What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Washington State A lawsuit has been started against me. Summons 20 days.My wife didn't pay a medical bill.It was like 3 months ago (I think, I know it hasn't been very long, and my wife said she was taking care of it!)and now a Law firm (according to the summons) wants twice as much as the original debt to settle.Do I have an obligation to pay more than the original debt in the state of WA. I had my wife call the hospital yesterday so I could pay the original bill in full. The hospital said it was out of their hands. I don't have a copy of the original bill.I told my wife to get a copy tomorrow. Man this is irritating any advice?
I Think this will tell you what you are looking for I see I forgot to put it in my Google Docs links page so I'll have to do that as soon as I get a chance.
Ok ty for the cut and paste reply.I read that in the other post.My question is "Do I have an obligation to pay the plaintiff (attorneys) more than the original debt, in the state of WA?"
That depends on what the terms and conditions of the contract. Almost all contracts carry a clause which says that in the case of default the consumer must pay all costs of litigation which would include reasonable lawyer fees. On the other hand the question might arise as to what constitutes reasonable attorney fees and who has the authority to determine what the term reasonable means. Only the court has the authority to determine what the term reasonable is and what is or is not reasonable. The only way a judge can determine what is or is not reasonable is for the attorney to submit an itemized list of the number of hours or quarter hours spent on the case and their statement showing what their hourly rate is for that type of work. That is why some lawyers only ask for reasonable attorney fees and others get stupid and try to tell the court what is or is not reasonable in their opinion. I do hope that answers your question.
To win a lawsuit the plaintiff must show they were damaged by the action or inaction of the defendant.So how was this collector harmed by your action or inaction?What amount were they harmed by you? An original creditor i would think has a lot more legal room then some two bit debt collector that bought a debt for the sole purpose of making a profit.Think about it.
You will probably never realize how much I hate to rain on that little parade but the bitter truth is that while that is supposed to be a great defense in paytriot mythology it just don't work that way in a real court of law. In most cases Dewey Cheatum & Howe will accept sleazebag collection agency as their client and file in the name of the original creditor. That leaves the defendant in a bad position indeed because he can't use what is supposed to be a great defense. I'm working on a case right now where the local Dewey Cheatum & Howe has filed a case alleging that Capital One Auto Finance is the plaintiff but we have a few collection letters from Sleazebag Collection Agency which has it's headquarters in Dallas. We also have recorded conversations where the debt collector stated they were going to turn it over to an attorney for further legal action. That letter from Sleazebag & Co. might turn the trick as you suggest but the problem with that is that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that debt collectors who have been assigned the debt can sue in the name of the creditor who hired them so there goes that argument (theoretically at least) but enter a little known Oklahoma law which says that debt collectors may not file cases in small claims courts which is what Dewey Cheatum & Howe did. They also dropped the figure they were supposed to be suing for by a fairly substantial amount in order to get it into small claims court. By introducing the Sleazebag letter and the Oklahoma Statute we just might get the case thrown out of small claims. We can always hope. On another note, if the court rules in our favor then we have a much better shot at Sleazebag in federal court for illegal continued collection activity. As it is, we don't know for certain whether they turned it over to Dewey Cheatum & Howe or turned the account back over to Capital One who then hired the law firm. We need to prove that one way or the other to see whether or not we have a case against Sleazebag or not. Logic would have it that in order for Sleazebag not to have violated they would have had to tell Capital One they couldn't do their job and their having admitted they can't do their job isn't likely. Even so we need the proof from this court if we can get it. If our conjecture is correct and we can prove it then we also have more violations against Dewey Cheatum & Howe as though we don't have more than enough already. (LOL). That is the way to win and that is what I call informal bankruptcy and it sure beats the heck out of the formal variety or messing with debt consolidation companies or even attempting to fix your own credit. Why mess with credit repair when you can make them do it for you while you sit back and get paid for making them do it? Furthermore Infomal bankruptcy leaves no nasty records behind for anybody to mess with you over.
In a court of law plaintiff can state or claim whatever they want.The defendant must make every legal attempt to demand proof.Many lawsuits never mention the original creditor as the plaintiff.That fact should be the defendants main focus when preparing a defense.What say you?
While I certainly agree with what you are saying I don't know that I would go so far as to say that it should be the defendant's main focus when preparing a defense. I don't know that there is any such thing as a main focus. because I think that one is well advised to focus on even the smallest discoverable item and try to pluck off all the feathers they can find one by one. Problem might be that in any given case there might be far more feathers than actual meat. (LOL)
