Judgement can't go into bankruptcy

[MSbklawyer]

can you tell i am annoyed at the system???

Just a little bit.

[eli4625]

Wwd

The judge let the lawyer of the law firm representing the collection agency go first. He reviewed the info and had everything correct on dates and such. When I got the card, when I stopped payments, when it was closed when it was charged off. He then said that since I was going to claim SOL that it wasn't in effect because a "single" payment was made in Jan. 04 which ment the SOL didn't go into effect for another few months. The judge then asked for my side, I said everything he said was correct except for the payment. The lawyer then asked me if I ever planned on repaying the debt, and I commented not to a collection agency. That is when the judge said that before she ruled, maybe I should think about it and would I be willing to settle if she cut back the amount owed and let me keep some of the monies frozen, and that it would probably be better for me then if she was to rule on my motion for dismissle. I got the hint that take this offer because you will lose on your motion.

[music12]

that's almost worse because by pushing you into this agreement this judge basically got you to waive your right to appeal, and you would have won this appeal. this judge decided to put the law aside and cause you to agree to pay instead. i bet the CA's lawyer jumped at the opportunity to get money out of a debt for which the SOL ran out - this lawyer could get sued for malpractice by their client for failing to file before the SOL ran out, that's why they made up the story about your paying in 2004.

i just don't get why lying is so prevalent among lawyers. and why judges, knowing this, look the other way. are people who become lawyers just wired differently? is it the profession that turns them into liars?

anyway, i'm glad they'll stop getting anything once you file bk...

[2manybills]

Did they make you sign a stipulation for entry of judgment or just an agreement to pay?

Music12: I agree it is frustrating and I work in the legal field. I have been lucky to have worked for some great guys (22 years at my present job) but I have also worked for some no so great guys. But hey, isn't that how it is in every industry. They can sure put their own spin on things and make it look real.

[music12]

that's my problem with it: they call it their own "spin" but it really is outright lies. and 99% of the time, they know it. maybe lawyers can't be successful if they tell the truth.

the other annoying thing is that lawyers should lose their license if they lie in court. but instead of that serving as an incentive for them to be honest, it instead gets everybody in the court system to assume they are being truthful because they wouldn't risk losing their license. so essentially they never get questioned, they get a license to lie while a pro se person who is totally honest gets screwed just because the letters "esq." don't appear after their names.

ok, i feel better that i said that. i'll stop now.

[2manybills]

Music you crack me! I hear you. Believe me in my early days, I used to have go back into my bosses three or four times, because they would talk me out of stuff before I knew it. Not anymore!

[music12]

what do you mean "talk me out of stuff"?

[eli4625]

I don't remember signing anything. The judge came up with the new amount due which was about $600 less then what the attorney/plaintiff had filed for. She removed the lawyer fees and such. She let them keep $150 of my frozen account monies. The lawyer decided on $60 a month after I said I could afford between 50-75 per month. He said he would send me the paper work and my first payment would be due the 14th of September. The only paper work I got was from the judge to the bank instructing them to pay $150 to the collection agency and return the rest to me...but then you KNOW the bank is going to hit me with some kind of fee for them "holding" my monies for the past 2 months.

It just bothers me that the way the judge presented it to me, that it was in my "best interest" to go with "her" plan and that from how she was phrasing it, I would lose my appeal. I mean, when the attorney stated I made a payment, shouldn't she have asked to see it? She said nothing and when I asked questions he just kept saying a payment was made. Maybe I should have pushed harder, but being my first time I wasn't sure how far I could push. If there is ever a next time I will push harder...

[MSbklawyer]

that's my problem with it: they call it their own "spin" but it really is outright lies. and 99% of the time, they know it. maybe lawyers can't be successful if they tell the truth.

the other annoying thing is that lawyers should lose their license if they lie in court. but instead of that serving as an incentive for them to be honest, it instead gets everybody in the court system to assume they are being truthful because they wouldn't risk losing their license. so essentially they never get questioned, they get a license to lie while a pro se person who is totally honest gets screwed just because the letters "esq." don't appear after their names.

ok, i feel better that i said that. i'll stop now.

Wait, wait, wait, wait.

Where did a lawyer lie here?

All I saw was that a lawyer testified to something eli4625 says is false.

Not to pick on eli4625 here, but if the lawyer honestly believed what he said, it's not a lie. It's hearsay, and it may be untrue. But it's not an intentional mistruth.

