Can i be sued for non-payment of medical bills while i am currently making $200 faithfully every month?

[Taxing Matters]

Unless you can find law contrary to my claims, there is no reason that when a person makes regular payments for some reasonable amount of time without objection that the debtor cannot stand on claiming an implied in action agreement was created.

Unless you have case law to support that a court would construe receiving payments over a period of time without more as a contract to accept that as an installment contract you have nothing to support that the courts would enforce that as a contract. You made the claim, so you ought to prove it up. I find no cases supporting that. Sure, there are circumstances in which making payments over a period of time along with other facts would support an implied contract. But we have no additional facts here to support a conclusion that there is an implied contract in this instance.

 

[justalayman]

Unless you have case law to support that a court would construe receiving payments over a period of time without more as a contract to accept that as an installment contract you have nothing to support that the courts would enforce that as a contract. You made the claim, so you ought to prove it up. I find no cases supporting that. But we have no additional facts here to support a conclusion that there is an implied contract in this instance.

And you and the others made a claim. You all refuse to support it so hop off that horse. It ain’t any taller than mine.

And in your own statement you agree with my statement

Sure, there are circumstances in which making payments over a period of time along with other facts would support an implied contract.

That is exactly what I said that you all have taken issue with. I never said the payments alone would justify claiming a contract in fact.

So now you get to prove your claim. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

And I never said the ops situation allowed a conclusion. I said this:

One exception to your agreement needing to be in writing. Depending on how long youve been making these payments and what if any actions the creditor has taken involving the debt, it can be an arguable point the creditor has agreed to a repayment plan by their actions.

So, after misstating what I said and continuing to bully me, you have actually agreed to what I said to start with.

So, in the words of Bartles and James (well, the guys in the commercial anyway)

Thank you for your support

 

[quincy]

The answer to your title question is: "Yes, Hewald. You can be sued over your medical bills regardless of you making regular payments on this debt."

 

[justalayman]

The answer to your title question is: "Yes, Hewald. You can be sued over your medical bills regardless of you making regular payments on this debt."

Hey, it’s an echo. I said that same thing in post 20 (ya know, the turnip and blood statement)


Obviously that is not the most important question.

And if you and the others would actually support your claim that any agreement must be in writing it would be a real benefit to the op. If you have support for such a claim, then it’s as simple as everything I’ve said is wrong and Hewald would have no defense to the suit and fighting it wouldn’t provide any benefit.

So, it woukd be a great benefit to Hewald if one of,you would actually support your claim any agreement must be in writing.

But, if there is any valid basis for my argument, then Hewald may avoid having a judgment issued against him.

 

[quincy]

You can play by yourself, justalayman.

 

[justalayman]

So I take that as a refusal to support your claim.

I guess if it was supportable, the three of you would be all over it. I’ll take that lack of vigor in defending the claim that it simply isn’t true.

 

[Taxing Matters]

And you and the others made a claim.

My only claim, if you read my comments in the thread, is that a creditors accepting payments, without more, isn't going to make a contract. I never said that the modification (or the original contract, for that matter) had to be in writing, which is what you seem to be demanding citations for. So far there is nothing here that suggests the statute of frauds is involved. However, in some states there is a general rule that a modification to an existing written contract (e.g. a change in the amount or timing of payments) also needs to be in writing. Michigan is evidently not one of those states:

The parties subsequently agreed to modify the contract to include a mutual release. A contract, including a written contract, may be modified orally or in writing. Chatham Super Markets, Inc. v. Ajax Asphalt Paving, Inc., 370 Mich. 334, 339, 121 N.W.2d 836 (1963). The modification must be by mutual consent. Adell Broadcasting Corp. v. Apex Media Sales, Inc., 269 Mich.App. 6, 11, 708 N.W.2d 778 (2005). “The mutuality requirement is satisfied where a modification is established through clear and convincing evidence of a written agreement, oral agreement, or affirmative conduct establishing mutual agreement to waive the terms of the original contract.” Quality Products & Concepts Co. v. Nagel Precision, Inc., 469 Mich. 362, 373, 666 N.W.2d 251 (2003).​

​

Kloian v. Domino's Pizza L.L.C., 273 Mich. App. 449, 454–55, 733 N.W.2d 766, 771 (2006). It is interesting to note, though, that court states the burden of proof for the modification is clear and convincing rather than simply preponderance of the evidence. So while there was likely a written contract involved here, it could still be modified orally. But of course oral agreements are much more difficult to prove, and the higher burden Michigan imposes to prove the modification makes the oral modification that much more difficult to prove.

I never said the payments alone would justify claiming a contract in fact.

True enough, and I apologize as I see my statements may make it appear that you did. My point has been to make it clear that the OP simply making these payments without more is not going to act as a bar to the creditor suing and winning a judgment, as some debtors seem to believe and addresses the question that OP asked in the subject line. Nothing in the OP's post suggests that there has been any action from the creditor that might be construed to be consent for an installment agreement, after all.

So, after misstating what I said and continuing to bully me, you have actually agreed to what I said to start with.

What bullying are you referring to? Asking you to prove up your claim with case law? If that's it, then I call foul on that. You started the demands for citations in post #13 and you've banging that drum since as much as anyone else has, so I don't see you have room for complaint there. If we're bullies (and I don't see it) then you are too.

 

[justalayman]

And I NEVER said a creditors acceptance with nothing more meant anything because I never limited my statement to that.
The bullying was three of the most learned posters on this forum demanding I do something that they refused to do. Especially since their claim was made first, it became bullying to demand I support my statement yet they refused to support theirs. If it was a; you support yours and I’ll support mine situation I wouldn’t have seen it as bullying. It was an outright refusal by y’all yet demands to me.

 

[Taxing Matters]

And I NEVER said a creditors acceptance with nothing more meant anything because I never limited my statement to that.

I've already acknowledged that, no need to pound on it again.

If it was a; you support yours and I’ll support mine situation I wouldn’t have seen it as bullying.

That is pretty much exactly how I see it — it was mutual. You started with the demand for support, then you were asked for support for your position.

 

[LdiJ]

And I NEVER said a creditors acceptance with nothing more meant anything because I never limited my statement to that.
The bullying was three of the most learned posters on this forum demanding I do something that they refused to do. Especially since their claim was made first, it became bullying to demand I support my statement yet they refused to support theirs. If it was a; you support yours and I’ll support mine situation I wouldn’t have seen it as bullying. It was an outright refusal by y’all yet demands to me.

This statement is a bit unfair. TM stated that he could find no case law to back up the position he believed you were taking. That means that he looked. Since clearly has the necessary tools at his disposal to do good case law research, it was obviously a diligent search. Since its impossible to prove a negative, he had no proof to provide to you. When he had a slightly different search to make, he provided case law.

You didn't provide any at all.

 

[justalayman]

This statement is a bit unfair. TM stated that he could find no case law to back up the position he believed you were taking. That means that he looked. Since clearly has the necessary tools at his disposal to do good case law research, it was obviously a diligent search. Since its impossible to prove a negative, he had no proof to provide to you. When he had a slightly different search to make, he provided case law.

You didn't provide any at all.

Failing to find support for my statement is not supporting their position.

And do you know what an a b c conversation is? If so, I’m a, Tm is b. You know the rest.