Car Repoed - Patenaude & Felix attorneys?

[mrmattson]

What is the name of your state?

California

My Toyota got repoed about 4 months ago. I received a letter from Toyota Financial that they sold the car for $7,000 and that I needed to pay the rest of the $3,300 balance. Then I got 3 letters from Patenaude & Felix, a "law frim" in San Diego, CA. I ignored the first 2 letters which were a kind of standard debt collector notice. The 3rd letter says they are going to take me to court and once a judgement is obtained, I will be responsible for the original amount, 20% interest ($55 a month) and all court costs. All letters were sent regular US mail, not certified.

I did some googleing on Patenaude & Felix and it seems like they are more of a collection attorney of some sort. Other posts said they are bluffing about filing suit. I called them and after being given the run around talked to a very rude man who informed me that they were in the process of taking me to court unless I took the settlement of $2,400 or paid $800 up front and then made payment of $440 a month for the next 6 months. Obviously I wouldn't be in this mess if I could afford those payment at the moment. He said I had until Monday to make the decision otherwise a judgement would be put against me and a Sherrif would show up at my office to speak with payroll and hung up.

I have horrible credit and have a couple of experience with debt collectors, I usually just ignore them and they go away after a couple of years. Is this just the normal debt collector BS or should I be worried? What steps can I do to get them off my back if they aren't bluffing and are actually take me to court?

 

[Browns]

This is pretty much how my credit got screwed up also.

I Co-signed for a girl I was dating, she moved to FL after our break up. She lost her job, and got her car repo'd. I was in OH with no contact with her, so I did not hear anything about it until it was in collections. They wanted the full amount right then and there.

I refused, thinking the repo was enough. Little did I know they only repo it to auction it for some of the money towards your loan. They then said I was to pay the remainder.

I know Ford was going to just write it off, before that they threatened me with Lawsuits. I ended up paying them what they wanted. Still screwed my credit, but you live and learn.

All and all, I doubt they'll take you to court for $3,300, Ford was going to waive my $3,000.

I'm not 100% sure tho.

 

[TigerD]

He said I had until Monday to make the decision otherwise a judgement would be put against me and a Sherrif would show up at my office to speak with payroll and hung up.

I have horrible credit and have a couple of experience with debt collectors, I usually just ignore them and they go away after a couple of years. Is this just the normal debt collector BS or should I be worried? What steps can I do to get them off my back if they aren't bluffing and are actually take me to court?

You deserved to be sued -- I'll answer your questions on Tuesday.

DC

 

[mrmattson]

I deserve to be sued? Why, I'm willing to pay it back, but they won't work with me on the payments other than what I said above. I was 32 days late when they repoed it, no phone call, no letter. They just showed up at my house one morning.

I thought about declaring BK, but I just got a new car with a great interest rate and I'm good with those payments and want to keep it. I have no other debts or assets.

 

[Browns]

I was 32 days late when they repoed it, no phone call, no letter.

No offense, but I doubt that one I paid off my Ford a few months ago, but if I was over 8 days late on the payment, they were in my voicemail at home, calling my work, sending letters saying I missed the payment.

If it was a problem with lack of funds... why did you not call the customer service number that's on the bill? I know Ford, will defer (spelling?) the payment. They had a once a year policy on that. That puts that months payment at the end of your loan. I know, I know... could of, would of, should of.

As for those payments... Oy. They won't work with you on that one (most likely). I ended up borrowing money from my folks $3,000.00, and paid them back $200.00 a month. $55.00 a month it'll take you (if my math is right) 60 MONTHS to pay them off. There's no way they're going to give you 5 years to pay off 3,300. Sorry.

I "did not have the money" when I was paying off my folks, but you'll be suprised at the money you can come up with when you have to. I'd suggest really paying them off. Call them back and try your hardest to work it out. That will really mess up your credit (mine is 'fair'... and I PAID what they asked... after a bit of a struggle).

If need be, there's always a 2nd job option. Just a suggestion.

 

[Chien]

No offense intended to Browns, who says “Ford was going to waive my $3,000” but also says “This is pretty much how my credit got screwed up also”, but a deficiency balance judgment is about the easiest to take and, potentially, the costliest to you.

