My friend just got a new credit card. The CA must be monitoring her credit for new accounts. The CA who has a judgement is notifying her that they are going to subpeona the credit card company and ask for information from them. The notice says that an objection can be filed within 15 days. She is worried the credit card will be cancelled because of this. She also doesn't want them to get her new information. What objection could she file to block this from happening? Thank you, Cat
Hi Cat It sounds as though the judgment creditor (plaintiff) is looking for employment information and banking information so they can start garnishment. What she needs to do is verify the privacy terms in her new credit card agreement as regard to court orders (subpoenas). I am willing to bet the information is exempt from privacy protection in both criminal and civil matters and must be disclosed. I would be more worried about the garnishment then the credit card being cancelled, the new CC company must have see the judgment and/or C/O on her credit report(s) and issued the card anyway. She should research garnishment laws in her state as well as alterative banking options as it sounds as though she could be looking at Writs of Garnishment within months. Now as for objecting to the subpoena please note I am NOT a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV â?? this is purely an idea based on a VERY quick Google search. Is the subpoena issued from the correct court (the court had issued the judgment) and can it be used out of state? For example I am in Michigan â?? my new CC is incorporated in Delaware can a subpoena from MI be used in DE? She should start research information subpoenas for her state, as well as her privacy terms for the new CC. Good Luck.
There is such a thing as a "motion to quash", which basically means you want a judge to cancel the subpeona, but you need to have a good reason for it. I'm not sure she'll have any success blocking this though. I'm also not a lawyer, so what do I know?
Thanks so much for the reply. Wouldn't the credit card company be the one to object to being given a subpeona? How can she object? BTW, They already tried garnishment. This is a debt from 1998. What they might do is garnish the checking account associated with the credit card. PenFed requires a checking account. But there's only $15 in it. Which I guess will cost $100 plus the $15 loss if memory serves me. What they may also see is income stated (with a paystub) from an employer (her corporation) that reported to the Court she had no income the year before (which she didn't). So I guess they may try again to garnish the paycheck? Or maybe say she lied to the Court? Her corporation is going to be administratively dissolved by then however for unrelated reasons.
Hi Cat Yes the bank (CC company) must submit a motion to quash, as Josh said, but they most likely wouldnâ??t. This is just an example from Capital One: Cap1 will share for our everyday business purposes â?? such as to process your transactions, maintain your account(s), respond to court orders and legal investigations, or report to credit bureaus. You do not have the option to opt out of this information sharing. If she is named on the subpoena she can submit a motion to quash, but her legal arguments are very limited. IMHO this is a lost clause, the current credit card company will comply with the subpoena and disclose the information requested. Which could be: current address, employer, and application information such as if she rents or owns her home etc. The debt might have been from 1998 but at some point a judge ruled that she legally owes the debt and the plaintiff (CC/Lawyer) is just legally attempting to collect the debt owed. Judgments can remain effect up to 10+ years and in most states they can be renewed for up to another 10 years. She is limited on options right now â?? she can attempt to become/be uncollectable till the SOL on the judgment runs out or pay the debt. A settlement at this point is highly unlikely as they have legal right to collect the full amount and all the time to do so. I didnâ??t quite understand the rest of your post, it sounds as though they might have gotten 115 from a garnishment on an account that was used to pay the CC. But the last paragraph sounds as though she had to fill out a debtor exam listing her assets, banking information and employer information etc. â?? and that she may have lied. A major no-no and could result in perjury charges. Now letâ??s just say she did the exam in early 2011 when she was unemployed â?? but since then untainted a job â?? thatâ??s not lying â?? thatâ??s chance of circumstance. Yes they are attempting to locate her employer so they start garnishment. Now as for her company dissolving, is this an acquisition in which her company will dissolved into another? If so doesnâ??t matter, unless she loses her job in the acquisition she will still be on a payroll it will just be under a different company name. In my state a Writ of Garnishment can start within 21 days of the court clerk filing stamp, so this isnâ??t going to go away anytime soon, unfortunately opening that new credit card shows she has some form of income and they want their debt paid. Sorry if I sound dire but she is to a point in which she must take care of this debt, either pay in full or allow the garnishment to pay the debt. Good Luck.
