Someone tried to collect money that I didn't owe, help?

[clevere1]

What is the name of your state? Washington State

Ok, here's the scoop. A month of so ago my work received a Garnishment notice from an Attorney's office out of Kansas. The attorney's office had obtain a legal garnishment from the Johnson County Court system to garnish the wages of someone with the Same first and last name of me. Nothing else was the same, not the social security number, not the birthdate.

I pointed this out to my work. They did NOT garnish my wages. I called the attorney's office, and informed them they had the wrong people. They said my work had to send something to them to verify this. My work did this, and the attorney's office submited a RELEASE OF GARNISHMENT to the courts.

As soon as I heard of this garnishment, I checked my credit to make sure nothing showed up. I wrote the attorney's office to see if they can remove my information from the court information. Which is basically My first and last name, and my company name.

They attorney's office said they can't do it. This kinda of makes me mad, because if someone does a background check, it's possible this could show up. Even the attorney admits that the credit agencies can pick up the court information. I've asked them to reimburse me for my first credit report (I already ran my free one earlier in the year), as well as for a second credit report I did 2 months later. They are fighting me on this.

Can anyone tell me what actions I can/should take? I've got this court case in Kansas (which I've never been to btw), with my name, and the name of the company I work for on, and I've got to worry about my credit rating in case the credit agencies pick it up somehow, and then I've got the cost of running the credit reports ....

I'd like to know a couple of things in addition. Isn't there certain information that is needed to be verified (besides first and lastname) before someone can try to collect money from you, especially in a garnisment case? I've looked at the Fair consumer credit reporting act, and well .. it's confusing as all heck. Isn't the attorney's office liable for thiey mistake?

Thanks in advance! Chris

[Chien]

I don’t think some of this can be correct, and you may have been asking the attorney the wrong questions. However, there may now be a judgment in your state for somebody with the same name. If there is and such a person lives in WA, there’s nothing that you can do about it. It’s doubtful that your company name appears anywhere but on a wage garnishment application with some Sheriff in WA. If that’s been released, the application is deep in a drawer somewhere.

A KS court can’t authorize a garnishment in WA. You start with a KS judgment against somebody with the same name. The attorney decides that person is you, now living in WA. The attorney domesticates the KS judgment in WA, making it a WA judgment, and proceeds to garnish. Did you ever get served with notice that a judgment KS was being entered in WA?

If that’s what happened, the attorney’s negligence was both sloppy and stupid, but I don’t think we know all the facts yet, and I doubt that you’ve suffered damages that are worth fighting about (yet). Have you checked your credit report lately? If you could determine the SSAN of the “right” garnishee, there may now be a record of a WA judgment against that guy, but there shouldn’t be anything against you. Check and post back, if there is.

[clevere1]

Originally Posted by Chien

I don’t think some of this can be correct, and you may have been asking the attorney the wrong questions. However, there may now be a judgment in your state for somebody with the same name. If there is and such a person lives in WA, there’s nothing that you can do about it. It’s doubtful that your company name appears anywhere but on a wage garnishment application with some Sheriff in WA. If that’s been released, the application is deep in a drawer somewhere.

A KS court can’t authorize a garnishment in WA. You start with a KS judgment against somebody with the same name. The attorney decides that person is you, now living in WA. The attorney domesticates the KS judgment in WA, making it a WA judgment, and proceeds to garnish. Did you ever get served with notice that a judgment KS was being entered in WA?

If that’s what happened, the attorney’s negligence was both sloppy and stupid, but I don’t think we know all the facts yet, and I doubt that you’ve suffered damages that are worth fighting about (yet). Have you checked your credit report lately? If you could determine the SSAN of the “right” garnishee, there may now be a record of a WA judgment against that guy, but there shouldn’t be anything against you. Check and post back, if there is.

No, the letter came directly from the Lawyer in Kansas.I was never served with anything. The only way I found out was from the HR person at my work. From what information I can obtain from the local court systems, nothing has been filed in Washington. All the facts, as well as I can present them are here.

I've ran 2 credit reports so far. The first one right after I found out about this, the second not 30 days later. Nothing shows up on the credit report as of yet, but I hear a judgement can take 6 months.

The online court records for Kansas clearly show my name, and my place of business on them. So I'm sure they could pull something (the credit agencies). I don't want to just sue them for being stupid, while it would be nice, it's not what I am after. I would just like my company name removed from the court records, and be reimbursed for the credit reports.

