Should I accept the offer?

[hughjahs]

Like I said the debt stems from a rental dispute with an apartment complex I used to live in.
So the complex sought judgment against me for several things, some of which the judge said yes, some he said no. The portion he agreed with is what I owed per the judgment, plus interest. The rest was left off the judgment for whatever reason, but they obviously still want to collect on it.

Now I don't know for sure whether the complex tried to include those other things in the judgment and was denied but I'm going to assume they didn't exclude it from the goodness of their hearts. I wasn't at the hearing because I didn't know about it. (Another complication of whether I was properly served or not.)

Neither of the fees discussed above include the collection agency fees, which are outrageous. This is another reason why this whole system is rotten - anyone who buys these debts can tack on whatever they want as their fees.

I understand that many of the people on this forum owe legitimate debts and are trying to flee them, for which their should be recourse, but I imagine some people have genuine misunderstandings or miscommunications with people they do business with and they are later screwed because of it.

 

[Chien]

With an answer like that to the question that I asked, I suggest that you give consideration to a second career in law or politics. You have a talent for obfuscation.

I’ll approach it a different way. The dollar amount of the judgment, as entered in the court’s records, is the judgment. From and including the date that it was entered, it earned post-judgment interest. You know the rate and you presumably know the original dollar amount. I’m confident that you can do the math.

To the foregoing figure, whatever it may be, you can add statutory costs – liens, writs, levies and the associated courts fees for those documents and the associated filing and filing and service expenses. That’s it. That total is the amount of the judgment today.

Now, I don’t know if that amount is equal to the amount of the check that you sent on the date that you sent it. If not, the differential is owed, but not more.

I have clients, including CAs, that want to add their charges to the plaintiff to the judgment. That way, everyone realizes 100% and is happy. They show me contracts that provide for the recovery of “collection costs”. In your state and mine, what can be added to the litigated claim is the filing fee and the attorney fee, as provided by statute or court rule. What can be added after is as stated in paragraph 3. The judgment creditor cannot enforce more, nor can it record a greater amount as the judgment due.

It can ask for more. It can try for more. And, if I cut through your response, perhaps it has. It is not legally entitled to more and, if you paid the amount that was due on the date that you paid, you are entitled to have the judgment recorded as satisfied.

Now, I suspect that there is some differential between payment and “due and owing”, because of your disagreement. However, if there is a differential, and if it is $100s and not $1,000s, you might think about paying it and getting the judgment recorded as paid, as you are entitled to do. If you do it and can prove it, the court is required to enter that fact on the record, whether the CA cooperates or not.

I don’t know if any of this is relevant to the original question. Personally, I hate threads where developing information is like pulling wisdom teeth, and this has been one.

 

[Fizzle1979]

Pay For Delete does exist, especially for debts outside of the SOL. The debt collector knows its the only way they are going to get any money, assuming the alleged debtor is educated enough to use the SOL as one of their defenses.

 

[hughjahs]

This has mostly been relevant and interesting. It hasn't yet come to liens and such but I imagine it would if the amount was more substantial and if there was something to actually put a lien on.

The whole experience has been intriguing, putting aside the slight frustration. I'm curious to know what CA's consult with you about, Chien. Are you a collector or do you advise them how to collect?

 

[Chien]

Fizz, you’re non-responsive. I didn’t ask whether PTD or PFD (pay for deletion) exist; I asked whether you got one of those contracts back or whether you effected a PTD.

I know debtor boards are rampant with advice to use it, and I’ve seen sample letters. I also know that it’s a breach of contract, because I’ve read the contracts, and I suspect that you’ve not had that pleasure.

I stated how I feel about it. I don’t know if I’d fire a consulting client for signing one of your contracts - that’s just gross stupidity. I would fire a consulting client that engaged in PFD - that’s dishonest and illegal, and their E & O insurance wouldn’t cover their willful breach and the associated legal fees. You connect the dots.

Do I think it happens? Well, it’s a big world, and there’s probably room for people that greedy and stupid. Do I think it happens as often and easily as you seem to? No chance. In an agency of any size, all collectors don’t have that access, so one principal has made the affirmative decision to put an essential resource at risk. Is it an essential resource? You can still hear the moaning and weeping since the Pintos decision came down.

Of course, you also have to consider what the debtor may have bought into. If I PTD for a debt that’s past the SOL, as you suggest, would the CRA record be coming off anyway? I know you believe it’s a 7-year life for everything, but you’re wrong. Then too, if I PTD and turn around and dispute with the CRA, all the CA has to do is fail to verify, and the CRA does the work for you. No breach of contract and no mis-reporting. And the debtor claims a PFD.

But my questions still stand for you. I really want to know if you got just one of those contracts back, because contracting to perform an illegal act is not enforceable, and knowingly reporting falsely would be an FCRA violation, so I’d like to know how those worked out. I figure they take the money and tell you to go sue.

 

[Chien]

Are you a collector or do you advise them how to collect?

You couldn’t wear both hats?

I’ve acknowledged here before that I have a commercial practice - business to business - and do retail as little as possible so, yes, I am a collector. Also super-spy, keeper of the flame, defender of the downtrodden and multi-faceted man of mystery in my spare time.

Advise them how to collect? Yes and no. How not to collect would be just as accurate. Whatever is needed. Compliance (FDCPA, FCRA, HIPAA etc.), litigation support, communication and negotiation techniques, skip-tracing, survival skills and hangover remedies, the ninja discipline, casting a cloud over the eyes of man - you know . . .stuff.

 

[Fizzle1979]

I'm not sure why you are taking my advice I gave to the OP, personal.

 

[TigerD]

I'm not sure why you are taking my advice I gave to the OP, personal.

He isn't taking it personally, merely trying to save the OP from the huge mistake your inane ramblings represent.

Fizzle - fitting name by the way -- you know nothing about the subject and seem bound and determined to give everybody bad advice.

DC

 

[Chien]

Frizz – while this thread has gone too long and is in danger of going off the tracks, none of this is taken personally. You’re entitled to your opinion. But people read and even act on information they see, and I’ve asked you twice if you actually used the “get a contract” and “pay to delete” tactics that you’ve recommended to two posters. I’ve yet to get a straight answer to a simple question and am not going to try a third time. I see that draygnmage expressed the same contrary view in the other post that I did here.

So that readers understand, even if you disagree, this is what I would advise a client, presented with your proposal, to do:
If the debt is in statute:
1) Reject both ideas, explain that the rejection is not negotiable and conclude communications if the debtor insists.
2) Send the claim to Legal and move on to new business. The debtor has assets or couldn’t make the offer.

For the “educated debtor”, with a claim that’s out of statute and an intention to leverage greed:
1) (See #1 above).
2) Ensure that the debt remains on the CR the maximum permissible time. The debtor wants to do something (buy, sell or refinance a house, buy a car) and the black mark is hurting. The debtor has assets or couldn’t make the offer. The debtor will either come back and be more compliant or not, but no such deal gets made under any circumstances.

Incidentally, FACTA, mentioned by draygnmage, amended FCRA. It’s not personal, Frizz, it’s illegal.