Sorry, reddevil and Dem Pooches if I did misread the post. After I reread the post, I apologize. I have an infected tooth that is being heavily medicated on Vicodin, so what I read vs comprehend are two different things. Charlie
While I agree with some of the points made here, and especially the broad conclusion about the efficacy of mediation... First, paying the debt may or may not be a fair solution. It depends on the situation, and the nature of the violations. For example, had I known about the FCRA and the FDCPA several years ago, I would have sued, and the violations were such that paying the debt would have been absolutely unacceptable to me. Also, sometimes the debt is simply not valid, and one is forced into court to prove it as such. Second, mediation, as anyone who has been through the process can attest, is not necessarily fair. I would even go so far as to say that the majority of the time mediation is distinctly unfair, for a variety of reasons: biased or subcompetent mediators; the environment itself, which puts pressure on the individual, who is usually new to the process and intimidated; and the simple fact that mediation, which strives to find middle ground bewteen two parties, is inherently limited by the assumption that there is common ground. Often there isn't, and to force an "even" settlement on someone who has clearly been wronged is simply to pour salt on wounds. Finally, most of the time the people here find themselves in court after making many offers to settle cheaply and amicably, but being rebuffed by CAs or OCs that are simply dense, ignorant, malicious, or all three. After dealing with such a frustrating experience, why should they be forced into a "fair" settlement with CAs or OCs that have had more than their "fair" share of chances to settle earlier, and without so much expense involved?
After rereading what I wrote, I don't get how so many people could have read it and concluded that I said exactly the opposite of what I said. If you go into COURT, in front of a JUDGE, the only issue at hand is whether or not the CA committed the violation that they are accused of. The debt is, indeed, irrelevant. HOWEVER: If you go into MEDIATION, in front of a MEDIATOR, all bets are off. Their job is NOT to resolve the technical issue of law that you presented (that would be a JUDGE'S job), their job is to "reach a compromise", to "come to an agreement", to "work things out". And yes, in that case, the underlying debt CAN (and probably WILL) be an issue. That's why you do NOT want to go into mediation unless you are willing to trade their violations for some concessions on their part, AND you know just what you want, AND you are prepared, AND you are willing to fight for it, AND you are willing to get screwed. As a side note, I would caution anyone going into COURT in front of a JUDGE to please not make the mistake of assuming that this won't happen there, either. The lower the court (small claims is just about the lowest you can get other than traffic court), the more likely it is to be either a judicial training ground for rank neophytes, or a judicial dump site for incompetents. Don't think that judges won't bring the underlying debt into it. But at least you can appeal if a JUDGE screws up.
Right on Reddevil. Small claims court judges often times are not even attorney's. I read where one small town jurisdiction (I forget the town) had an 18 year old kid right out of high school run in a magistrate election and he won. Obviously he was a relatively bright kid, but nonetheless, he was not an attorney, nor did he have a legal background.
I too tend to read more than I reply, but I felt I had to comment. As others have stated, I applaud smog for having the courage to face a creditor. An extremely high percentage of us chose to dispute, but stop short of moving to the litigation stage. Although the outcome was not the most positive, you gained experience as far as what underhanded statements, lies, etc. a creditor will bring to the table to ensure a victory. Please don't feel embarassed to rejoin the board, especially to let us know what we, as monitors of our own credit reports can do to stay on top of the creditors. Now, onto the reason I really decided to respond to this board........ Jo....... you are a nast, vindictive, vicious B-I-T-C-H. How dare you come on a website that you know he frequents on a regular basis to not ony condemn, but provide explicit details to situations that are a private matter (if you didn't lie about your relationship) between a husband and wife, two confidants, boyfriend and girlfriend, or whatever the case may be! What kind of woman are you?? Do you not know the one thing a man treasures most is his manhood? By chastising and scolding him like a child on a public forum, you have sunk to what I (and I am sure others) believe is the lowest level possible. What kind of woman are you if you let all of these situations occur without stepping up to the plate to pay these alleged bills? I believe your nasty statements are in direct contradiction to your actions. If you are this cold and calloused, and let me not forget, oh soooo damned smart, why didn't you pick up on those transgressions with regard to the lapses in bill payments and take control like you think you are doing now? Good luck smog...... you will definitely need it with someone so damned ignorant!!!!!