First, if it’s significant, Browns apparently was financed by Ford. Maybe a $3K hit is something they’re more willing to take or work through without going outside. Yours is already outside.. You say you have horrible credit. Who financed you? (Actually, that’s a rhetorical question. High risk financing companies will charge more, repo faster and sue faster.) I’m surprised that they didn’t mention attorneys’ fees as part of a judgment they might seek. I’m sure it was included in your financing agreement. I’ve never seen one without it.

I’m not trying to scare you. You can accept anything you’ve read about them bluffing and being sleaze-balls, and you can continue to ignore the opportunity to settle. In my experience, that’s the financing company’s “last shot” at concluding this without going to suit. The only reason for doing it is that they’ve made enough in interest charges that they’re not going to take a loss. My guess is they sue. They have nothing to lose and you have no defense.

There is a point on which Browns and I agree – they’re not going to give you an extended payment plan.

Two somewhat different viewpoints, but they come out in the same place – handle it at the stage that it’s at. Maybe that means selling the new car. Whatever it means, it doesn’t sound as if you’re a candidate to go BK, and for $3K+, it would be a very questionable decision anyway.

 

[Browns]

Ford was going to waive my $3,000

Yeah, typed that one wrong... sorry. They were going to write it off, guess that's much different than waiving it. sorry OP for the confusion.

Browns apparently was financed by Ford

Yep, through Ford Credit. I was working with them in my story.

 

[Chien]

OP - there is a significant difference between "waive" and "write off". The latter is simply an accounting conceit, and writing the obligation off would not have prevented Ford Credit from suing Browns either. As I explained, I expect it.

 

[mrmattson]

Sir, I have no need to lie, it was 32 days late (I'm pouring my crappy financial situation for all the internet to see ). No voicemails, no letters, just a guy in a tow truck showing up at my house at 7am banging on the door. I knew it was late, no dispute there. I just figured it wouldn't get taken until after 60 or 90 days.

The loan was through Toyota Motor Credit with a 21% interest rate. The loan I have on my new car is through CitiFinancial with 12% interest. I don't mind paying $300 a month, I just don't have the lump sum that the want up front before they accept any payments. It's already a charge off, unpaid on my credit report and I assume that Patenaude & Felix purchased my debt from Toyota? Before my credit was shotty, now it's in the toilet. I have 5+ years of completly on time payments with Wells Fargo, BMW Financial, Chase and Honda Financial. So, I have some solid credit and don't want to throw that away over a Repo.

What's by best way forward considering they want the money ASAP (so they say)?

 

[Chien]

OP – I don’t think you’re lying and I am unclear about the need for the disclaimer. I also want to repeat that, my comments notwithstanding, it’s your decision to try to work with them or call their bluff.

I assume that you can’t entertain the demand they’ve made. We don’t know or need to know what kind of a plan you could accommodate, but my personal suggestion is to squeeze to do everything possible for a fast disposition. If they’re not bluffing, a judgment will be large in comparison to the principal owed. Moreover, it will quickly go on the good credit record that you’ve been building, and it will stay there as a paid judgment to penalize you after you're through with the attorneys.

There are a number of “best practices” posts in the forum concerning settlement negotiations. Take a look at those by using the “search” function to aid your decision.

One thing that I would add to the suggestions that you find is, if you’re going to try to negotiate an agreement, be prepared to provide supporting documentation – data on other pending claims, redacted tax filings or financial statements – what is necessary to keep communications alive and progressing and what is necessary is prove your ability to pay what you offer and nothing more. Do it only if negotiations open and advance. To ensure that, make it clear from the outset that you want a deal and want to avoid the expense of litigation (that money could go to pay them instead), but you can’t meet their demand.

If you get a deal, expect it to be “papered” in a way that will allow them to take a judgment for the amount owed less any payments made without filing and serving you. It follows: don’t make promises you may not be able to keep.

Theirs was the opening gambit. You have to provide a reasonable and viable alternative.

 

[GulfBreeze]

He said I had until Monday to make the decision otherwise a judgement would be put against me and a Sherrif would show up at my office to speak with payroll and hung up.

