore---- deny ----or make arrangements to pay less than what they say you owe ---yes? or no? or pay consolidation to take care of the mess they say they will?

Sub: #87 posted on Sun, 08/10/2008 - 00:35

Unregistered


Quote:
Summons reissued by certificate mail


Was this the same attorney with the "pleading for money" at the top of their complaint?

I wonder what kind of super-geniuses they have working at their CA? Must not have done well in the English classes, I suspect.

And I am now properly confused as to whether or not legal action is still considered collection activity or not. From what NascarDevil posts, I'm assuming it's not. I remember someone posting something about CA's going straight to lawsuits and how that wasn't considered incorrect procedure.

Does anyone else remember that?

Kind of blows everything I've always thought was correct right out of the water.

Sub: #88 posted on Sun, 08/10/2008 - 03:02

FloridaRon FloridaRon

(Posts: 1190 | Credits: )

I know what you mean Ron. And yes, this is the same CA that filed a complaint which clearly said "Complaint For Money", that in itself is attempting to collect a debt, it always clearly states on the complaint I received "This is an attempt to collect a debt". Well, HELLO, if that isn't violating the FDCP I don't know what is????!! Basically, if it's true that a legal action is not considered an attempt to collect a debt, then I need to go back to school and relearn simple grammar. :shock:

I REALLY feel totally ignored by the justice system. What IF this actually is NOT my debt? What IF this is a case of mistaken identity? What IF I am an innocent victim of a greedy CA who is bound and determined to get a judgment against me that is totally unjust? The burden of proof is on the CA, NOT me. And this CA has admitted in court documents they do NOT have ANY documents supporting this claim??!! And the months continue to go by, and I continue to go through turmoil wondering when the execution is going to take place. With all the evidence I have, you would think there would be a freakin Attorney out there somewhere who would be willing to take this case on a contingency basis. For crap sakes, I've done all the work up until now, all it would take is an Attorney's knowledge and experience to sue that heck out of this CA and most likely win! This is just very frustrating to me, I don't understand why a judge would allow this to continue KNOWING there is NO evidence available by the CA and admittedly so!! :shock:

Sub: #89 posted on Sun, 08/10/2008 - 05:31

Shazzers Shazzers
Moderators Cum Industry Expert
(Posts: 17345 | Credits: )

I've seen case law go both ways on whether a summons is considered initial contact. I'll try and find the cases.

Sub: #90 posted on Sun, 08/10/2008 - 07:35

NASCAR_Devil NASCAR_Devil
Moderators Cum Industry Expert
(Posts: 4671 | Credits: )

Attachment
More information
  • Files must be less than 500 MB.
  • Allowed file types: txt pdf jpg jpeg png.


Page loaded in 0.090 seconds.