Will this work?

Although there are some folks here who can tell you better than I if that will work or not, I have very serious doubts that it will work except by luck.

The best way to go about this is to demand a signed contract by them that they will honor the agreement you wish. Then you would have a legal and binding contract upon which you could sue in the likely event they did not comply.

It's better not to pay them in the first place because if you pay them you lose all protections under FDCPA.

You would be a whole lot better of demaning that they validate the debt and hope to catch them in a violation of FDCPA and then with that as a legal weapon you can pretty well call the shots the way you want them.

 

Could you make an arguement in court? SURE...

Will it make the creditor/ca delete the tradeline? NOPE...
Would the CRA take it as documentation to delete the tradeline? NOPE....


If you wanted it deleted, you needed to get a manager with the authority to nego to put it in writing prior to any/final payment.


SORRY!

 

Bill and Bkev.

This is very interesting.


I tried this once myself and failed. Could you please elaborate a little on why this doesn't work? It just seems to make so much sense on this end....of course that might not be saying much!

Shawn

 

As long as you owe them money, I would say yes. Since you're paying, I would call Monday and ask to speak with a supervisor with the authority to nego. Be brief, but clear in what you want. If you can, have them fax it!


Good luck!

 

It's called a restrictive endorsement. The problem is to enfore it you would have to go to court. Most payments are not made to collection/credit departments or managers.... they're made to processing centers. These are the same type of hourly workers who man the telephones at the cras.... drones. They have no power to do anything.


If you spend the time going to court, the creditor could still have an objection.... even after you've paid the account and the spent the time/money for court.

 

Bkev:
When you actually do take them to court, you lose your bargaining power. Almost the same type of situation as when you pay them, you lose any chance you ever had to get it off.

It's the fear of getting sued for a huge amount of money that gets their attention and gets the job done. Once you actually take them to court, there is no more fear factor.

So you go for a deletion and total eradication of the debt in lieu of the big lawsuit. It's known as an amicable and out of court settlement.

Wrong on both counts from my point of view and that of many others who have successfully negotiated and won on both counts.

Once one goes to court and actually sues them, then you suddenly become correct in what you are saying.

But then, nobody really want to go to court anyway. I guess that's because one can get better relief in the outhouse than they can in the courthouse.

 

PROOF PLEASE. WHO has restrictively endorsed a check and made it stick? Names and their creditors please.


Bill, you can negotiate anytime before a judgement is reached.... pending case or just a treat. You can even nego after a judgement to avoid an appeal. Many times they will not respond to threats, only will nego after a lawsuit is filed.... LIZARDKING is proof of that. I understand that you're way of working debts has had some success. What you need to realize is that it is not the only way to have things work. I think it was a priority for Kellie to have the information off of her file. It's not a question of if it was a valid debt.


Bill: Unless you have had a 100% success rate with your method against all situations, I think you have to consider that people can and may need to try multiple methods to get complete results.

 

IN THE FINE PRINT IT SAYS...(FLEET)...OTHERS WOULD HAVE SIMILAR WORDING...

20. Irregular Payments You agree that we may accept partial payments
of amounts due or late payments without losing any of our rights under
this Agreement. You also agree that we may accept checks and money
orders marked "payment in full" or bearing any other restrictive
endorsements without accepting any such conditions or losing any of our
rights under this Agreement.

 

Bkev:

Looks to me like you are a bit off point here, Bkev. She didn't say one single word about a restrictive endorsement on a check( negotiable instrument of debt).

She isn't even talking about a contract to perform. In order for a contract to exist, two conditions must exist. 1. There has to be an agreement between two parties, verbal or otherwise and an exchange of items of value to each. Her letter would lack the first condition at the very least.

I cannot find fault with your question (argument, whatever) except that it is off point. Has no bearing on this stiipulated situation. If you will re-read my post, you will see that I suggested that instead of the letter she mentioned she demand a signed contract before sending any check or other instrument(s) of debt in lieu of payment in full which she cannot possibly make anyway.

and that's exactly what you suggested she do as well.

Seems to me that the major difference of opinion we have here is that you assumed that she was talking about a restrictive endorsement placed upon a check and I was referring to a letter assuming that if condition A came to pass (cash the check) then condition B would be implied/assumed to be invoked and enforceable.
Such an assumption cannot be enforced.

Bkev:
Your logic here really throws me for a loop. Would you please explain the following to me?

Now then, I full welll realize and must admit that I am as green as a gourd and as dumb as a fence post, but that just don't make no sense to me at all. Would you please be so kind as to elaborate and explain?

And here is another I simply don't understand.

It's not a question of if it was a valid debt? So that's not important? She should pay it anyway just to get it off her file? Lady, it isn't even her file she's talking about! It's her husband's file and she is helping pay the bill out of love for her husband! Since she is doing it voluntarily out of love for her husband, seems to me that she ought to care whether it's a valid debt or not. But I doubt that's even the issue here. I didn't see her worrying about that. Where did you come off with it? She didn't say anything about valid debts and neither did I.

Then,

Lady, that's exactly what I have. Nothing more and nothing less than 100% success in any credit related situation I have ever attempted to work with or claimed that I could work with.

