Money 8/4 - Barb sued by another bank - Capital One Bank

  • 🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

How much is the lawsuit over?

  • $0 ~ $1,000

    Votos: 16 4.5%

  • $1,001 ~ $2,500

    Votos: 21 5.9%

  • $2,501 ~ $5,000

    Votos: 87 24.6%

  • $5,001 ~ $10,000

    Votos: 99 28.0%

  • $10,001 ~ $25,000

    Votos: 47 13.3%

  • More than $25,000

    Votos: 84 23.7%
  • Total de votantes
    354
Estado
No está abierto para más respuestas.
repentance dijo:
I've heard of that before in some Eastern European countries. It's very bizarre.
Presiona para expandir...

It might sound bizarre but not entirely. It does avoid some unwanted situations, f.e.:

Mr (x) has passed away leaving his house (which is fully paid off) to his family. However he still has debts. His family can:

1. Have the house sold off to pay those debts. Whatever is left is considered as heritance of the deceased and afterwards distributed according by law or the deceased's will.
2. Inheret the house along with the debts. They're paying off the debts but can keep the house to themselves. This way they aren't forced to sell it off , especially when the familymembers are intending to use the house. This also avoid unnessecary (unwanted) costs selling through 3rd parties.
 
idosometimes dijo:
I don't know Virginia law and don't feel like looking it up, but I would imagine Barb's income and assets are exempt from execution or close enough to all being exempt. Chris is legally differently-advantaged. Barb is elderly. They are poor as shit.
Presiona para expandir...

If they were that exempt she wouldn't have paid off the last one. She would have just told them to fuck off.

Or maybe she has a hidden well of ethics I don't know about. But consumer credit debt is shit that is nearly beyond ethics.
 
Suicidal Emo Panda dijo:
It might sound bizarre but not entirely. It does avoid some unwanted situations, f.e.:

Mr (x) has passed away leaving his house (which is fully paid off) to his family. However he still has debts. His family can:

1. Have the house sold off to pay those debts. Whatever is left is considered as heritance of the deceased and afterwards distributed according by law or the deceased's will.
2. Inheret the house along with the debts. They're paying off the debts but can keep the house to themselves. This way they aren't forced to sell it off , especially when the familymembers are intending to use the house. This also avoid unnessecary (unwanted) costs selling through 3rd parties.
Presiona para expandir...

This is pretty much how it works in the US, with the exception that you need to head off the lender before they start with estate assets like houses, and tell them you are going to pay the debt.

Generally speaking the lenders are very patient and willing to work with you. They will make contact and say the deceased has a debt and they need to collect it from the estate. And give you options from there.

That being said if the deceased doesn't have assets to cover the debt, that debt isn't inherited, it's a loss for the lender. Part of the danger of the loans process, especially when it comes to an elderly.
 
ceb.jpg


Well, I guess we know now why Chris is selling his black diamond crap.
 
Sho'nuff dijo:
This is pretty much how it works in the US, with the exception that you need to head off the lender before they start with estate assets like houses, and tell them you are going to pay the debt.

Generally speaking the lenders are very patient and willing to work with you. They will make contact and say the deceased has a debt and they need to collect it from the estate. And give you options from there.

That being said if the deceased doesn't have assets to cover the debt, that debt isn't inherited, it's a loss for the lender. Part of the danger of the loans process, especially when it comes to an elderly.
Presiona para expandir...

Yes, I think that's the major difference here. If the lender is being a jackass he could force the assets to be sold first. So basically the whole situation is at the creditor's mercy.
 
This has pretty much been said already:

Banks and card companies want debt, because they earn a lot of profit from the interest. If they can manage to keep the debtor going on without risking bankruptcy, then these companies are happy letting minimum payments go on indefinitely.

A lawsuit like this usually only come when the company is seriously concerned that that they will not collect on the debt and lose significant money. In that case they want to take moves to liquidate the debt ASAP by selling it to a collection agency. Hence a lawsuit to establish a settlement that needs to be paid.

So, is Barb:
1) A really shit debtor? I mean, more so than we all already know about.
2) On the verge of bankruptcy and the company knows it?
3) On the verge of death and the company knows it?
 
Gav01 dijo:
This has pretty much been said already:

Banks and card companies want debt, because they earn a lot of profit from the interest. If they can manage to keep the debtor going on without risking bankruptcy, then these companies are happy letting minimum payments go on indefinitely.

A lawsuit like this usually only come when the company is seriously concerned that that they will not collect on the debt and lose significant money. In that case they want to take moves to liquidate the debt ASAP by selling it to a collection agency. Hence a lawsuit to establish a settlement that needs to be paid.

So, is Barb:
1) A really shit debtor? I mean, more so than we all already know about.
2) On the verge of bankruptcy and the company knows it?
3) On the verge of death and the company knows it?
Presiona para expandir...

Maybe her begging video did led to all of this. The bank might have done some online research. Based on her condition in the video it can be assumed the bank wants to get their money before she kicks the bucket.
 
Gav01 dijo:
This has pretty much been said already:

Banks and card companies want debt, because they earn a lot of profit from the interest. If they can manage to keep the debtor going on without risking bankruptcy, then these companies are happy letting minimum payments go on indefinitely.

