Motorcycle as a second vehicle?

[no_it_all]

Lets see... I'm sorry, I can't really give educated advice on your questions

Honesty is the best policy. Thank you for recognizing your limitations in this matter.

If you're in a state where they can garnish wages, you're toast.

Sure you are! Probably even throw you in prison too huh??

There is no way around it. Being over the Median automatically throws you into Ch 13.

You will never be able to purchase property in the county you were living in at the time of the Law Suits

True, but I do believe that is only if we were in the 15th Century and living in England!!

If you "walk away" from your debts hoping they will disappear in the future............. well
then be prepared to go to court, hire lawyers, expect wage garnishments, loose you job if your company sees fit.

What !!!! the swarm of locusts don't show up? Losing your job??? Good checkout gurls are hard to find!!

So if your brave enough to forget about your bills, and bank your odds on the SOL..... PLAN ON DEALING IN CASH ALL YOU LIFE

That could be like a really, really long time!!! Your whole life!! YIKES!! Who can live on cash????

And if you think things "disappear" off your credit report after 10 years ------ DUH............. THAT'S NOT SO My credit report goes back 40 years and still has accounts on it that I had and closed a long time ago

[SinkingFast]

Wow! And to think that doing so is in direct violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act!!!! Do you feel special?? Outdated information may not be reported. In most cases, a CRA may not report derogatory information that is more than seven years old; ten years for bankruptcies. Hey look it up! You got google right??


OMG'd the mis-information here is STAGGERING..do you guys work for an attorney or a collections agency…come on…fess up!!! We still luv ya!![/QUOTE]

And the CRA's are the PERFECT ALL KNOWING GODS of Credit information for the entire human race. They NEVER make mistakes. Hence my Judgement that was not a Judgement because some idiot like you didn't do their job right the first time.

As for mis-information. It is you who are mis-informed, and blind, and stupid, and refusing to learn.

Why don't you just SHUT THE HELL UP AND STAY AWAY!!!

[no_it_all]

Hey, anyone out there have a judgement or garnishment due to unsecured credit card debt?? If not, I guess we can chalk that up as another URBAN LEGEND !! GAWD, collectors are going to HATE it when that news gets out!!!

[LostOne0069]

Well, first, yes, I do know someone who's wages were garnished due to unsecured debt. My brother had it happen to him 3-4 years ago.

Secondly, I think maybe I'll take a different track here.

Quite aside from the issue of whether or not a CC company can or can not garnish your wages...

Why are you recommending that people just walk away from their debt without even TRYING use the legal channels that are available? Are you trying to say that just ignoring your debt and walking off is legal and ethical?

One last thing... if walking away from your debt has no consequenses... why is there a statute of limitations at all? What purpose does it serve if there is nothing a creditor can do to you anyway?

[no_it_all]

Any details on your brothers judgement? About how much debt? And the big question..Why did he pay it? Why not go Chapter 7 and have every penny discharged in Chapter 7? Sounds like it was a really dumb move! Was he just not thinking or is there more to it than that?

Good questions btw, here are some answers but first some background info:

1. In the state where the orginal poster lives, wage garnishments for credit card debt is not allowed.

2. In the state where the orginal poster lives, the Statute of Limitations on credit card debt is thirty-six months.

3. Poster indicated most if not all the debt was unsecured credit card debt.

4 Poster has no assests (house, car, savings accounts, business, etc)

5. Poster makes about $5K more than the median for her state

Take a few minutes to read that info again, this time pretend you are a honest lawyer that doesn't need the 2K a Chapter 7 would cost. As you read, also think about what you would recommend.

So, you want her to go BK? Ok, so now she has to come up with a couple of grand. Next she has to make sure the Means Test doesn't kick her into Chapter 13 and she ends up paying it all back anyway!! Meanwhile, nobody knows if the credit card companies were going to try and sue or not!!! So instead I recommend that she sit tight, the credit card companies will MOST LIKELY go away. In fact the will go away in thirty months or so BY LAW!!

IF and this is a huge IF...the credit card companies tried to sue, THEN you file BK...Why use your silver bullet if you don't need to?? A BK now will prevent her from claiming one for eight years..It simply is VERY bad advice to recommend a BK for someone IN THIS SITUATION or anyone in a similar one.

A far as ethical goes, everyone that goes Chapter 7 has screwed their creditors, so how is this different?

Read the posts again, nobody said there are no consequences for waiting out the SOL...In fact, I said this:

Your FICO score will go in the tank while waiting out the SOL

Again reading comprehension is everything..credit card companies can get garnishments, they just never do (except for your brother!)..I really would like to hear the details on that...