I don't claim to know anything about bankruptcies and I don't know much about student loans unless they have been turned over to a 3rd party collector and then all I can do is run the 3rd party collector off and maybe make him pay off the student loan if he violates the law sufficiently, and I don't claim to be able to do anything about paid off debts although I have had some success with getting rid of them as testified to by psychdoc and others.

Right now, I have over 1400 clients and most of them have multiple debts, so there is no way to estimate how many total debts nor the total amounts of indebtedness I have successfully eliminated for others. But I've never failed yet and on top of that I have helped others go to court and come out with outstanding damage awards as a result of having helped them with my methods. And no, I never went to court myself, nor with anyone else. All I did there was to get them going in the right direction and then turn it over to legal professionals who knew how to get the job done right. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't go there and I can't do that.

It makes absolutely no difference what I consider or don't consider. Everybody makes their own decisions based on what they see, hear, think and feel. And that's the way it is.

 

Good info George! The only problem is this account is not a credit card or a loan, it's a medical bill. It could have the same wording, but it's never been in any doctor I remember seeing.

 

That makes one person who likes my advice! J/K

It's important that you NEVER give a collection agency the ability to automatically deduct from your checking account. Many people will tell you to make any payment to a collection agency with certified funds and never allow them to know your banking account numbers. If they sue and win by judgement or default, they know how to immediately seize the funds.

Call and ask to speak with a supervisor.... still time to nego!

 

Bill:

It's obvious that you love to argue. I'm not a collection agency, I'm not bound by the FDCPA and I don't have a problem with you. On the otherhand, I will defend myself. It's obvious that your bullying tactics... I could really care less. You have not been able to disprove anything I've said! You claim miscommunication and use misdirection. Re-Read this entire post if you don't believe me.

The debt is valid. She told us it was. She was asking for immediate help. She asked if what she did will work. I answered her questions and told her what had the best chance of working in the shortest amount of time.


And if you think you loose all of your power when you sue, you need to read some current events! You claim to be big into selling smokes.... Remember the states attorneys general who sued the tobacco industry! What was the outcome Bill? Remember the Justice Department vs Microsoft? I think that one went to judgement Bill, but wait.... aren't they still nego? Hmmm..... Seems I'm right again!

 

Bkev:

Sorry you thought I was "bullying" you. That was not my intention at all.

I realize that

and I don't think I ever said you were.

What the heck is the argument here? I didn't say anything about whether the debt was valid or not, I just said she didn't owe the debt, her husband owes the debt. Why are you calling me to task over that point?

The outcome was that the states made an ungodly amount of money and the tobacco industry made at least 8 times that much money and both were as happy as two bugs in a rug and the public got screwed as usual whether they smok(ed) or not. And they even foisted that one on to the next 7 generations or more who will all still be paying the bill forever.
The proof of that is easily found in analyzing the outcomes for a small state like Oklahoma. Oklahoma will supposedly get 2 billion dollars a year over the next 25 years or more from the tobacco companies. Oklahoma's population is 3.5 million people, and we know from national statistics that about 25% of any population are smokers although Oklahoma has about a 35% ratio of smokers to non smokers. We also know that statistically speaking the average smoker will consume about 2 packs per day. They raised the price of cigarettes by 50 cents a pack to cover the cost of the tobacco settlement. That means that the average smoker is paying $1 a day in additional costs to fund the tobacco settlement. Figure that out and Oklahoma's smoking population is paying out $1,050,000 per day times 365 days per year or well over 3 billion dollars per year to fund the tobacco settlement. So the state gets 2 billion and the people of the state pay over 3 billion to give our state 2 billion a year.

And every man, woman and child pays it regardless of any other circumstance or fact of life. Why? Because that is more than 3 billion a year that had it stayed in Oklahoma in the first place would have boosted our economy by providing jobs, put food on the tables of Oklahoma and shirts and blouses on the backs of the kids and shoes on their feet.

Yes, I know exactly what the tobacco settlement did. It ripped off the very kids it was somehow supposed to protect. But the people were gullible enough to believe the politicians again and they got stung as a result.

So what else is new?

Microsoft?

I don't pay any attention to the Microsoft deal. I'm afraid it will end up costing us far more than the tobacco settlement before it's all said and done. Microsoft's products are priced all too hight now and once the deal is done, Microsoft will probably just double or triple the price of their goods to pay for the Microsoft settlement and we get stung again.

HUH???

After you sue somebody and win, what is there left to argue about?

HUH????

I didn't say you were wrong, I just said I didn't understand your logic and asked you to clarify it for me.

Also, when I said I thought you might be a bit off point with one of your ideas, I didn't say you were wrong.

Sheesh!

 

The same thing you sued for.... The exact reason I quoted the Microsoft case. Bill, the government won the case. The judge ruled, but Microsoft appealed. The reason you nego is the same always, to bring CLOSURE to situation...

I think I've rebuffed your arguments... Too bad if you fail to acknowledge it.

AND If you have such a problem with the tobacco industry, maybe you should get out of it. Be a part of the solution Bill, not the problem!