A lawsuit like this usually only come when the company is seriously concerned that that they will not collect on the debt and lose significant money. In that case they want to take moves to liquidate the debt ASAP by selling it to a collection agency. Hence a lawsuit to establish a settlement that needs to be paid.

So, is Barb:
1) A really shit debtor? I mean, more so than we all already know about.
2) On the verge of bankruptcy and the company knows it?
3) On the verge of death and the company knows it?
Presiona para expandir...

If they were on the verge of bankruptsy they would work with her. Otherwise bringing a judgement to bear like this would push her past that point and they likely would get nothing. Unless there is some legal standard for getting a judgement of debt and it can't be forgiven in bankruptsy.

I think she is just so far past paying that this is their only recourse.

Also maybe @Collections Agent can confirm, I get the feeling that this debt already counts as "sold" to a collections agency. Something tells me a large financial institution would separate their financial side from their collections side.
 
Collections actually works pretty closely with the lawyers (we're in the same building). Also, just to clarify, I am on the software backend side of things (making sure the site reinforces policies, offers options to people, etc.). However C1 requires their software engineers to understand the Collections process so I'll do my best to guess where Barb is as far as being FUBAR without disclosing anything I shouldnt.

In collections we operate in "buckets" where the lower bucket you are the generally more reliable you are in paying off your credit. Barb is unquestionably in Bucket 6 at the moment, where C1 often tries to sell off the debt due to the negligence of the client. To clarify, for her to get this far she would have had to ignore a metric ton of calls from associates offering debt assistance, ignored multiple bills, and generally ignored the problem in general. If she even tried to consult an associate she would probably not be in Bucket 6. That being said, I am not directly involved in her case and I don't know any of my friends who are (I asked), and unfortunately even if I was, anything in legal is straight NDA.

From my point of view I would consult this article:
http://lifehacker.com/how-to-settle-debts-when-you-cant-pay-them-back-1648863255

As much as the site is click bait this is a pretty accurate article to the process.
 
I defend clients on this stuff pretty regularly. Barb is rely fucking her self twice here. If you hire a lawyer (I charge all of $500-1500 to defend credit card debt cases depending on how complicated I think it'll be and how much I'll have to drive), they will take ridiculous settlements like "we'll give you half of what the bill is, 24 month payment plan, no interest" as long as they've got consent judgment in case you default again. If the debt has been sold they'll go even lower because they frequently can't prove the assignment, those cases frequently settle for around 30% or get dismissed because they don't have all the paper work.

Good thing barb is too smart for the bank, though.
 
Collections Agent dijo:
Collections actually works pretty closely with the lawyers (we're in the same building). Also, just to clarify, I am on the software backend side of things (making sure the site reinforces policies, offers options to people, etc.). However C1 requires their software engineers to understand the Collections process so I'll do my best to guess where Barb is as far as being FUBAR without disclosing anything I shouldnt.

In collections we operate in "buckets" where the lower bucket you are the generally more reliable you are in paying off your credit. Barb is unquestionably in Bucket 6 at the moment, where C1 often tries to sell off the debt due to the negligence of the client. To clarify, for her to get this far she would have had to ignore a metric ton of calls from associates offering debt assistance, ignored multiple bills, and generally ignored the problem in general. If she even tried to consult an associate she would probably not be in Bucket 6. That being said, I am not directly involved in her case and I don't know any of my friends who are (I asked), and unfortunately even if I was, anything in legal is straight NDA.

From my point of view I would consult this article:
http://lifehacker.com/how-to-settle-debts-when-you-cant-pay-them-back-1648863255

As much as the site is click bait this is a pretty accurate article to the process.
Presiona para expandir...

Out of curiosity. If Barb got a credit card, max'd it in a month and then never made a payment and went no contact. How long would it take her to get to the point she is at now? Assuming no payments, no contact, what's the minimal amount of time?
 
Sho'nuff dijo:
Out of curiosity. If Barb got a credit card, max'd it in a month and then never made a payment and went no contact. How long would it take her to get to the point she is at now? Assuming no payments, no contact, what's the minimal amount of time?
Presiona para expandir...

Bucket 6 requires a minimum 150 days or 6 missed minimum payments.

From what I understand if C1 dosent act on the debt by 180 days, it's defaulted and is often sold off.
 
Collections Agent dijo:
Bucket 6 requires a minimum 150 days or 6 missed minimum payments.

From what I understand if C1 dosent act on the debt by 180 days, it's defaulted and is often sold off.
Presiona para expandir...
Stupid question from someone who doesn't know much about the finance industry; if C1 elected not to try to sell this off for less than the owed amount does that mean it's a sizeable chunk of change?
 
Poor Choices dijo:
Stupid question from someone who doesn't know much about the finance industry; if C1 elected not to try to sell this off for less than the owed amount does that mean it's a sizeable chunk of change?
Presiona para expandir...


Not necessarily, if its sold off it only gives C1 like 10-20% of the total debt value.

If C1 feels as if they can get more than that from her via lawsuit, it's better for them to try and get as much as possible.

Due to her and Chris's tugboat as an income it's a decent assumption to believe they can get more out of them.

Also it's not a stupid question, most people don't know about all this collections stuff lol.

I'm still learning myself
 
Estado
No está abierto para más respuestas.
Atrás
Top Abajo