Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: *PLEASE* Anyone actually win on SOL Perhaps I am a tad confused. Can someone please tell me what UCC stands for. (The closest thing I can think of is Uniform Code of Conduct). Thanks! ~WOK
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: *PLEASE* Anyone actually win on SOL UCC stands for Uniform Commercial Code. It's function is to regulate commerce between businesses and not between a business and a consumer. In most cases a written contract of some kind must exist between the merchants involved. The case of Slenk v. Transworld systems involved the financing of a large backhoe. Slenk was a building contractor and bought the backhoe under his business name. He even took it off of taxes as a business expense and did several other things which would tend to prove that he bought it for business purposes but in fact he had no commercial license which would allow him to actually use a backhoe in any of his commercial contractor's activities. He could not possibly have use the backhoe in his business. In fact, he bought the backhoe to facilitate the landscaping of his private home and as soon as that project was completed he immediately sold the backhoe which was not secured by the Transworld Systems loan but rather by his private credit even though it was sold to him under his business name. He had to give his personal guarantee to get it. And when he defaulted on the loan Transworld sued him under U.C.C. law and Slenk argued that it was not used for business purposes and therefore U.C.C. did not apply but rather only consumer law applied and he won. In another recent case, U.S. Federal Judge Bristow Marchant threw out a case in which among other things the pro se plaintiffs attempted to argue U.C.C. law exerpts mixed with other patriot gooroo garbage. The number of cases in which it has been made plain by the courts that U.C.C. governs commercial business transactions as opposed to consumer transactions are probably innumerable. The Federal Government has long attempted to make all laws uniform throughout the United States but has had very limited success in doing so. As a result many states have adopted changes in U.C.C. and many other model laws proposed to them by the federal government and instead enacted variations that they felt were more appropriate for the conditions that existed in their states rather than to follow what the Federal Government wanted them to do. As a result, as I pointed out earlier, automobile sales and lease contracts specifically fall under U.C.C. in some states. As Why Chat pointed out, RISA and MV-RISA laws are also in effect in most states and are more strict then either U.C.C. or consumer law where applicable. Again, as both of us have stated, neither making a partial payment nor a promise to pay will be sufficient to reset the statute of limititations.
Re: Re: Re: Re: *PLEASE* Anyone act Given that you're in a community property state, once you married, you both took on responsibility for both of your debts. Hopefully this lawyer can put an end to the idea of a "paper divorce".
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: *PLEASE* Anyone act "Wornoutkey" is mistaken, Florida is NOT a community property State. Even if this was a legitimate claim, from a legitimate collection agency (THAT'S an oxymoronic phrase) instead of Asset Accept., she would have NO concern about ANYTHING jointly owned, if her husband's name was primary on a bank account or car or anything else. There is TOTAL homestead exemption in Fl. and wages can not be garnished if the WAGE EARNER is contributing more than 50% of EARNED INCOME to a household.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: *PLEASE* Anyone Umm, maybe but I doubt it. Depends on your state. I'm in CA, which is a community property state but spouses are not responsible for debts incurred prior to the marriage. Jane
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: *PLEASE* Anyone Thank you for the info on community property status. I had no Idea... I was told once that it was and I guess I took it for granted that it was. Upon more research I see that it is true that they cannot go after my husband's stuff. Now here are some questions for ya... My husband has an account he is primary on but not the account we primarily use (that one I am primary on)...would it seem that I was avoiding seizure if I put the money into his account (I am on the account, but not as primary). Technically, most of the money is his as I am in a job where I am paid primarily on tips and we work in "cash" for all things that my income provides (It is easier to go to Albertsons and get a MO than to worry about the safety of depositing cash into an ATM)?? We have simply used my account because I have had it a long time. Also.... We own 2 cars. One I purchased on loan before we met (about 6 mos away from being paid off) and the other we bought in cash. They are both registered in my name because I work nights so it is easier for me to do all these things than my husband. So... would it look like avoidance if I put the other vehicle (the paid off one he uses) in his name (since the vehicle is actually his and was purchased using a tax return he got from a year before we were even togther)?? If it ever gets this far... I don't want to look like I am avoiding anything. I just don't want them to take things that belong to my husband. We have both worked really hard for what little we have and I would feel horrible that he would lose things because of things that happened in my past. I also know that if there is one thing we have always agreed upon... it is that what is his is his and what is mine is mine. We don't want each other's "stuff"...even if things were ever to end. We are pretty amicable about that sort of thing. He has "his car" and I have "my car" and we don't drive each other's cars without asking. Any help?? I also found out that in FL we can file to be "tenants by entireties" which will help protect his assets. Anyone know how that works and how we would go about claiming that?? Thank you all for your help and concern. I am really hoping this is a case of AAC trying to Bluff and hopefully simply calling their bluff will be enough. But... I always like to have plan A, B and C in order. Thank you all. ~WOK
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: *PLEASE* Anyone PS~ WHYCHAT... when I looked it up, what I found is that head of household is someone who provides more than 1/2 the support for a child or dependant....but not necessarily 1/2 their wages. Am I understanding this correctly? I feel sometimes that the first 100 time sI look at things in legal-eze that I mis-understand it and then on the 101 time the lightbulb goes off. ~WOK
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: *PLEASE* Anyone The "head of household" designation for exemption from garnishment has to do with EARNED income, and is NOT the same as the Head of Household requirements for the IRS. You are worrying needlessly. Even IF any of your vehicles were subject to seizure, which they are NOT, your exemption would more than cover it, (unless you are driving round in paid for Porsches) As to wage garnishment, if you are working off tips, you are likely under the minimum garnishment exemption of about $220. net take home pay. You are NOT going to be garnished, you are NOT going to have any judgment against you, Asset will likely not even show up with anyone other than a low level flunky whose only job is to get default judgments against those poor souls who don't know how to fight the lying scumbags, and do not show up to defend themselves.
