N
njpi
Guest
Hello:
Thanks for getting back to me on the license and bonding issue in New Jersey. I am still a little confused on the matter of "bonding". I understand that a collection agency must obtain a bond to "collect or receive payments for "others" on any account. I think "for others" is the key.
I was told and what I read is that in the judgement enforcement business you are assigned the legal judgement from the creditor (judgement holder) and thus become the legal holder of that judgement with all rights that are empowered by that legal judgement. There is no "collecting for others" since the judgement holder is assigned the document and becomes the "creditor". There is no acting as an agent for or collecting monies for others, since the orginal holder of the note has assigned all their "creditor" rights away.
This is were I am confused by so many in the business of judgement enforcement that have indicated that they are "not collection agents", but rather the creditor. Since there is acutally no collecting money on behalf of "others", does this exclude judgement holders and their assignees from the collection agency bonding requrement. It seems that they are trying to lump the judgement enforcement business into a colection agency operation. This looks like a BIG legal grey area.
I just don't wont to be tied to constraints of collection agency rules if I am not really legally a collection agency .
Thanks
Thanks for getting back to me on the license and bonding issue in New Jersey. I am still a little confused on the matter of "bonding". I understand that a collection agency must obtain a bond to "collect or receive payments for "others" on any account. I think "for others" is the key.
I was told and what I read is that in the judgement enforcement business you are assigned the legal judgement from the creditor (judgement holder) and thus become the legal holder of that judgement with all rights that are empowered by that legal judgement. There is no "collecting for others" since the judgement holder is assigned the document and becomes the "creditor". There is no acting as an agent for or collecting monies for others, since the orginal holder of the note has assigned all their "creditor" rights away.
This is were I am confused by so many in the business of judgement enforcement that have indicated that they are "not collection agents", but rather the creditor. Since there is acutally no collecting money on behalf of "others", does this exclude judgement holders and their assignees from the collection agency bonding requrement. It seems that they are trying to lump the judgement enforcement business into a colection agency operation. This looks like a BIG legal grey area.
I just don't wont to be tied to constraints of collection agency rules if I am not really legally a collection agency .
Thanks