In the event that such a thing should happen to you I tend to think that A&S would be appropriate. The reason I asked you what I did is that so many people have been taught on other forums that they can send a small check to the creditor with a paid in full notation on the obverse side and thereby pay a debt of thousands with a $100 or less check and claim A&S if the creditor simply deducted the small amount paid and went after them for the deficiency balance. Some of the clowns teaching that junk had people pay them a handsome price for the stupid idea using their credit cards then send the creditor a $10 or $20 check and tell the creditor to bug off because A&S applied. All that kind of teaching only gets people in trouble even though they may not have been without the supposed guru. Those who fell for that dumb trick were often people who were upset over the outrageous interest rates they were having to pay but who were not actually in any trouble until they got the wrong idea from some internet con artist.
I too have heard this, and I've seen cases on both sides of the fence. I've seen some states enforce it in cases where John wrote Frank a "paid in full" check and it held, because Frank was supposed to mow John's yard and did a poor job of it. But I recall reading an opinion somewhere (FTC?) stating that "paid in full" on a check to a large corporation was bunk, simply because the corporation -- which likely used automated check-processing systems -- had no way of intercepting those three little words and no reasonable expectation that the payee would wish to communicate a change in terms via check. In other words, common sense prevailed. But when it comes to a debt collector trying to reneg a settlement, assuming the debtor has their ducks in a row and has already completed the settlement, I'd say yeah, A&S is pretty solid.
I would love to see how this is done. As I've said before, when I lost in civil court, my atty said I can't file in federal because you can't sue over a case that has already been decided. Can you be more specific?
Well, your attorney told you the truth. You can't sue over a case that has already been decided. But that is not the whole truth and it cannot be said that it is nothing but the truth. Let me explain. First of all, you can't sue over a case that has already been decided Even if you could sue in federal court they would not have the jurisdiction nor the power to rule on the correctness of what a state court judge had decided. But who said you had to try to sue over the judgment results? There are many ways to do what you have been told you cannot do. It is the same with the idea that you can't sue yourself but that isn't necessarily true. You can sue yourself if you go about it the right way which is to have a means whereby the fact that you are actually suing yourself. The way that is done is to have a corporation which you control in some meaningful way sue you. If you own the corporation it is possible that the real victim of you having sued yourself can prove that is what you did. If you know someone who owns a corporation and knows how to get the job done and you have them do it for you then it is a piece of cake. The question is why would you do that? The answer is that doing so is doing the same thing firefighters do when fighting a big grass fire. They set a backfire, let it burn out the stuff the big fire would burn and when the big fire gets there it has no fuel so it goes out. If you sue yourself and get a big judgment and garnish 25% of your wages a judgment creditor can't get a thing! Your boss sends the 25% of your wages to the court who then sends it to the corporation you used to sue yourself and you get the money back. It isn't cheap to do that but it is much, much cheaper than losing your money to a judgment. Now then back on topic. You can sue the judge in federal court if he somehow violates your due process rights. You can sue the lawyer who obtained the judgment if s/he violates your rights under FDCPA or FCRA in the process of getting the judgment or in trying to implement it through garnishment or other legal process and you can sue the 3rd party debt collector for any mistakes they might have made. So your lawyer told you the truth but not all of the truth.
the part of this thread-judgments sol's has attracted my attention. what happens in the below example:A i live in a state A: state A has a 20 SOL for judgements i move to state B state A judgements are not enforceable in state B-(if my thinking is correct) judgement owners have a specified time to transfer the judgment to state B (think it varies from state to state) once transferred the judgement sol changes to current state's B judgment Sol state "b" judgments have now all expired...i move back to state "A" judgement free this is a hypothetical example...but would it prevail?