I have the last 4 of the person, as well as thier birthdate, but that's it. Thanks for the help.

[Chien]

OP - I can't explain this, given the information you've posted. I'd be repeating myself, and none of this makes sense.

I can't even suggest questions to ask, except to your HR person. I'd want to know what was served on the company and the court from which it originated. Did you ever see it, and do you know if they still have a copy? I hope so, because I'd like this to make some sense too.

As closely as possible, can you say what records listing your company name you saw on a KS court site? Were they associated with a judgment, a Proof of Service, an Order of Garnishment or something else, if you could tell?

And the letter from the KS attorney - did it simply inform you that your company was going to be served or what?

[clevere1]

Originally Posted by Chien

OP - I can't explain this, given the information you've posted. I'd be repeating myself, and none of this makes sense.

I can't even suggest questions to ask, except to your HR person. I'd want to know what was served on the company and the court from which it originated. Did you ever see it, and do you know if they still have a copy? I hope so, because I'd like this to make some sense too.

As closely as possible, can you say what records listing your company name you saw on a KS court site? Were they associated with a judgment, a Proof of Service, an Order of Garnishment or something else, if you could tell?

And the letter from the KS attorney - did it simply inform you that your company was going to be served or what?

Trust me, it doesn't make any sense to me either. I do have a copy of the information that was sent to my work. I watched my HR person open the envelope in from of my eyes. Of course she had opened it already, but it was the original envelope, straight from the Attorney over in Kansas. I was in total shock. So she gave me a copy, and that is when I pointed out to her that the name is the same, but the SS# and Birthday was not. I then called the attorney's office, told them this, and they had my work send over some verification documents. Which is the only reason my the info below says Release. It originated from Kansas, nothing from Washington. This is direct from the Johnson county website, with the names and court records removed. Keep in mind, I've never lived in Kansas. I've liked in Washington for the last 25 years.

05/18/2007 FILE STAMP 5/18/2007, RELEASE OF GARNISHMENT, My company name(My first name)
05/04/2007 FILE STAMP 5/4/2007, REQUEST FOR GARNISHMENT; REQUEST AND SERVICE INSTRUCTION FORM; ORDER OF GARNISHMENT ISSUED TO, ATTY(BOX 112)GARNISHEE My company name.,ATTACH EARNINGS(My first name)
04/26/2007 FILE STAMP 4/16/2007, SHERIFF'S RETURN FROM JO CO KS, N/S Somedude from Kansas 4-5-07 C/S
04/26/2007 FILE STAMP 4/16/2007, SHERIFF'S RETURN FROM JO CO KS, N/S Somedude with my first and last name 4-5-07 C/S
04/25/2007 FILE STAMP 4/13/2007, SHERIFF'S RETURN FROM JO CO KS, N/S Somedude from Kansas 4/5/07 C/S
03/29/2007 FILE STAMP 3/26/2007, SUMMONS RETURN JO CO KS SERVED BY LEAVING AT RESIDENCE AND MAILING NOTICE, Somedude from Kansas 3/15/07 C/S
03/29/2007 FILE STAMP 3/26/2007, SUMMONS RETURN JO CO KS SERVED BY LEAVING AT RESIDENCE AND MAILING NOTICE, Somedude with my first and last name 3/15/07 C/S
03/29/2007 FILE STAMP 3/26/2007, SUMMONS RETURN JO CO KS SERVED BY LEAVING AT RESIDENCE AND MAILING NOTICE, Somedude from Kansas 3/15/07 C/S
03/27/2007 FILE STAMP 3/23/2007, REQUEST AND SERVICE INSTRUCTION FORM, WRIT OF RESTITUTION ISSUED TO SHERIFF JO CO KS, (3 DEFTS)
03/27/2007 FILE STAMP 3/23/2007, WRIT OF RESTITUTION
03/23/2007 Changed Case Status: From: PENDING To: CASE TERMINATED (DEFAULT JUDGMENT)
03/22/2007 FILE STAMP 3/22/2007, JOURNAL ENTRY OF JUDGMENT, ###JUDGMENT FOR PLTF AGAINST Somedue with my name, Somedude from Kansas, AND Somedude from Kansas FOR $1926.89 + $58.00 COSTS + POST JUDGMENT INT + RESTITUTION OF PREMISES GRANTED + ISSUE OF DAMAGES TO REMAIN OPEN UNTIL DEFT HAS VACATED THE PREMISES ###
03/13/2007 SCHED. ANSWER DATE on 03/22/07,10:30am,Div 61
03/13/2007 SHERIFF'S FEE OF $5.00 COLLECTED.
03/13/2007 FILE STAMP 3/12/2007, REQUEST AND SERVICE INSTRUCTION FORM; SUMMONS AND PETITION ISSUED TO SHERIFF OF JO CO KS; ANSWER DATE, 3/22/07 "Somedude with my first and last name", "Somedude from Kansas " & "Somedude from Kansas "
03/13/2007 FILE STAMP 3/12/2007, PETITION FOR RENT AND POSSESSION
03/12/2007 Judge: The judges name Assigned to Case
03/12/2007 NEW CASE FILED; RREThe place the dudes from kansas lived ITC LLC DBA OAK PARK VILLAGE VS Somedude with my first and last name Somedude from Kansas Somedude from Kansas ; FILING FEE OF $48.00 PAID BY The place that tried to get my wages;, Receipted Amount: $48.00 , Check No: XXXXX, Receipt NO: XXXXXXXX

