Judgement against checking account?

[Smith2410@aol.c]

Florida-Mann Bracken collector
Can a debt collector obtain a judgement and take money out of our joint account? If so, will we be notified before it happens? My husbands name is on the credit card account but I was an authorized user. Am I leagally responsible for this account? I have a separate checking account and will transfer our money in that account if I'm not responsible for the credit card account. I offered them a 70% settlement but they wouldn't take it and said that they would take it out of our bank account. Not a deadbeat, just don't have anymore money, not working because of medical problems.

[>Charlotte<]

If you try to hide your husband's money from a judgment you're going to be in worse trouble than you already are.

The judgment is the notification.

[Smith2410@aol.c]

So one day without notice, our checking account will be wiped out?

[CourtClerk]

Originally Posted by Smith2410@aol.c

So one day without notice, our checking account will be wiped out?

Once again, the judgment is your notice. At that point, you know you officially owe them money and they have a right to enforce that judgment at any time.

Call them and make payment arrangements. If you aren't a party to the case, then you may want to have your husband call.

[Bosco]

Originally Posted by Smith2410@aol.c

Florida-Mann Bracken collector
Can a debt collector obtain a judgement and take money out of our joint account?

Yes, unfortunately.

If so, will we be notified before it happens?

Besides actually being sued? I believe you are given some form of notice, but I'm not positive about that.

My husbands name is on the credit card account but I was an authorized user. Am I leagally responsible for this account?

No. Authorized users are have no legal obligation for the debt owed on those accounts.

I have a separate checking account and will transfer our money in that account if I'm not responsible for the credit card account.

That's a good move, but they might be able to get around that.

I offered them a 70% settlement but they wouldn't take it and said that they would take it out of our bank account. Not a deadbeat, just don't have anymore money, not working because of medical problems.

Florida has a garnishment exemption for the "head of household." If you (or your husband) is not working and being supported by the wages of the spouse, then you would likely meet this criteria and then 100% of your income is exempt from garnishment.

Good luck!

[Smith2410@aol.c]

Thanks for the detailed info Bosco!

[Antigone*of*Greece]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Bosco

Besides actually being sued? I believe you are given some form of notice, but I'm not positive about that.

The judgement is the notice.

No. Authorized users are have no legal obligation for the debt owed on those accounts.

I can't tell you how many people believe they are just authorized users when in reality they are account owners as well. The OP will know exactly what her status is if her name appears on the summons as well.

[Bosco]

Originally Posted by Wirelessany1

I can't tell you how many people believe they are just authorized users when in reality they are account owners as well. The OP will know exactly what her status is if her name appears on the summons as well.

She would (should) know if she was a joint account holder, because she would have had to sign something and provide her ID. That wouldn't be required of an authorized user.

Regardless, her name showing up on the summons is not a reliable indicator of her status on the account. Debt collectors are known to sue anyone and everyone listed on the account in hopes of getting a hit, and scumbag bottom feeders like Mann Bracken would do it without any shame.

And me, being the litigious minded pain in the ass that I am, would file an counterclaim for FDCPA violation if I was ever sued for an account that I was only an authorized user on.

[cosine]

Originally Posted by Bosco

She would (should) know if she was a joint account holder, because she would have had to sign something and provide her ID. That wouldn't be required of an authorized user.

Often people are told "sign here and you can use the company credit card" when in fact they become liable for the card. Then too many people don't read what they sign. They thought they were just becoming a user because that's what they were told. And in case people do read the wording, the manager will often just say "that's just in case you start using the card for personal stuff". The CC doesn't split the balance between company and personal even if that was the case.

But I do agree that even if you are only a user, or even a past user whose authority was rescinded before it became past due, and even if you never used the card or signed anything, there are bottom feeders very practiced in the art of acquiring default judgments. If you don't show, it's a cheap judgment for them that gets expensive for you to get out of. And even if it comes back on them, they just say "oops, bookkeeping error, we'll quit". Mann Bracken has that reputation.

[debtor2008]

in order to have a automatic judgement against you, a summons/complaint had to have been 1st filed and served upon you and anyother cardholder on said account and then in return you and other cardholder would have NOT responded to it, therefore, an automatic judgement would have been issued to the plaintiff. in the case that you DID RESPOND to the summons/complaint within the allotted time and you DISPUTED it, you would have been given a court date.

[Bosco]

Originally Posted by cosine

Often people are told "sign here and you can use the company credit card" when in fact they become liable for the card. Then too many people don't read what they sign. They thought they were just becoming a user because that's what they were told. And in case people do read the wording, the manager will often just say "that's just in case you start using the card for personal stuff". The CC doesn't split the balance between company and personal even if that was the case.

This is a very good point, and in fact I helped a person deal with this type of situation about a year ago. If the OP was dealing with a business account, this should most certainly be taken into consideration.

But I do agree that even if you are only a user, or even a past user whose authority was rescinded before it became past due, and even if you never used the card or signed anything, there are bottom feeders very practiced in the art of acquiring default judgments. If you don't show, it's a cheap judgment for them that gets expensive for you to get out of. And even if it comes back on them, they just say "oops, bookkeeping error, we'll quit". Mann Bracken has that reputation.

Yeah. Mann Bracken is one of the sleaziest members of a very sleazy industry.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by debtor2008

in order to have a automatic judgement against you, a summons/complaint had to have been 1st filed and served upon you and anyother cardholder on said account and then in return you and other cardholder would have NOT responded to it, therefore, an automatic judgement would have been issued to the plaintiff. in the case that you DID RESPOND to the summons/complaint within the allotted time and you DISPUTED it, you would have been given a court date.

That's not true. They can "pick and choose" who to sue.