I might be wrong and totally bias, but...
you have till Monday or a judgment would be put up against you? i always thought they had to file first with the court and then ask for a judgment (allowing of course for an answer to the court first). then a sheriff has no business showing up to your work and speaking to payroll...not unless they (the firm) want a violation and possible lawsuit. threats are not allowed. they can offer settlement offer but they can not threaten with court action unless they are actually going to file. this is not a criminal matter. payroll would only be notified if garnishment was allowed. there has to be a hearing first on that, after a judgment is found. these debt collectors often talk out the wrong end. they try to bully you into paying with comments like this. i would invest in a two-way recorded and record any conversations in the future with them, letting them know ahead of time that you were. you can start with a cease and desist letter and mention that any further contact must only be done through mail at your home. any other contact would be a violation and you would seek some relief with a counter-suit.

yes...you owe it...but they don't have to be an a** about it. if you don't have the money now, payments might be your only option, but let the court decide that if the settlement offer isn't to your liking or ability. some states don't allow garnishment on certain amounts of income and also protect some of your current assets. please go goggle your rights in your state and find out how you might be protected.

just my thoughts and as always...they are IMHO....

 

[Chien]

Bias is apparently in the eye of the beholder but the majority of the foregoing advice is legally incorrect or dangerously misleading or both.

i always thought they had to file first with the court and then ask for a judgment (allowing of course for an answer to the court first).

As previously explained, they had reason to repo, they have reason to sue and, unless the finance company threw Truth In Lending out the window when writing your financing agreement, you have no defense. First, read the agreement to see if Toyota Credit was that naïve and then decide whether you’d rather spend money to Answer a Complaint, in litigation which you will lose, while interest at 21% continues to mount.

then a sheriff has no business showing up to your work and speaking to payroll...not unless they (the firm) want a violation and possible lawsuit. threats are not allowed. they can offer settlement offer but they can not threaten with court action unless they are actually going to file. this is not a criminal matter. payroll would only be notified if garnishment was allowed.

OP – there will be no garnishment absent a court Order. A court Order will follow a judgment. As was previously explained, the judgment will be for substantially more than the amount at issue now. It will include all arrearages, all accrued interest, reasonable attorneys’ fees, the cost of putting the car in saleable condition in the event of any body damage and the cost of repossession. A conservative estimate would still be more than twice the principal owed. The foregoing “opinion” is technically correct, but it adds nothing to what members a have told you already and implies that the prospects for enforcement are less than they are, in reality.

i would invest in a two-way recorded and record any conversations in the future with them, letting them know ahead of time that you were.

I’ll let you decide how conducive that will be to negotiations. They’ve already told you what they intend to do and are legally entitled to do. You want to try to resolve this. Would you engage in a conversation that begins with an implied threat? If so, by all means adhere to the advice offered.

you can start with a cease and desist letter and mention that any further contact must only be done through mail at your home. any other contact would be a violation and you would seek some relief with a counter-suit.

I don’t know how you record conversations when all communication must be by mail. Presumably the member has worked out the logistics and will explain. In any event, it’s irrelevant. You’ll receive service of process at about the same time they receive the letter and, after all, once you send the letter, that’s their only alternative. All of that assumes that Toyota Credit is not construed at the original creditor and the FDCPA is also relevant. I could make an argument against that, as Browns learned with Ford, but it’s secondary. My only comment on “counter suit” is “you can dream”.

payments might be your only option, but let the court decide that if the settlement offer isn't to your liking or ability.

If the member is going to pay for the litigation and pay for the judgment, that’s an excellent idea. It won’t change the outcome, but it will increase the fees and interest due on the judgment. It also won’t change the fact that the judgment is on your credit record and not the member’s, but that’s uncommon generosity. Get the indemnification agreement in writing.

some states don't allow garnishment on certain amounts of income and also protect some of your current assets. please go goggle your rights in your state and find out how you might be protected.