So that's directly from thier site. The only thing edited were the names and any specific court information such as docket number, etc.

[Chien]

Thanks -
Well, it's from a state court for a UD (unlawful detainer) judgment.
I was almost hoping it was from a federal court and that might shed some light.
I'll do some research into WA law.
racer72 sometimes posts here, and maybe he'll see this. He's from WA.
I've never seen anything like it and don't know of any reason it should be honored in WA.
Either there is some reason I've never confronted in a lot of years that would validate this, or this attorney was so uninformed that he thought he could just send a garnishment order anywhere and it would be honored. I'd like to think that someone could not be that misguided, and there's something I'm missing. But your company apparently would have honored it, if you hadn't pointed out the error. So I can't rule out the possibility that it was just a major SNAFU.

[clevere1]

Originally Posted by Chien

Thanks -
Well, it's from a state court for a UD (unlawful detainer) judgment.
I was almost hoping it was from a federal court and that might shed some light.
I'll do some research into WA law.
Racer32 sometimes posts here, and maybe he'll see this. He's from WA.
I've never seen anything like it and don't know of any reason it should be honored in WA.
Either there is some reason I've never confronted in a lot of years that would validate this, or this attorney was so uninformed that he thought he could just send a garnishment order anywhere and it would be honored. I'd like to think that someone could not be that misguided, and there's something I'm missing. But your company apparently would have honored it, if you hadn't pointed out the error. So I can't rule out the possibility that it was just a major SNAFU.

Oh yes, this is a major SNAFU. Luckily my work did what needed to be done to make sure my wages weren't garnished. That I am thankful for. Now I just need this Attorney's office in Kansas to take some responsibility for doing something they shouldn't have. Aren't they suppose to do some sort of verification of identity before they can file a garnishment? Besides just making a call and asking if someone with my name works at my company? Shouldn't they be able to seal the company information from the court records? Shouldn't they be responsible for paying for my costs to cover my arse? Mind you, I just want to put this behind me, but I want to make darned sure it doesn't come and bite me in the butt in the future. If they just sent the garnishment over without doing it the legal way (getting it assigned to Washington First before sending off to my work) isn't that against the law? Sigh ..

Do you understand what I would like to do? (I don't want to waste your time), oh, and thanks for your input, it's very much appreicated.

[Chien]

I understand. And preliminary research shows me no reason it could me done, but it was going to be.
As I expected, your company name only shows up of the Order for Garnishment. That's more or less normal (in my state, it would only show up on instructions sent to the Sheriff and wouldn't appear in court records, but apparenntly KS does things differently). Neither you nor it should be involved in anything reported to a CRA.
OP - at this point, I'm becoming more convinced that this was a massive blunder by the attorney, in which your company could have unwittingly cooperated.
I want to do a bit more research, because that conclusion, while becoming unavoidable, is still hard to grasp. (I'm trying to prove myself wrong.) The information that I gave you originally is correct. And it's correct for WA. That doesn't leave many explanations but SNAFU.
At the same time, I'm trying to figure out how to rein-in the attorney. If this is really what it's beginning to look like, I still think the damage is minimal to nonexistent (I understand it makes you crazy), because it's associated with another SSAN and exists in KS. None of it should ever show on your credit report (but check the next time your free one rolls around or sooner, if you wish).
I'll post if I find anything more. Maybe other members will have further insights and/or advice. I don't think you've been monetarily damaged enough to butt heads with the attorney and, until you know that it has somehow bitten you in the backside, I'd advise you to let it go. If I thought you could prove significant monetary damages, I'd tell you. This is not a matter of protecting a professional colleague. If it's what it looks like, I apologize on behalf of the legal profession, but stupidity is not illegal or we'd need twice as many prisons. I know you don't want it, but I hope that I find a better explanation.

