Collection question

[keepmine]

Thanks.we had an interesting discussion regarding annnuities. She said one of the reasons the Goldmans were not able to destroy OJ and get all his money after winning the civil case against him was he had so much of his money tied up in annuities

Not trying to scare you but, I'd sure run that answer by a Ca. attorney.
I recall watching a CNN show where the topic was OJ's answer to a debtors exam and a lawyer for the Goldman family was highly critical of the Fl. law that sheltered the annuities. He said he hoped the Fl. legislature would change the law exempting seizure of annuities if the underlying judgment was the result of a crime.This may well be a state specific issue. I mean, why did OJ move from Ca. to Fl? After all, Ca. has plenty of golf courses.
Also, you mentioned this happened a few years ago. Does your MIL have an SOl defense?

[treehugger1]

Well, technically, OJ was never convicted of a crime. I think OJ's civil matter was connected to the civil issue of "wrongful" death. I don't believe that is a criminal issue. I'm just postulating...

[AngelinaCat]

Also, after the trial, O.J. moved to Florida, where his homestead was exempt, and he had much of his wealth in retirement instruments.

[treehugger1]

I have to guess that many folks here on BKforum could have offered useful exemption advice to the attorneys suing OJ in civil court. LOL

Send your MIL to Florida.

[albacore44]

Not trying to scare you but, I'd sure run that answer by a Ca. attorney.
I recall watching a CNN show where the topic was OJ's answer to a debtors exam and a lawyer for the Goldman family was highly critical of the Fl. law that sheltered the annuities. He said he hoped the Fl. legislature would change the law exempting seizure of annuities if the underlying judgment was the result of a crime.This may well be a state specific issue. I mean, why did OJ move from Ca. to Fl? After all, Ca. has plenty of golf courses.
Also, you mentioned this happened a few years ago. Does your MIL have an SOl defense?

Well i id discuss the situation with my sister-in-law this week, who is assisting the nephew with his pending BK filing. she said she interviewed 3 seperate BK attorneys, and all 3 said the annuities were exempt

[albacore44]

I have been working on this for several days. I think I have it right to get the point across. trying to get them to drop the case against my MIL and persue the grandson. Not sure if it will work, but its worth a try



JDB
Law Office of Dewey, Cheatem and Howe



Reference : JDB , LLC VS Deadbeat
Dear Mr. Dewey

Please find enclosed answers from Deadbeat to Interrogatories and admissions, as received from your office on 4/10/2012

I would like to bring up some facts about Deadbeat that your office may be unaware of. Deadbeat is an 85 year old Retired widow who lives on a limited income.
I have carefully reviewed her income and other small assets, and it is quite clear that they are protected under the California Code of Civil Procedure sections 704.010, 704.020, 704.040, 704.050, 704.080 , 704.115 and 704.200. Therefore deadbeat is collection proof

During the course of your attempts to collect the alleged debt, we have collected evidence to bring forward if necessary, that representatives of your firm violated the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act 806, 15 USC 1692d.

Furthermore, you’re office has not provided any document proving deadbeat owes the alleged debt

The stress of this ongoing matter is having a negative effect on deadbeats health and soundness of mind

We will be discussing this case with the family counselor who will review the facts I have indicated above.

Regards

Dilbert Deadbeat
Advisor to Deadbeat

[AngelinaCat]

Looks good to me, although I would consider trying to cut it down further. There are some extraneous details there that need not be. Also, try to cut excess words as much as possible. The shorter, and more to the point that you can make this will serve you well.

Now how did you and she answer the interrogatories?

[albacore44]

Now how did you and she answer the interrogatories?

Working on that. i was thinking ' since no document has been provided to verify the alleged debt, I can neither admit or deny this debt" or shorten it to " i can neither admit or deny this debt.

[AngelinaCat]

Cut one word: 'can't'. Write only: "I neither admit or deny this debt." Period. Give them absolutely nothing to work with.

ETA: If they have thrown in a 'nonsense' question to throw you off, answer: "Not applicable."

[rta]

Just trying to follow here. Has there been an Answer filed in this case? It would seem that comes first, before defendant responds to discovery. If JDB has filed a Complaint, and there is no Answer, what's to stop them from getting a default judgment?

FWIW, this is a sample letter I got from the local legal aid office:

I am writing this letter to inform you that I am disabled/retired and you will never be able to collect on the alleged debt on which you are suing me. I have been advised of my right to file an answer in the above-referenced lawsuit, but before I do so, I am informing you that I am judgment proof. Please be advised that my sole source of income is from:

_X_ Social Security (SSA), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), which is exempt from debt collection under 42 USC §407
__ Public Assistance, which is exempt from debt collection under 42 USC §704.170 and Welf & IC §17409
__ Unemployment, which is exempt from debt collection under CCP §704.120
__ Worker’s Compensation, which is exempt from debt collection under CCP §704.160
__ Pension/Retirement, which is exempt from debt collection under CCP §704.115 and CCP §704.110
__ Other: __________________________________________________ __________________________

Therefore, any attempt by your firm to levy or garnish my account will be unsuccessful.