All they can do in CA is garnish 25% of disposable income, take that new car, if it’s worth it after sale, put a lien on any real property you have or might have in the next 20 years (assuming the 10-year judgment is renewed), levy on your bank account, add post-judgment interest for the life of the judgment, add all costs they incur in doing any of the foregoing. Married or think you might be in the next 20 years? 50% of her 50% of the community too. That’s just the beginning; then they start looking for additional assets. The member from Florida apparently has sought recourse to Google to assist you and you can go there too. (Just don’t wait long past Monday.) It even raises the question of why come here? Browns has only gone through it, and I’m only one of the guys who file those suits. Just don’t forget to get the indemnification in writing. Just my thoughts.

 

[GulfBreeze]

Bias is apparently in the eye of the beholder but the majority of the foregoing advice is legally incorrect or dangerously misleading or both.

i always thought they had to file first with the court and then ask for a judgment (allowing of course for an answer to the court first).

As previously explained, they had reason to repo, they have reason to sue and, unless the finance company threw Truth In Lending out the window when writing your financing agreement, you have no defense. First, read the agreement to see if Toyota Credit was that naïve and then decide whether you’d rather spend money to Answer a Complaint, in litigation which you will lose, while interest at 21% continues to mount.

"The 3rd letter says they are going to take me to court and once a judgement is obtained, I will be responsible for the original amount, 20% interest ($55 a month) and all court costs. All letters were sent regular US mail, not certified."

followed by my "you have till Monday or a judgment would be put up against you?"

apparently your haste to find an error in my post lead you down the wrong path yourself..read first and understand before you speak...and quit trying to psycho analyze my post...give your opinion and advice and quit judging mine. i was referring to them getting a judgment from the court...not the right to repo

then a sheriff has no business showing up to your work and speaking to payroll...not unless they (the firm) want a violation and possible lawsuit. threats are not allowed. they can offer settlement offer but they can not threaten with court action unless they are actually going to file. this is not a criminal matter. payroll would only be notified if garnishment was allowed.

OP – there will be no garnishment absent a court Order. A court Order will follow a judgment (DUH....)
As was previously explained, the judgment will be for substantially more than the amount at issue now. It will include all ????arrearages????, all accrued interest, reasonable attorneys’ fees, the cost of putting the car in ????saleable???? condition in the event of any body damage and the cost of repossession. A conservative estimate would still be more than twice the principal owed. The foregoing “opinion” is technically correct, but it adds nothing to what members a have told you already and implies that the prospects for enforcement are less than they are, in reality.

i would invest in a two-way recorded and record any conversations in the future with them, letting them know ahead of time that you were.

I’ll let you decide how conducive that will be to negotiations. (I'll let you know....it might mean the difference in either leverage or fines if they violate law)They’ve already told you what they intend to do and are legally entitled to do. You want to try to resolve this. Would you engage in a conversation that begins with an implied threat? If so, by all means adhere to the advice offered.

you can start with a cease and desist letter and mention that any further contact must only be done through mail at your home. any other contact would be a violation and you would seek some relief with a counter-suit.

I don’t know how you record conversations when all communication must be by mail. (sometimes they don't listen and call anyways) Presumably the member has worked out the logistics and will explain. In any event, it’s irrelevant. You’ll receive service of process at about the same time they receive the letter and, after all, once you send the letter, that’s their only alternative. All of that assumes that Toyota Credit is not construed at the original creditor and the FDCPA is also relevant. I could make an argument against that, as Browns learned with Ford, but it’s secondary. My only comment on “counter suit” is “you can dream”.

payments might be your only option, but let the court decide that if the settlement offer isn't to your liking or ability.

If the member is going to pay for the litigation and pay for the judgment, that’s an excellent idea. It won’t change the outcome, but it will increase the fees and interest due on the judgment. It also won’t change the fact that the judgment is on your credit record and not the member’s, but that’s uncommon generosity. Get the indemnification agreement in writing.

some states don't allow garnishment on certain amounts of income and also protect some of your current assets. please go google your rights in your state and find out how you might be protected.

