Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this C&D? What would be the likelihood that they would sue for a $500 debt that they sold to the CA for $10? QUEEN_BEE ======= ----------- ========== They sold the debt for 10 bucks and have nothing more owed them for it. They cannot keep collecting over and over again on the same debt.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this C&D? Um...the bickering started when you couldn't see another approach to doing the same thing. As I read this whole thread, I saw only ONE person bickering and name calling. Im an innocent by-stander in this, and maybe shouldn't be sticking my nose in it, but I can see some of your points as being valid, but I also see a LOT of Grendels points being valid. ** note - This is an attempt to provide an OPINION and any thing I say to that fact is an OPINION. According to society's laws, my opinion is never wrong, because it is MINE and no one else's. This is NOT to say who is wrong or right. Therefore, before you even start in on me, This is my CEASE and DESIST notice to you.
Re: Re: Is this C&D? I see Queen, you are back to driving yourself crazy! LOL. LB and I are talking about two different things. If I remember correctly, my quote was based on considering that the OC took it back. LB's opinion seems to based on the OC having sold it, and NOT taking it back, thus would have no claim to sue you. So they aren't really conflicting, just two different scenarios.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this C&D? Most folks who have been around for very long have differing opinions on how things are best done. That's pretty normal. And in many situations both can be right and in many others both can be wrong. LOL. Not to worry.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this C&D? I guess I will shut up before I am banned for trolling or breach of peace, lol.
Well, I'm about burned out on 24 hour War Reports, so kibitzing with you is quite fun, not a breach of peace, and definitely you aren't a troll!
** note - This is an attempt to provide an OPINION and any thing I say to that fact is an OPINION. According to society's laws, my opinion is never wrong, because it is MINE and no one else's. This is NOT to say who is wrong or right. Therefore, before you even start in on me, This is my CEASE and DESIST notice to you. ADiliegro ================ Got a kick out of your above disclaimer. Cute and funny. LOL The END ************************* LB 59
Re: Re: Is this C&D? I see Queen, you are back to driving yourself crazy! LOL. LB and I are talking about two different things. If I remember correctly, my quote was based on considering that the OC took it back. 1*LB's opinion seems to based on the OC having sold it, and NOT taking it back, 2*thus would have no claim to sue you. 3**So they aren't really conflicting, just two different scenarios. jlynn ============= 1*Correct jlynn. 2*They have no claim because they sold their right to it to the CA or other buyer. If this weren't so then both the OC and the CA -Buyer could collect and you would be paying the same debt twice. 3*Exactly The END ************************* LB 59
Re: Re: Is this C&D? Definitely a conflict of opinions. Can you back that up with law, or a little legal-ese, lbrown59? QUEEN_BEE =============================== No case law but how about a little common sense and logical reasoning? LOL When the oc sells the debt all rights are passed on to the new owner. I don't think the OC can buy back the debt and try to collect from the debtor for two reasons. Reason 1 When the oc sold the debt he agreed to what ever he received for it as payment in full for all monies owed at the time of sale. Reason 2 If an OC could buy back a debt all they would have to do is keep reselling it over and over until they had collected as much or more than the original amount of the debt. This would leave the debtor in the position of having to pay the full amount of the debt to either the OC or the CA-buyer even though the OC had been compensated in full for the entire amount of the debt. The END ************************* LB 59
Re: Re: Is this C&D? Wouldnt the fact that the OC charged off the debt and then sold it be legal rqeason enough? If he (OC) charged the debt off, then he is getting money in tax write offs from it. He cant legally buy it back and recharge you for it. He has already been paid in the charge off.
Re: Re: Is this C&D? lbrown59, Ethically, what you say is correct. Being that not all creditors do not operate on ethical principles, it helps to have the law to back up your argument-that being the reason I asked the question in the first place. Even some judges are not ethical... Just exploring the possibilities>>>>>>>>>>
Re: Re: Re: Is this C&D? Although I'm not an accountant, I think he could (although we already agreed it was HIGHLY UNLIKELY lol) legally buy it back, they would just have to restate it as new income - in some sort of accountantese.
Re: Re: Re: Is this C&D? He has already been paid in the charge off. ADiliegro ================ This is why I say one is not legally obligated to pay a CA. Once the OC has been satisfied regarding the debt there is no obligation of the debtor to pass on to the CA. The END ************************* LB 59
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this C&D? Then why are CAs that bought debts bringing people to court---and winning?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this C&D? One is based on the law, the other is based on a theory. Look at it this way OC sells your CO for $10. They then report $10 income and a $500 loss to the IRS. CA that bought it then chokes the money out of you. They show a $10 business expense, and $500 income to the IRS. If they don't get any money out of you, they show a $10 expense, and they can, issue you a 1099 for $500 to show income to the IRS. Its an accounting balance sheet type thing - both sides equal, but nowhere is it "double dipping". All that being said, only one person is getting the original $500. Whether its the OC because you paid them, the CA because they are the owner of the debt, or you, because by not every paying the debt you "realized" income.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this C&D? quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by LBrown59 This is why I say one is not legally obligated to pay a CA. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Then why are CAs that bought debts bringing people to court---and winning? QUEEN_BEE =================== Probably due to 1 or more of the following. 1*Kangroo courts 2*Default judgments 3*or this argument was not presented as a defense. The END ************************* LB 59
Re: Re: Re: Is this C&D? All that being said, only one person is getting the original $500. Jlynn ============== Actually it's not the entire $500. only the principal. The END ************************* LB 59