[clevere1]

Originally Posted by Chien

I understand. And preliminary research shows me no reason it could me done, but it was going to be.
As I expected, your company name only shows up of the Order for Garnishment. That's more or less normal (in my state, it would only show up on instructions sent to the Sheriff and wouldn't appear in court records, but apparenntly KS does things differently). Neither you nor it should be involved in anything reported to a CRA.
OP - at this point, I'm becoming more convinced that this was a massive blunder by the attorney, in which your company could have unwittingly cooperated.
I want to do a bit more research, because that conclusion, while becoming unavoidable, is still hard to grasp. (I'm trying to prove myself wrong.) The information that I gave you originally is correct. And it's correct for WA. That doesn't leave many explanations but SNAFU.
At the same time, I'm trying to figure out how to rein-in the attorney. If this is really what it's beginning to look like, I still think the damage is minimal to nonexistent (I understand it makes you crazy), because it's associated with another SSAN and exists in KS. None of it should ever show on your credit report (but check the next time your free one rolls around or sooner, if you wish).
I'll post if I find anything more. Maybe other members will have further insights and/or advice. I don't think you've been monetarily damaged enough to butt heads with the attorney and, until you know that it has somehow bitten you in the backside, I'd advise you to let it go. If I thought you could prove significant monetary damages, I'd tell you. This is not a matter of protecting a professional colleague. If it's what it looks like, I apologize on behalf of the legal profession, but stupidity is not illegal or we'd need twice as many prisons. I know you don't want it, but I hope that I find a better explanation.

I'd love to let it go, I just want to cover all my bases. The Kansas attorney even flat out says that Credit reporting agencies can pick up stuff like this. Since my company name, and my name are both in my credit history, it wouldn't be out of the question for the CRA's to pick this up, and add it to my credit file. I'm looking to buy a house this winter, and having this loom over my head isn't what I wanted. All I would like to do is:

1. Have the company name removed from the court records (sealed or whatever)
2. Be reimbursed for my credit reports
3. This isn't what I want, but would be nice, a way to make sure the attorney's office is liable should something just show up.

I am grateful for your comment, and no apology is needed. With the way things mysteriously appear on people's credit reports, and with ID theft as prevelant as it is now a days, I need to cover my rear. Having something like that removed from a credit report is a MAJOR pain in the rear. I'm sure it was a SNAFU, the attorney said in the mail that thier trace skipper called my work, verified that someone with my name worked there (it's the same as the person they are trying to collect money from obiously), and basically they thought that was proof enough to file the garnishment. sigh ...

[Chien]

I didn't find any reasonable explanation.
What the attorney said about CRAs picking up court data is correct, but what they pick up is that "JOURNAL ENTRY OF JUDGMENT" that appears in the docket record, not every other incidental record in the case.
You don't find it in your credit record now. I still don't expect it to get there.
Under the circumstances, my suggestion would be to wait a while and check your record again in a few months. It shouldn't take 6 months to get picked up, but I suppose it's possible from a small court in Kansas.
Anyway, check when your next free report is available or before you pre-qualify for a home loan and see.
I don't think you'll see anything but, if you do, you can dispute it and get it out much faster than it gets in (45-60 days would probably be reasonable to have it completely cleared.)

[clevere1]

Originally Posted by Chien

I didn't find any reasonable explanation.
What the attorney said about CRAs picking up court data is correct, but what they pick up is that "JOURNAL ENTRY OF JUDGMENT" that appears in the docket record, not every other incidental record in the case.
You don't find it in your credit record now. I still don't expect it to get there.
Under the circumstances, my suggestion would be to wait a while and check your record again in a few months. It shouldn't take 6 months to get picked up, but I suppose it's possible from a small court in Kansas.
Anyway, check when your next free report is available or before you pre-qualify for a home loan and see.
I don't think you'll see anything but, if you do, you can dispute it and get it out much faster than it gets in (45-60 days would probably be reasonable to have it completely cleared.)

Thanks for the input. I'll keep an eye on my credit. This wasn't my mistake, it was thiers. How can I recoup the costs involved in getting my credit reports?