[LostOne0069]

Any details on your brothers judgement? About how much debt? And the big question..Why did he pay it? Why not go Chapter 7 and have every penny discharged in Chapter 7? Sounds like it was a really dumb move! Was he just not thinking or is there more to it than that?

Good questions btw, here are some answers but first some background info:

1. In the state where the orginal poster lives, wage garnishments for credit card debt is not allowed.

2. In the state where the orginal poster lives, the Statute of Limitations on credit card debt is thirty-six months.

3. Poster indicated most if not all the debt was unsecured credit card debt.

4 Poster has no assests (house, car, savings accounts, business, etc)

5. Poster makes about $5K more than the median for her state

Take a few minutes to read that info again, this time pretend you are a honest lawyer that doesn't need the 2K a Chapter 7 would cost. As you read, also think about what you would recommend.

So, you want her to go BK? Ok, so now she has to come up with a couple of grand. Next she has to make sure the Means Test doesn't kick her into Chapter 13 and she ends up paying it all back anyway!! Meanwhile, nobody knows if the credit card companies were going to try and sue or not!!! So instead I recommend that she sit tight, the credit card companies will MOST LIKELY go away. In fact the will go away in thirty months or so BY LAW!!

IF and this is a huge IF...the credit card companies tried to sue, THEN you file BK...Why use your silver bullet if you don't need to?? A BK now will prevent her from claiming one for eight years..It simply is VERY bad advice to recommend a BK for someone IN THIS SITUATION or anyone in a similar one.

A far as ethical goes, everyone that goes Chapter 7 has screwed their creditors, so how is this different?

Read the posts again, nobody said there are no consequences for waiting out the SOL...In fact, I said this:

Your FICO score will go in the tank while waiting out the SOL

Again reading comprehension is everything..credit card companies can get garnishments, they just never do (except for your brother!)..I really would like to hear the details on that...

Whoa! Hang on a second here! Perhaps I'm working under an inaccurate assumption here...

Your "reasons" above are all specifically referring to the original posters' state and the laws therin. Most of the rest of your posts have sounded very much like you were referring to everywhere... in other words that garnishment didn't happen anywhere to anyone for any reason.

I have specifically stated in my earlier posts that there are some states that do not allow garnishment. Did you not understand this? Are you now saying that all of your arguments about garnishments being "urban legend" only pertained to certain states?

As for my brother... you, once again, make way too many assumptions and insults.

First, he ended up with a garnishment because he was desperately trying to avoid bankruptcy and was trying to pay his debt because he felt that it was the right thing to do. Disparage him for trying to do what he felt was right and I see no reason to continue with any discussions as you will prove yourself to be nothing but a troll.

Second, after he ended up with his wages garnished, he DID file chapter 7. He, like most of us here, felt that bk was really a last resort and only filed when he felt he had no other choice.

As far as your arguments on "ethical" and that people who file bk have "screwed" their creditors just as those who walk away have... well, I have to agree that it's a fine line, but would argue my opinion that one is working within the laws and rules of our society wheras the other is just turning your back and giving the finger to your creditors. The difference may be slight to you, but to some, it is significant.

[SinkingFast]

What a TOAD!

Don't you think the CC companies know the lending laws of the states they do business in??!!

YES!!

So, sometime, in the 36 month period, a law suit will be filed, where a Judgement will be rendered and recorded. The Judgement will eventually show up on the Credit Reports, and unlike a BK, will stay there until it is physically, legally removed. Or the debtor will purchase property, and a lien will be filed against the property because there's a Judgement on record.

And even if the debtor never buys significant property, there's still the Judgement to contend with as far as getting Credit for anything goes. Lenders don't lend money to people with Judgements in their Credit Histories.

Now, Mr. no_it_all. Take that comment, and clip it up, and lift out the sound bites you like. That's the way you do business. Twisting things around to sound the way you want for them to.

[no_it_all]

Whoa! Hang on a second here! Perhaps I'm working under an inaccurate assumption here...

Your "reasons" above are all specifically referring to the original posters' state and the laws therin. Most of the rest of your posts have sounded very much like you were referring to everywhere... in other words that garnishment didn't happen anywhere to anyone for any reason.

No, read the posts again..they specifically refer to unsecured credit card debt. Please reference the post where I indicated "that garnishments didn't happen anywhere for any reason" Or perhaps I didn't say that and you are confused??? I'm waiting patiently LOL

I have specifically stated in my earlier posts that there are some states that do not allow garnishment. Did you not understand this? Are you now saying that all of your arguments about garnishments being "urban legend" only pertained to certain states?