This is why I HATE to see people try to represent themselves. I know it can't be helped sometimes, but most of the time it can. Any lawyer worth half his salt would have objected IMMEDIATELY when the other lawyer started testifying -- thereby preserving the grounds for appeal. But if you don't object at trial, you can't object on appeal.

I've said it before on this forum, I make a pretty good living by straightening out messes for people who thought that they didn't need the lawyer. It takes me twice as long to undo the mess and redo the thing right as it would have to do the thing right initially. So I charge twice as much.

Get a lawyer Eli. The money you spend will be worth it.

[music12]

the judge knew it was your first time and abused her power. instead of being there to protect the rights of the weak, she went against the law and essentially coerced you into an agreement.

do you know if a judgment was actually entered? if not, i don't think the judge has the authority to tell the bank anything and you are under no obligation to pay anything. there needs to be a judgment with a total amount. it needs to be in writing. and it needs to be entered by a judge. if it has not been entered, it might be that part of the lawyer's paperwork would be a stipulated agreement for you to sign. i would not sign it if i were you.

the bank probably already took out a fee for holding your moneys; those fees range between $50 and $100 a pop. if you are going to sign something, take that amount off the stipulated judgment. but i wouldn't sign anything. make them go back to court to re-coerce you. this time you'll know better and demand evidence of that payment. you could even bring your own bank statements from jan 2004 and prove that no payment was made. (did they say if it was by check or money order?) but you'll probably have filed bk by then.

[pookieny]

I had 3 judgements from Capitol One and they were all included in my BK and they were garnishing my wages, which was stopped.

[MSbklawyer]

the judge knew it was your first time and abused her power. instead of being there to protect the rights of the weak, she went against the law and essentially coerced you into an agreement.

.

But see, the judge is there as a neutral. Not to protect the rights of the weak. If a judge steps out of that role and starts trying the cases as an advocate for the weak, then the whole system goes down the toilet.

I'd rather see a lawyer lie than I would see a judge take sides.

[2manybills]

what do you mean "talk me out of stuff"?

Like if I went in asking for a raise, or if there was stuff going on in the office where they should reprehend people and they didn't. That kind of thing!!! I didn't mean to imply weird stuff, but I've heard that before.

[music12]

Wait, wait, wait, wait.

Where did a lawyer lie here?

All I saw was that a lawyer testified to something eli4625 says is false.

Not to pick on eli4625 here, but if the lawyer honestly believed what he said, it's not a lie. It's hearsay, and it may be untrue. But it's not an intentional mistruth.

This is why I HATE to see people try to represent themselves. I know it can't be helped sometimes, but most of the time it can. Any lawyer worth half his salt would have objected IMMEDIATELY when the other lawyer started testifying -- thereby preserving the grounds for appeal. But if you don't object at trial, you can't object on appeal.

I've said it before on this forum, I make a pretty good living by straightening out messes for people who thought that they didn't need the lawyer. It takes me twice as long to undo the mess and redo the thing right as it would have to do the thing right initially. So I charge twice as much.

Get a lawyer Eli. The money you spend will be worth it.

imho, any lawyer who walks into court, sees a pro se defendant, and then knowing that he cannot testify puts in "evidence" of which he has no first-hand knowledge so that he has NO way of knowing or "believing" it's true, is abusing the judicial system. that behavior IS intentional. and any judge who lets that happen, especially when there is dispute as to the so-called "facts" is abusing her position. a pro se person walking for the first time into a courtroom expects justice. instead, they get tricked. everybody in the courtroom except the pro se person knows that this stuff is inadmissible hearsay. it's not justice. it's a joke.

and as to the OP's case, i would be very surprised if that lawyer didn't just make up that payment so they have something to say against the motion to dismiss. then that lawyer, who probably practices before that judge all the time, hoped the judge would help him out. and she did.

[music12]

But see, the judge is there as a neutral. Not to protect the rights of the weak. If a judge steps out of that role and starts trying the cases as an advocate for the weak, then the whole system goes down the toilet.

I'd rather see a lawyer lie than I would see a judge take sides.

this judge took the side of the lawyer when there was NO evidence to support the lawyer's position. she did take sides. an unbiased judge would have set up a date for a hearing where the judge would hear evidence to see what the facts actually are. here, she essentially forced the OP into a settlement that is in favor of the lawyer based on a "fact" that was unsupported by any evidence.

i'd rather not see a lawyer lie AND see a fair judge who looks for the truth.