question about payments any help/advise much appreciated

[dyang]

What is the name of your state? california

so my dad has a case in small claims where he owes a business money. the plaintiff is asking for more than he can pay per payment and i need to know what my dad can do...and a lawyer told me that as long as my dad is paying then the plaintiff can pretty much just moan and groan...true/false? need help, the sooner the better

 

[gotocourt]

Depends: Assuming that a judgment has been entered and the judgment provides for periodic payments, the judgment creditors right to avail himself of further avenues of enforcement are probably limited. On the other hand, if the judgment is silent on this issue, and enforcement procedure available may be used (e.g. debtor's examination, etc.)

If the matter has yet to proceed to judgment, the creditor can seek a judgment at any time unless he had previously agreed to the payment structure.

Generally, most creditors are satisfied to accept payments, particularly when the balance bears interest at the legal rate which here in California is currently 10%.

 

[JETX]

I see that 'gottago' has given lots of very general information, but did NOTHING to answer your question.

You asked:
"a lawyer told me that as long as my dad is paying then the plaintiff can pretty much just moan and groan...true/false?"
*** Answer: False. A lot of people think that if a debtor is making SOME payment, that the creditor (or judgment creditor in this case) can't take further steps to enforce the debt. That is simply not correct. The debtor making payments does not limit the creditors actions to enforce the debt.

 

[gotocourt]

dyang: JETX is partly correct... the information I have given is general due in part to the fact that it is not entirely clear whether the claim has gone to judgment (or is pending), or if in fact, a judgment has been entered, the judgment provides for periodic payments.

Neither I nor JETX know the answers to these questions. Yet, he is quick to tell you that the creditor has unrestricted enforcement opportunities, a position that would be inconsistent with the advice given by the lawyer that had been consulted (and who may have had knowledge of the unknown factors listed above).

Why would JETX be so quick with HIS advice? Well, since you are new to the forum, you may be thinking that every person who responds is or has been a practicing lawyer; a false asumption.
There are many persons giving out "legal advice" on this forum who have never been licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction.
JETX professes to be a "judgment collection specialist", typical shorthand for "not an attorney". People such as JETX typically will buy a judgment, or take an assignment, and pursue collection making money on the spread. They do not need to be a lawyer, so long as they are a principal (e.g. assignee of the judgment creditor). It is a legitimate business which anyone, even those who have never graduated from grade school, may engage. Don't misunderstand me. JETX may be very adept at what he does. However, that does not make him a lawyer. And, it explains his perspective on you fathers predicament.

In addition, JETX and a couple of his cronies (who I refer to collectively) as the three stooges, are upset with me because I have called them on the lack of qualifications. One of the stooges even started a poll to try to get me thrown off the forum. (So far, they are about 61,000 votes short. I have abstained from voting.) So, I view JETX's response as nothing more than an attempt to upstage me.

Did JETX add anything? No! If the judgment is silent on the issue of periodic payments, any enforcement procedure may be used.

Actually, I concerned much less about JETX's motive than I am about the fact that he fails to disclose that he is not a practicing attorney. (By comparison, Sioux and Ladynred clearly admit this fact.) These people (the unlicensed: certainly have a right to express their opinion on this forum, and sometimes are correct. However, any reader who incorrectly assumes that the advice they are receiving comes from a person who is qualified to to practice law should at least be careful before accepting such advice as the final answer.

As for me, I am licensed to practice law in California and have practiced for two decades.

 

[hexeliebe]

Dyang;

First, let me apologize to you. Yes, IAAL is correct. I should not have allowed my personal feelings to influence my answer to you and I won't be playing this game any longer.

I will also apologize to all the members of this forum who have read my responses and listened when I offered advice. It was not my intent to cheapen my offers to them by this private war although, as I reread my responses, that is exactly what has happened.

I forgot for a time that this is not my forum, and that I am a guest here and for that I apologize to everyone.

 

[hexeliebe]

Please leave mine up if you will. It doesn't show me in the most flattering light, but the majority of people here deserve better from me and I'll take my punishment.

 

[JETX]

Dyang, you need to ignore 'gottagos' response. It is completely wrong.... and mistates my post.

"dyang: JETX is partly correct... the information I have given is general due in part to the fact that it is not entirely clear whether the claim has gone to judgment (or is pending), or if in fact, a judgment has been entered, the judgment provides for periodic payments."
*** And if you will take the time to read AND understand the original post, he asked NOTHING about a judgment existing or not.... It was a simple question.... that you failed to answer.

"Neither I nor JETX know the answers to these questions."
*** Maybe you don't know the answer to a very simple question, but I do..... and answered it. Since you can't seem to figure out the ISSUE here, let me repeat the original question.... which I answered correctly:
"and a lawyer told me that as long as my dad is paying then the plaintiff can pretty much just moan and groan...true/false?"
There is NOTHING in that question as to being pre-judgment or post-judgment!!!

"Yet, he is quick to tell you that the creditor has unrestricted enforcement opportunities,"
*** Can you read English?? That is NOT what I said. Do I need to repeat it to you?? Re-read my post and point out ANYWHERE that I said ANYTHING about the "creditor having unrestricted enforcement opportunities". Sheese, what an idiot!!

"a position that would be inconsistent with the advice given by the lawyer that had been consulted (and who may have had knowledge of the unknown factors listed above)."
*** Yep. That is because the 'lawyer' that was consulted was either incorrect or misunderstood.

"Why would JETX be so quick with HIS advice?"
*** Because I was correct. How about your idiotic response??

"In addition, JETX and a couple of his cronies (who I refer to collectively) as the three stooges, are upset with me because I have called them on the lack of qualifications."
***Again, you mis-state the FACTS.... this is becoming a very common practice on your part. And though you have absolutely NO right to 'demand' anything from anyone, we HAVE provided credentials to you. You simply continue to ignore them. I have provided them in no less than 3 different threads.

"One of the stooges even started a poll to try to get me thrown off the forum. (So far, they are about 61,000 votes short. I have abstained from voting.)"
*** Again, not true. As a newbie with a limited amount of time on the forum, you haven't 'earned' the right to vote.
Also, where the hell did you get the idea that ANYONE needed 61,000 votes. Or is that just another figment of your 'make believe' world.

"So, I view JETX's response as nothing more than an attempt to upstage me."
*** Sorry, but you don't even have a stage.....

"Did JETX add anything?"
*** Of course I did. I correctly answered the question that was asked.... which is something you clearly did not do.

"If the judgment is silent on the issue of periodic payments, any enforcement procedure may be used."
*** What judgment??? There wasn't any mention of a judgment in the question???

"Actually, I concerned much less about JETX's motive than I am about the fact that he fails to disclose that he is not a practicing attorney."
*** As noted above, I have repeatedly provided my credentials. I see no reason to repeat them further... and especially on your 'demand'. One additional thought on this.... you haven't provided yours either!!!

"should at least be careful before accepting such advice as the final answer."
*** I agree. And everyone needs to be especially aware of someone who claims to be a Judge Pro Tem.... and isn't.

So, final thought.... where the hell are YOUR factual, supportable, verifiable 'credentials'?? So far, all I see is a lot of blustering and posturing by a 'newbie' behind the anonymity of the internet!! I think, that as in The Wizard of Oz, we will find a braying jackass when we pull the curtains aside.