No again, reading comprehension is the key here: I said that garnishments for unsecured credit card debt is an urban legend...and even if there was a garnishment, all an individual has to do is file Chapter 7 and it goes "Poof" !

Second, after he ended up with his wages garnished, he DID file chapter 7. He, like most of us here, felt that bk was really a last resort and only filed when he felt he had no other choice.

So, once he filed Chapter 7 did he have to pay his unsecured credit cards back? If the answer is no, then you have proven my point! He waited until the credit card companies actually sued (which is VERY rare) and THEN he went BK, thus wiping out the debt!!! Which is EXACTLY what he should have done...He received some very good advice...I would have told him the same.

As far as your arguments on "ethical" and that people who file bk have "screwed" their creditors just as those who walk away have... well, I have to agree that it's a fine line, but would argue my opinion that one is working within the laws and rules of our society wheras the other is just turning your back and giving the finger to your creditors. The difference may be slight to you, but to some, it is significant.

Every state has SOL laws that prohibit unsecured credit card debt from following you around..Once the SOL has run, the debt cannot be collected. That is the law..Please explain how that law is different than taking advantage of the bankruptcy law, and "giving the creditors the finger", and is less ethical. I'm curious!

[no_it_all]

Don't you think the CC companies know the lending laws of the states they do business in??!!

Of course, but they are counting on the fact that perhaps the debtor doesn't. That is why some collectors will <still> file for a judgement even though the SOL laws have taken effect. They are banking (literally) on the consumer NOT knowing the law and NOT challenging it. The most common would be a default judgement in favor of the collector where the debtor does not challenge the suit, thereby not raising the SOL defense.

So, sometime, in the 36 month period, a law suit will be filed, where a Judgement will be rendered and recorded.

Not so fast..there are hundreds of thousands of credit card accounts that are charged off and no suit is ever filed and of course no judgement rendered. To say otherwise or to make it sound like a certainty is completely wrong!

The Judgement will eventually show up on the Credit Reports, and unlike a BK, will stay there until it is physically, legally removed.

Agreed, judgements are bad things..very bad things..BUT did you know that if the suit was not brought BEFORE the Statute Of Limitations expired that there can be no judgement?? In other words, the orginal poster of this thread CANNOT have a judgement entered after thirty six months! (unless they don't contest it). Why? Because the SOL has kicked in. What if the creditors decided to bring suit within that thirty-six months? Simple! Just file and stop the suit in its tracks! BINGO! no suit and NO JUDGEMENT!

Or the debtor will purchase property, and a lien will be filed against the property because there's a Judgement on record.

True, but did you know that a lien is only paid when the property sells? There are no monthly payments on a lien. If you don't sell, you don't pay!

And even if the debtor never buys significant property, there's still the Judgement to contend with as far as getting Credit for anything goes. Lenders don't lend money to people with Judgements in their Credit Histories.

You know this as a fact??? Not even a credit card?? I highly doubt that.

Now, Mr. no_it_all. Take that comment, and clip it up, and lift out the sound bites you like. That's the way you do business. Twisting things around to sound the way you want for them to.

????

[SinkingFast]

Re: my comment about Judgements causing people trouble getting new Credit you said:

You know this as a fact??? Not even a credit card?? I highly doubt that.



????

Again, you never did READ my previous posts. In this very thread.

And I will not bother to explain it to you again.

You believe you Know It All, and those kinds of people are the worst kind. Incapable of learning anything.

[no_it_all]

Not sure what you are talking about. All I did was reference your post that says (and I am quoting).."Lenders don't lend money to people with Judgements in their credit histories". I am sure that there are individuals that have judgements on their credit reports and also have credit cards and auto loans. Depending on their downpayment and the amount of the judgement, I would intelligently conclude that they have real estate loans also. Please reference your sources that indicate obtaining a credit card is never granted once a judgement has been rendered..Thank you ah, Guru and have a GREAT day!

[SinkingFast]

Minny's right. If you're paying cash for something the seller won't give a gnat's eyelash on a horse's ass of care if you have a lien slapped against you after the purchase of the property. It's not their problem.

But if you are trying to get a Creditor to lend you money to buy a car, a home, a boat, and there's a Judgement out there on your Credit Report showing, you ain't gonna get any money to buy whatever.

I know from personal experience, Bud. No urban legend.

