Debt collector PO'ed

[keepmine]

LOL-alright, which one of you did this?

http://www.insidearm.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=9&threadid=6992

12/11/07 10:51 AM



Go Get Them
Member

Posts: 49
Joined: Dec 2006
Tuesday 12/11/07 10:51 AM



What is the sucess rate of filing an objection to a chapter 7 bankruptcy on a PURCHASED cc account that charged off 3.5 years ago? I am fuming mad about this account - we filed suit and he answered 3 or 4 days before we could get a default. We then spent almost a year litigating it and made a settlement. The suit amount was for $39K, we setteled for $19K, but it cost nearly $5K in legal fees. So what shows up yesterday? His BK petition!

The attorney says we're just screwed, but I don't want to concede this one. Do I have a leg to stand on?

For the record, I think this ***hole knew exactly what he was doing, and this was intentional. He filed every motion under the sun and had god knows how many continuances granted. I am convinced that he was going to BK from the very begining but kept this up just to cost us money.

[HHM]

LOL...I have been poking around that forum too. It is too funny.

[FreshLikeADaisy]

Can I ask y'all a stupid question?

I was looking at that board the other day -- Keepmine, I think you posted that link -- from that same guy *****ing about pro se litigants. One of the posts on that thread was from an atty who was saying not to worry about discovery from a pro se litigator:

I don't know about you but when you get a ridiculous discovery demand, you ignore it and move straight for summary judgment, attaching your proof as exhibits. Summary judgment typically cuts off discovery and judges like dispositive motions. Once you bite and play ball with a eager debtor, things can spiral out of control. -- Dr. Evil 6/19/07 6:00am

Okay, I know I'm naive and ignorant, but how can he bypass the whole process? I thought (I know, I know) that basically both litigants have the opportunity for discovery; how can one side or another preclude that part of trial procedure with a simple motion? If it's not too much trouble, I'd sure like to understand this -- if only because what's good for the goose is good for the gander: if he can move for summary judgement and skip the whole shebang, so could a debtor, at least in theory. (If I'm missing something very basic, refer me to something I could read and educate myself; I won't hold it against you. ) Thanks.

This was the thread: http://www.insidearm.com/forum/messa...&threadid=6714

P.S. I know what a summary judgement is, so I guess what I'm asking is what could this guy be using with such reliability, what "evidence" or finding of law? I guess I'm confused because there is so obviously a dispute, and could easily be overturned on appeal.

[HHM]

The attorney is betting that the Debtor does not know how to respond to a Motion for Summary Judgment.

It's not that a Summary Judgment Motion puts an end to discovery, but it does delay it until the Motion is Heard. However, to defeat a Summary Judgment motion, all the debtor has to do is demonstrate that there is a genuine issue of fact that needs a trial. Also, the debtor can file their own Motion for Summary Judgment...which often works in that the Creditor's attorney does not have enough evidence to state a claim, and you raise objections to the evidence presented (i.e. lack of foundation, etc).

[FreshLikeADaisy]

Okay, I get it now; it sounds like everything else they do that relies on "trusting and pliable debtors" as one collector put it in that thread. Thanks for answering!

[chpxiii]

To add to HHM, I found this on wikipedia right before the contents box:

A party moving (applying) for summary judgment is attempting to eliminate its risk of losing at trial, and possibly avoid having to go through the directions by demonstrating to the judge, by sworn statements and documentary evidence, that there are no material issues of fact remaining to be tried. If there's nothing for the jury to decide, then, asks the moving party rhetorically, why have a trial? In its motion (request) for summary judgment, the moving party will also attempt to persuade the court that the undisputed material facts require judgment to be entered in favor of the moving party. In many jurisdictions, a party moving for summary judgment takes the risk that, although the judge may agree there are no material issues of fact remaining for trial, the judge may also find that it is the non-moving party who is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment

So, FLAD, you're correct. Collectors are hoping for ignorant and pliable debtors. They're HATING the fact that we have a proliferation of information and access to it and how to defend ourselves. Joe Consumer should be happy for that.

[whywhywhy]

For some reason, reading that board has caused me to have really good workouts at the gym...

Hm.