Collection Agency files in Small Claims Court

[mama1995]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Oregon

Back in February I received a letter from a Collection Agency in regards to a medical bill I still owed. I called them and they agreed to $50 per month payments which I have been making faithfully. Today I got served with papers, they filled for a judgement against me. Can they do that even though I have been paying as agreed? Also they signed a Bona Fide Statement which is not true. Planning on going to court, any insight would be helpful.

 

[single317dad]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Oregon

Back in February I received a letter from a Collection Agency in regards to a medical bill I still owed. I called them and they agreed to $50 per month payments which I have been making faithfully. Today I got served with papers, they filled for a judgement against me. Can they do that even though I have been paying as agreed? Also they signed a Bona Fide Statement which is not true. Planning on going to court, any insight would be helpful.

The answer is probably Yes, they can sue you if you owe money and haven't paid per the original terms (usually payment due at time of service for medical). Your later agreement with the CA probably means nothing. In fact, your regular payments may even stand among other evidence as admission to owing the debt, which pretty much seals the case against you.

If you really plan to argue this case in court, I suggest you search around the internet a little more for some other forums dedicated exclusively to pro se debt litigation. There are a couple with a very helpful membership.

Certain law firms get paid in different ways, and this particular one may be working by the number of judgments they can score and get payment on. Yours would be an easy win, as they could probably get the judgment in summary and then be pretty sure of collecting since you've already proven your willingness to pay. Congratulations, you're the perfect collection agency customer.

 

[mama1995]

I'm not disputing the fact I owe the money and just want them to honor the arrangemnt they made. Doesn't make much sense if a CA makes an agreement and then turns around and sues because you pay, isn't that a binding contract? I did my research and sadly there is a lot of info on how to sue but not much if sued. Oh well, will call my attorney and let him look in to it.

 

[latigo]

The answer is probably Yes, they can sue you if you owe money and haven't paid per the original terms (usually payment due at time of service for medical). Your later agreement with the CA probably means nothing. (?) . . . . . . . . .

In fact, your regular payments may even stand among other evidence as admission to owing the debt, which pretty much seals the case against you. . . .

Sorry, pop but you are totally off of the mark.

A "stand still agreement" does indeed mean something! It comes down to a matter of proof.

And contrary to your unschooled legal analysis those "regular payments"over the past several months and their silent acceptance by the collector serve to corroborate the agreement to forebear filing for a judgment.

Not conclusive evidence, but certainty probative of its existence.

_______________

Now please allow me to ask you a question.

Suppose the OP made a compromised offer of settlement. Could the collector introduce that offer in evidence to "seal the case"? Yes or no?

Also, with respect to admissibility what, if any distinction is there between an offer of settlement from the alleged debtor and the debtor's agreement to a deferred payment schedule?

 

[single317dad]

Sorry, pop but you are totally off of the mark.

A "stand still agreement" does indeed mean something! It comes down to a matter of proof.

And contrary to your unschooled legal analysis those "regular payments"over the past several months and their silent acceptance by the collector serve to corroborate the agreement to forebear filing for a judgment.

Not conclusive evidence, but certainty probative of its existence.

_______________

Now please allow me to ask you a question.

Suppose the OP made a compromised offer of settlement. Could the collector introduce that offer in evidence to "seal the case"? Yes or no?

Also, with respect to admissibility what, if any distinction is there between an offer of settlement from the alleged debtor and the debtor's agreement to a deferred payment schedule?

Please allow me to ask you a question:

Why do you spend most of your time here tearing down other contributors instead of assisting members asking for help?

 

[Zigner]

Please allow me to ask you a question:

Why do you spend most of your time here tearing down other contributors instead of assisting members asking for help?

It could be argued that correcting posts that give incorrect information does help the OP's - Lat's just not very gentle about it sometimes.

 

[single317dad]

It could be argued that correcting posts that give incorrect information does help the OP's - Lat's just not very gentle about it sometimes.