We were sued to return the earnest money deposit to buyer's who defaulted on the purchase of our home. A year and a half later, we settled and split the funds. SIX years later, we were trying to buy a car. The loan officer at the bank called me and asked me about a $1000 Judgement that had appeared in our Credit Histories. I was like, "What the FUDGE??!!" The loan officer gave dates and details. Still didn't know what he was talking about. When the Loan Officer said the location, I knew exactly what he'd been talking about.

I didn't understand why this was coming out now, and all wrong at that. After all, we'd already bought 2 more houses in 2 different states, a couple other vehicles, a riding lawn mower we were paying for on time. Not one problem with any of the other financing. Why now??!!

But I knew the Judgement was an error, and I put in a call to our old attny's office in the town where all this had occurred. Some little Credit Investigating Company had opened an office in that town about 6 months before we tried to buy the car. Evidently one of their investigators went to the Court House, because we'd lived there before, saw the registry of complaint for the Law Suit, didn't trace it to it's conclusion, and entered a Judgement in our Credit History.

The bank in Kansas City was not gonna loan us $6000 to buy a car unless we cleared up an 8 year old $1000 Judgement from Southern Illinois.

Our old attny's office had a paralegal run over to the Court House, get Certified copies of the Settlement. The attny's office faxed a copy to the bank, mailed a copy to the Bank and to us, and mailed copies to all 3 CRA's. The Judgement was immediately removed.

That sir is no urban legend. It's life experience.

We were not going to get Credit from a Bank because the CRA's were saying we had a Judgement in our Credit Histories.

READ!!!!!

[no_it_all]

Sorry, but I read this post a few times and I can't find the part that where the loan officer says that you were not getting a loan because of the (incorrect) posting of a Judgement on your credit report. I did find this though:

The loan officer at the bank called me and asked me about a $1000 Judgement that had appeared in our Credit Histories.

Note that the above quote does <not> mean the same as this hypothetical sentence: "The loan officer at the bank said that because of a judgement on our credit report, they would not be able to extend us credit."

Those two statements are <not> synonymous.


Often when there is something "out of wack" on a credit report, the lender will ask a question about it. Asking a question about a potential debtor's report should not be construed as meaning the same thing as a credit denial.

In addition, just because a single creditor denies credit, a leap of logic should <not> be made that ALL creditors will use the same exact underwriting guidelines and as a result <all> lenders will deny credit. To think otherwise is simply wrong and frankly, defies logic. However, you can expect lenders that use the same underwriting guidelines to reach the same decision.

It also defies logic as to why a lender would NOT extend credit even if there was a judgement (especially one for all of a thousand dollars) if their position was secured by huge hunks of equity. To wit: you put down 30 thousand dollars on your new 100 thousand dollar condo. The lender of course has a security interest via the first mortgage. I think most lenders would jump at that deal, despite the whopping 1K Judgement that <might> be attached to the property.

To summarize: I believe blanket statements such as "no credit ever given if there is a judgement" are not only wrong, but potentially damaging to someone trying to figure out what to do. It would be a ok to say something like this though: "Once the SOL kicks in..unsecured credit card debt goes bye-bye"

[SinkingFast]

Ok.

To be more concise and precise, since you like it so,............

In explaining to the Lending Officer how the "Judgement" came about, the Lending Officer did indeed say the Bank would not lend us $6000 to purchase a car worth $15,000 with a $1000 Judgement on our Credit History. And I did fail to mention that we were Banking customers at that bank. With Checking and significant funds on deposit in savings. All which was helping to get us a much more attractive finance rate than other lenders were offering at the time.

So, gee, let's see. The car was a "program" vehicle back in off lease. Already depreciated the first 2 years. I'd say $9000 is a significant amount of equity as compared to their $6000 loan. And the bank still would let a little old $1000 Judgement stand in the way of lending us money when we have otherwise great credit??!! As in FICO of 795 at the time??!!

But I'm sure you are right. You MUST be. You work too hard to be right ALL the time.

Even if the Judgement had been real, I'd bet we coulda found a Lender out there somewhere who woulda loaned us the money. At possibly 25% or 30% interest??!!

[no_it_all]

Excellent! Thank you for filling in the details....you were putting nine-thousand dollars down? A FICO of 795? And they still would not give you a loan...unbelievable!! I wonder why the Judgement that was on your credit report didn't affect your FICO ??? You would <think> that a judgement would like, really knock a FICO score down. 795 is only 55 points lower than the maximum. I bet your FICO went to the max after the Judgement was removed..only like one person in a 100,000 would have a score that high..pretty unbelievable!!