This is my first time here, so please bear with me. I attempted phone negotiations with JP Morgan Chase since March to arrange a payment plan for my visa which had fallen 60-90 days late. My interest rate defaulted to 30%. I was advised on several occasions that they wanted the balance in full (apprx $6,200) and would not agree to any more payments. I received a letter advising of their right to sue and garnish wages if judgement received etc. Last week, I spoke with another representative in the Chase pre litigation unit who advised me that she had the authority to accept a payment plan and would be more than willing to do so. She agreed to accept $315 a month for 22 months at 10% interest. She advised an agreement would be mailed to me by their legal assistant. Two days ago I received a "Stipulation for Entry of Judgement", Superior Court of California. Under the Case No. it states "Stipulation for Entry of Judgement with Stay of Entry to Provide for Installment Payments." It asks that I sign and return within 15 days or the lawsuit will be immediately resumed. What does all of this mean????? Any suggestions on what I should do? Please Help!!! Thanks!
It sounds like an agreement that if you miss a payment they can file for a judgment and you have no defense at that point. By signing this agreement, you are basically stating there is no dispute as to the amount owed and giving them a judgment if you fail to make payments as agreed. http://www.answers.com/stipulation&r=67 During the course of a civil lawsuit, criminal proceeding, or any other type of litigation, the opposing attorneys may come to an agreement about certain facts and issues. Such an agreement is called a stipulation. Courts look with favor on stipulations because they save time and simplify the matters that must be resolved. Stipulations are voluntary, however, and courts may not require litigants to stipulate with the other side. A valid stipulation is binding only on the parties who agree to it. Courts are usually bound by valid stipulations and are required to enforce them. Parties may stipulate to any matter concerning the rights or obligations of the parties. The litigants cannot, however, stipulate as to the validity or constitutionality of a statute or as to what the law is, because such issues must be determined by the court.
Sign the "stip". That's what it is, PR: It IS an admission they owe the money, and that the court should enter it as a stipulated settlement which would be filed as a judgment proper if they fail to pay as agreed. Common in cases such as this. To the OP: I'd sign that "stip". Why? You are dealing with an OC, Chase, and they seem to have handled your collection account properly. No docs? Sorry...they would definetly have documentation to prove their case. So, if it does go to trial, you would almost certainly lose. This way, there is no judgment--yet--and your credit won't take quite such a "hit" as it would if there were one. Let it go to court and take your chances? I woudn't in a "slam-dunk" for the OC case as this one, for there is no guarantee that a court-ordered "slow-pay" plan would be more favorable toward you. There would also be a little matter of a judgment to mess up your credit rating even more. Your other non-exempt assets would also be subject to seizure if there were to be a judgment. Avoiding one in the first place is the best move.