I'll agree that all misinformation should be corrected, whatever the source. This member obviously has extensive legal knowledge, but only comments to tell someone they're wrong (and rarely actually corrects the error; rather simply points it out.) It's one step removed from heckling.

 

[latigo]

I'll agree that all misinformation should be corrected, whatever the source. This member obviously has extensive legal knowledge, but only comments to tell someone they're wrong (and rarely actually corrects the error; rather simply points it out.) It's one step removed from heckling.

I'll tell you what pop.

If you ever find in any of these public Q&A forums where I have attempted to impress others that I have special knowledge of subject matter I know nothing of, I will quietly endure all the "heckling" you can throw my way as a I much dislike people that do.

But just one last question (one correct out of three would be passing).

Knowing that it is generally understood that the public despises lawyers, why is it that so many that aren't pretend that they are?

[SUP]As "Olive Oyl" said to "Popeye" - in the film directed by Robert Altman: "When we know that, we'll know everything." (Miss Oyl was asking why women's hats were so ugly, but there is somewhat of a simile between lawyers and ugly hats. [/SUP]

 

[single317dad]

I'll tell you what pop.

If you ever find in any of these public Q&A forums where I have attempted to impress others that I have special knowledge of subject matter I know nothing of, I will quietly endure all the "heckling" you can throw my way as a I much dislike people that do.

But just one last question (one correct out of three would be passing).

Knowing that it is generally understood that the public despises lawyers, why is it that so many that aren't pretend that they are?

[SUP]As "Olive Oyl" said to "Popeye" - in the film directed by Robert Altman: "When we know that, we'll know everything." (Miss Oyl was asking why women's hats were so ugly, but there is somewhat of a simile between lawyers and ugly hats. [/SUP]

No one here who isn't a lawyer pretends to be one. The volunteers here are by and large laypersons with experience in related issues, and that fact is made known in the site terms. If you have a correction to anything I've stated, please feel free to provide it; I've been corrected on this site before and was grateful to learn something new and gracious (I hope) in my concession to the truth. If you want to continue to point your finger and shout "WRONG!" while speaking mostly in riddles, well, there's not much anyone can do about that I suppose.

 

[quincy]

No one here who isn't a lawyer pretends to be one. ...

If anyone wants to pretend to be anything, they should probably pretend to be a nurse - consistently rated the most honest and ethical of all professionals (see http://www.gallup.com/poll/1654/honest-ethics-professions.aspx).

Attorneys, in the same poll, beat out by only a slim margin members of Congress (who, according to a tongue-in-cheek Public Policy Poll, are less popular than c*ckroaches, Genghis Khan, lice and colonoscopies).

Every professional, which is sort of nice to know, ranks higher than meth labs.

 

[TigerD]

Every professional, which is sort of nice to know, ranks higher than meth labs.

And thousands of my statesmen would be appalled if they believed that.

DC

 

[Mark Maroon]

A "stand still agreement" does indeed mean something! It comes down to a matter of proof.
QUOTE]

If the debtor signed something that said; "The debtor agrees to pay the creditor $xx on the first of each month for yy months, and in exchange, so long as each monthly payment is made by the debtor on time, the creditor agrees not to institute legal action to collect any as yet unpaid debt", then the creditor would clearly be precluded from filing suit to collect unpaid debt. The creditor obviously cannot collect what has already been paid towards the debt, but just because the debtor agreed to pay installments I don't see why that would automatically preclude the creditor from taking other actions (unless, as I said, the agreement specifically precludes such actions).

 

[bdancer]

I don't want to get caught in the cross fire, but verbal agreements with collection agencies tend to not be worth much. Usually turn into a he said/she said thing. If the OP does not have a written agreement to this payment plan, wouldn't it be difficult for them to prove the collection agency agreed to the small $50 a month payment?

People often just send a small payment thinking that will prevent the collector from suing ... the old "good faith" payment. So was there an actual written payment plan agreement?