[TITAN308]

First off I don't advocate not paying your bills. It is what it is in this case. It was an old account (still within 7 years though) I completely forgot about and next I know a few months back I get served at my doorstep for a court appearance. Yes fully admit I generally trash spam mail. I've gotten so many "TIME SENSITIVE OPEN NOW" documents that end up being nothing than cleverly disguised credit card offers. Of course it is one of those companies that collects these types of accounts by the thousands for what we all know are literal pennies on the dollar.

This morning was the hearing.

So after a brief introduction in court the bailiff instructs the parties to meet outside and try and reach an agreement. Settle or go to court in a nut shell.

The local lawyer hired by this non-Georgia company pulls me into a side room.

Now lets establish what "Evidence" they have provided:

- Two statements
- One buyers agreement from the main holder to the third party holder (people suing me)

That is it.

Conversation as follows:

Lawyer: Well do you want to set up a payment plan?

Me: No.

Lawyer: Are you sure?

Me: Can you provide a contractual agreement between myself, the primary company, and your company?

Lawyer: The law says we don't need to do that.

Me: I see two statements. How do I know this is accurate, where is the entire payment history?

Lawyer: The law says we don't need to do that.

Me: Can you even provide the contractual agreement between myself and the primary company?

Lawyer: The law says we don't need to do that.

Me: See you in court.

I return to court room and sit down while she (lawyer) deals with another defendant there on what I am assuming is the same issue. She returns a bit after that and informs the court they are dismissing my case.

What really irks me is this lawyer lied bold faced to me and knew it. Look I get it, you are a lawyer and you do lawyer things, and even these types of lawyers have a job to do, but I mean really, to just outright lie about what the law requires just left me with an egotistical (eat ****, haha I win you lose) taste in my mouth.

So while laws vary by state just a heads up:

1.) Generally about 95% of people served with these lawsuits don't even show up to court. Its free money via judgments to the plaintiff. People get too scared, or think because they can't find a lawyer they shouldn't bother. When I first got the evidence packet in the summons about one hour on Google revealed they didn't have a snowball chance in hell of winning.

2.) "Prove it" Now repeat it again. "Prove it" Guess what? Repeat it a third time! "Prove it". The burden is on them to PROVE they can legally collect this money. Keep in mind they often buy these accounts by the THOUSANDS and almost never have any original documentation.

I am aware they can-refile with new proof, but from what I am reading they only bother with huge debts worth pursing. This account wasn't for very much. If they want it they can earn it.

 

[TITAN308]

I am a bit curious in hindsight if the lawyer did anything ethically wrong. I should have taken a voice recorder.

The meeting we had was technically the "negotiation" part of the hearing and from what I have read that lying to someone during this process is a big no-no. Maybe not legally, but from a ethics stand point in regards to them being a lawyer.

I'm sure one of the many lawyers on this board can answer that.

 

[TITAN308]

Yea, every website I researched all pin pointed the 95% that no one even bothers to show up and that is how they win full judgment payouts. Something like a fraction of the remaining 5% they even bother to pursue. (it REALLY has to be worth their time).

Imagine this, you have a credit card debt of $1000 and they buy it for literally $100 or less. If they can even negotiate $500 to settle out of someone that is 400% profit. If no one shows up to court they get the full $1000.

Now imagine one single company alone is buying these accounts 1,000's at a time.

Last I read that industry makes like 162 billion dollars a year...

As I said, I don't advocate not paying your debt, but these guys are bottom feeders.

 

[TITAN308]

Technically the lawyer is correct. The law does not require them to provide that evidence. A judge won't find in their favor without such evidence unless it is a default judgement, but they don' HAVE to provide evidence.

That was my only logical thought on it as well.

Disingenuous would probably be a better term than lying. :lol:

Did you have it asked to be dismissed with prejudice? Of not I wouldn't be surprised if this pops back up

No. I'll cross that bridge if it comes to it.

 

[TITAN308]

Titan, the way I read your version of the conversation with the debt collection agency's contract attorney, that attorney was only saying that he does not have to show you any evidence AT THAT STAGE, meaning the pre-trial negotiation stage, aiming for an out-of-court settlement.
I didn't think the lawyer was saying that his side, the Plaintiff's side, would not ultimately have to prove the debt with contracts (or your own admissions) and other legal evidence AT TRIAL. But your conversation with him happened out of court (even if it was on the day of a court hearing).

I was paraphrasing to keep my typing short. Her exact words is that Georgia law they only had to provide partial payment history and they were not required to show any original contracts and that their agreement to simply BUY the account as a third party was sufficient to prove they could legally collect. (which isn't untrue, its just disingenuous half truth)

Now I'm sure these words could be twisted in any manner to present the "bluff", but man what a shyster thing to do. Basically a person with less intelligence could be led by this bull crap to an incorrect conclusion.

The tone in her voice changed quick from "Hi, how are you? Good morning!" to "We don't have to do that!" as soon as I asked the magic questions ("Can you prove it?"). All smiles to a straight line mouth after that. :lol:

 

[TITAN308]

I must have missed something... the lawyer is a shyster for trying to collect on a debt legitimately owed?

A person with less intellegence would be tricked into paying back a debt they actually did enter into and should have paid back to begin with.

This is supposed to be a victory?

I'm sorry that is all you gathered.

They provided no proof the amount they were demanding was even accurate. Am I suppose to just blindly pay what a third party asks?

Edit: To clarify this is something I will be resolving as future employment will run a credit check. However I'm not going to be bullied or duped into paying an incorrect amount.

 

[TITAN308]

How are all 3 parties connected?

Main company sells account off to third party collection company (non-local), then i guess they hire a local lawyer to represent them at court. It only cost them $45 to file the lawsuit in Columbia County. :lol:

Is that what you are asking?

 

[TITAN308]

Yes. If it were a 3 party contract, you would have legal remedies. It's not, it's an asset that was sold.

Correct. Just a generic sell off of an account. The type where they buy them by the thousands in a single portfolio, start throwing **** at the wall and see what sticks.