Please consider this letter notice pursuant to Czap v. Credit Bureau of Santa Clara Valley, 7 Cal. App. 3d (1970). Any attempt to levy against or garnish assets with knowledge that the assets are exempt from garnishment constitutes abuse of process for which your client and firm may be held liable.

Finally, please be aware that I am:
__ disabled
__ a senior citizen
And any further contacts will cause me unnecessary stress.

Sincerely,



There are some useful ideas here.

Good luck.

[albacore44]

Just trying to follow here. Has there been an Answer filed in this case? It would seem that comes first, before defendant responds to discovery. If JDB has filed a Complaint, and there is no Answer, what's to stop them from getting a default judgment?

FWIW, this is a sample letter I got from the local legal aid office:

I am writing this letter to inform you that I am disabled/retired and you will never be able to collect on the alleged debt on which you are suing me. I have been advised of my right to file an answer in the above-referenced lawsuit, but before I do so, I am informing you that I am judgment proof. Please be advised that my sole source of income is from:

_X_ Social Security (SSA), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), which is exempt from debt collection under 42 USC §407
__ Public Assistance, which is exempt from debt collection under 42 USC §704.170 and Welf & IC §17409
__ Unemployment, which is exempt from debt collection under CCP §704.120
__ Worker’s Compensation, which is exempt from debt collection under CCP §704.160
__ Pension/Retirement, which is exempt from debt collection under CCP §704.115 and CCP §704.110
__ Other: __________________________________________________ __________________________

Therefore, any attempt by your firm to levy or garnish my account will be unsuccessful.

Please consider this letter notice pursuant to Czap v. Credit Bureau of Santa Clara Valley, 7 Cal. App. 3d (1970). Any attempt to levy against or garnish assets with knowledge that the assets are exempt from garnishment constitutes abuse of process for which your client and firm may be held liable.

Finally, please be aware that I am:
__ disabled
__ a senior citizen
And any further contacts will cause me unnecessary stress.

Sincerely,



There are some useful ideas here.

Good luck.

Hmmm.......food for thought. Yes, the nephew filed an answer to the complaint. The court wanted $425 (steep). he tried to get the fee waived, but it was rejected. The court allowed him to make payments of $50 a month . These discovery questions were mailed the same day the answer was filed, so the JDB was ready.

[rta]

The nephew filed an Answer but that doesn't mean the MIL filed one. If both names had been included in the Answer, then there would have been two $425 fees. There are ways to defeat a JDB because nobody borrowed anything from them, so they have to prove standing. Please consult a consumer rights lawyer in your area, before they get the idea of getting MIL's default.

BTW, did they put MIL's name as responding party in their interrogatories? It would be strange if they did considering that she has not filed an Answer so far. JDB's use intimidation tactics (like all debt collectors) so it's good to be ahead of the game.

Best of luck.

[albacore44]

The nephew filed an Answer but that doesn't mean the MIL filed one. If both names had been included in the Answer, then there would have been two $425 fees. There are ways to defeat a JDB because nobody borrowed anything from them, so they have to prove standing. Please consult a consumer rights lawyer in your area, before they get the idea of getting MIL's default.

BTW, did they put MIL's name as responding party in their interrogatories? It would be strange if they did considering that she has not filed an Answer so far. JDB's use intimidation tactics (like all debt collectors) so it's good to be ahead of the game.

Best of luck.

no she did not file an answer. she lives with me. i am working it for her. yes, they sent 2 seperate sets of interrogatories to each defendant, each in their name. i am confident she is collection proof. my goal now is to shake them loose off her scent so she doesnt have to go through a long stressful drawn out court process, so in the end they finally realize they can get nothing. at 85, you dont need to deal with all this bs

[LadyInTheRed]

If she doesn't want a default entered against her, she needs to file an answer or, if allowed, a general denial. The fact that her co-defendant filed an answer doesn't prevent a default against her.

[AngelinaCat]

If she doesn't want a default entered against her, she needs to file an answer or, if allowed, a general denial. The fact that her co-defendant filed an answer doesn't prevent a default against her.

EXACTLY!!!! PLEASE stop dithering and file your MIL's answers, or have her file BK, period. This delaying while you and she figure out how best to answer, or NOT answer are doing your MIL a world of hurt, not help.

As my deceased MIL would bluntly put it: "either s***, or get OFF the pot!!"