Here is my story: My previous landlord is trying to collect $5k worth of rent, interest, etc. The account was sold to a CA. I contacted the CA last year trying to setle. They would not buldge, they sent me a copy of the charges after I gave them my knew contact info (address, phone, etc). After the conversation I recevied 3-4 more letters from them trying to collect. Since last October I never heard from them again. Due to the high $ amount they are looking for, I would expect a more drastic collection effort. I should add that I do not have my original lease anymore. I am 90% sure that the lease I had was a "lease by month" deal. How should I procede? Why is the CA so quite? Thanks, .Trex
Just some ideas.....do you have any assets (a house)? Do you have a good job listed? Does the CA own the account? It's been my experience that collection agencies like to let the account age and rack up all kinds of late marks and fees. Once they start reporting all the lates, they know your credit is pretty much screwed since not only do you have an OC account showing "charged off/sold", you also have a collection account showing 90+/120+ days lates, possibly charged off as well. They know most people will start to sweat a little at this point if they are going to sweat at all. Have you validated with them? Push for a settlement? Open communications with them through the mail and if they ignore you, start filing complaints with the FTC, BBB, and state attorney general. By doing so, you are showing a good faith attempt to correct the situation and if it ever came to the point where the CA tries to sue you, you can walk up to the judge and show him/her how you tried to make good a long, long time ago. Judge will then ask CA "if you didn't want to collect then, why are you collecting now?".
It's been my experience that collection agencies like to let the account age and rack up all kinds of late marks and fees. Once they start reporting all the lates, they know your credit is pretty much screwed since not only do you have an OC account showing "charged off/sold", you also have a collection account showing 90+/120+ days lates, possibly charged off as well. enigmaingr ==================== Under handed black mail
Can you please explain to me how exactly a judge can dismiss a CA's lawsuit simply because they failed to negotiate earlier? A CA does not have to negotiate with a debtor. They do not have to accept anything less 100 percent immediate payment. They have the right to sue. As I understand it, a judge has to make decisions within the law. The judge makes his/her ruling based on the facts presented in court. The facts are (a) the debtor owes the money, and (b) the creditor is entitled to be paid. Unless these facts are in dispute, the judge has no choice but award a judgement to the plaintiff. As long as the CA's lawsuit is technically valid (before SOL, etc), and the facts are indisputable, no prior efforts to negotiate on defendant's part can avoid a judgement if the plaintiff pursues the case. I often see on boards where people offer advise to "make good faith payments" or "enter into good faith negotiations" in order to prevent a judgement. I think they are confused between the decision of the creditor/CA to file a suit, and the decision of the court to award a judgement. Yes, sometimes token payments or negotiations may persuade a creditor from filing a suit, but it does not disqualify them from doing so. You can pay up to 99.99% of the debt and they can still legally sue for that last dollar. But once the suit is on motion and the plaintiff petitions the court for a judgement, the court has to rule based on law and the facts. I've can't imagine that any judge is going to waste their time listening to your side of the story, unless it has to do with disputing the facts presented in the lawsuit. In fact, the plaintiff will probably petition the court for a summary judgement and you will never even get a chance to see the inside of a courtroom. Unless you dispute the facts of the case, the judge simply has to issue a judgement from his office. There are no other relevant considerations to take into account before making a decision. Once the plaintiff has a judgement, it does not mean they have been satisfied, or that the decision is irreversible. All it does is give the plaintiff the legal right to satisfy the judgement within the limits of the law. It does not mean they are actually going to use the judgement, or be successful in their attempts to use the judgement to garnish money or place liens. The defendant has the right to an appeal. It is an uphill battle. The defendant has the right to have the judgement overturned on a technicality, but again it is an uphill battle. They have to convince a judge that an error was made and the decision is faulty. Let me qualify this a little. I know that judges in small claims court have a lot more leeway and might be able to do this, but most CA lawsuits are in civil courts, not small claims. My advise is to tread very carefully when entering into negotiations. You might accidentally find that you have opened yourself up to new liabilities. Never make any offer that you are not willing to honor. What I do is insert a clause that specifies that any offer is contingent on all my creditors accepting similar agreements. That way creditor #1 can't sue me because they accepted my terms and I failed to fulfill it when creditor #2 rejected my terms. Second. Do not assume these good faith negotiations and payments will protect you from a suit and judgement. Plan for the worst and hope for the best. If anyone has ever convinced a judge that they must ignore the facts and refuse to grant a judgement because someone has attempted to negotiate, please let me know.