All they can do in CA is garnish 25% of disposable income, take that new car, if it’s worth it after sale, put a lien on any real property you have or might have in the next 20 years (assuming the 10-year judgment is renewed), levy on your bank account, add post-judgment interest for the life of the judgment, add all costs they incur in doing any of the foregoing. Married or think you might be in the next 20 years? 50% of her 50% of the community too. That’s just the beginning; then they start looking for additional assets. The member from Florida apparently has sought recourse to Google to assist you and you can go there too. (Just don’t wait long past Monday.) It even raises the question of why come here? Browns has only gone through it, and I’m only one of the guys who file those suits. Just don’t forget to get the indemnification in writing. Just my thoughts.[/QUOTE]

your assuming alot...that he has all these assets and they all qualify to be garnished or taken.

when will you stop your personal attacks at people who post their advice. i mentioned that you could PM with your personal thoughts and disagreements and even PM the OP with them as well...but you choose to constantly parade your thoughts of discontent at the mention of anything that doesn't suit you. you quote posts wrong and twist words around. do your self a favor and STFU. you, my friend, are nothing but a trouble maker and it is perfectly apparent.

 

[Chien]

Breeze – After your last whining complaint about personal attacks, you’ll notice that your name is not mentioned at all. I said the advice is legally incorrect and dangerously misleading, and it is.

You seem to think that everything is about you. My post was directed to the OP. If he chooses to follow your advice, that’s his prerogative. I take no pleasure in cleaning up after you and feel no compulsion to PM you after you’ve made a post. I’ve seen you go back and edit and delete to make it appear that you were misunderstood.

You’re the one bringing your martyrdom out on parade. Remember:
I would like to end this right here and now. okay?
And then you’re off again. Grow up and own up. This is typical in every forum. Remember:
GB, you've posted twice since your post asking everyone to let this discussion end!
Let it end!
That wasn’t me, was it? And you just had to post once again after that.

Others are choosing to ignore you, and I finally have too. The advice is flawed. I don’t care about you. As far as I’m concerned, you can suggest dipping your face in a vat of molten metal as an effective wrinkle remover, and you might. If you think that, when you do it here, I’m not going to point out that it will also kill you, you’re wrong. You’ll continue to see it and can complain about words being twisted and personal attacks and whining and feeling sorry for yourself.

When you say:
your assuming alot...that he has all these assets and they all qualify to be garnished or taken.
I’m assuming nothing. Notice that I said “disposable” income? That’s his income after any applicable exemptions. That, everything else and more – just as I explained – is fair game. I know the Code sections. Would you like them listed vertically or horizontally, Mr. Make-sure-you-have-state-statutes?

I’m not going back over every point. The OP is making an effort to address the problem. Either he’ll see the flaws in your simplistic assumptions or he won’t. From “recording” correspondence (sometimes they don’t listen and call anyways - yeah, right - set up a listening post after service is made) to the assumption that the FDCPA is unquestionably applicable – either he will or he won’t, so stop your crying.

I’m unimpressed by make sure if you do, that you have factual state statutes ready to back your claim. When you send him off to “google your rights in your state”, I can only hope that he is too.

You took a similar tact before. You were offered the CA statutes to show where you were misinformed. Remember the reponse?
yawns**************
and went right back to citing incorrect FL law. Got you there too and it’s fair to believe that you still know nothing about CA procedural law or the Uniform Commercial Code, which will control the outcome. I know that, if I knew the answer, I wouldn’t tell an OP to “google his state”, but you don’t and you did.

Now, I’ve spent more time on you than on the OP. So, I’ll leave you to your final opportunity to have your say and prove convincingly that you have no idea what you’re talking about, but you try so hard and are so misunderstood. (See – no personal attacks – never said idiot once.) Thanks & have a nice day.

 

[GulfBreeze]

Breeze – After your last whining complaint about personal attacks, you’ll notice that your name is not mentioned at all. I said the advice is legally incorrect and dangerously misleading, and it is.

but you quote my post...nuff said. you obviously wont end this and you seem to think you have to have the last word even though i have said to take this all to PM...why do you want to cause so much trouble here. just stop it. nobody wants to listen to all this. legally incorrect? give the state statutes and proof...and not just CAUSE CHIEN SAYS SO. otherwise stfu and PM me if you want to continue this. quit hijacking the threads so as to bullying people around with your own interpretation of the law...like anyone cares.