Posts by feraltinker8

Are the referral invites for Chime still active? (The ones where you get $18 plus a free card)

To whom it may concern,

I registered a secondary occupation with a start date of April 1, 2016, and subsequently received a notice from the IRS on June 6, 2016, demanding contribution payments.

The assessment includes employment tax contributions; however, according to certain industry guidelines, such contributions should not apply to individuals performing secondary work who are not otherwise covered under any other insurance basis.

Under which specific statute or article have they implemented these mandatory employment taxes? Despite my thorough reading of the Federal Register and my formal inquiries to the IRS, I can find no legal basis for this requirement...

Does anyone happen to have insight into this?

Thank you in advance.

Regards.

coppermoose42 said:I’ll never get why people wait years before they finally decide to stand up for their rights. -.-

The first time I lent money under the promise it would be repaid according to our agreement, I ended up having to file a lawsuit. Once I finally secured a judgment, I had no idea where the debtor was employed. As soon as I tracked down his workplace and initiated an enforcement action, the very moment funds were garnished from his paycheck, he came looking for me to "negotiate." Every time he lost his job, he’d show up again wanting to reach a settlement. I always told him there was no issue with talking, but he never actually fulfilled what we agreed upon. Now, I've decided to restart the enforcement process to ensure the claim doesn't expire due to the statute of limitations...

John Clark6 said:Well, then everything is perfectly clear—you can't just demand a direct seizure from the Federal Reserve in that specific manner, though you certainly have the option to change the asset being targeted for enforcement.

ps. WAIT A MINUTE!!! Folks... I should probably mention—if it hasn't been at least ten years since the last official action was taken, and if the statute of limitations has actually kicked in, making it impossible to even switch up the enforcement method... then it sounds like you might just be trying to find a loophole after the fact...

So, does this mean I have to go to court and submit a motion for enforcement based on a final judgment?

If I initiated the enforcement back in 2003, I assume the statute of limitations was interrupted, and I never received anything from the court stating that the collection process was suspended—meaning there hasn't been any enforcement against my wages since 2006?

coppermoose42 said:NN 112/12??? The enforcement act has been updated twice since then. Why are you using a judgment based on that old law instead of the current one??

Article 10 of that old law states that decisions issued by a court during enforcement or security proceedings take the form of a formal order or conclusion.

You just have a judgment. :/
It makes zero sense why they're citing that old law. How long ago was this judgment issued or when did the debt start?

When a debtor fails to follow what's written in a judgment, you have to go through a formal enforcement process in court. I'm not sure which stage you're at, but you need a formal enforcement order, not just a judgment.

The judgment became final on July 4, 2002, and the enforcement order was issued on July 22, 2002 (according to the dates stamped on the judgment).

On October 13, 2003, my attorney prepared a motion for enforcement based on the enforcement instrument and filed an enforcement order with the local court to garnish one-third of the debtor's wages at xxxx. The court forwarded this to the employer, and the garnishments were processed through 2004, 2005, and 2006...

When submitting my Direct Debit Request through the Federal Reserve, I included the original court judgment as the payment basis—it’s fully finalized and enforceable, complete with all the necessary stamps and signatures.

However, the Federal Reserve returned all my documentation with the following explanation:

"The underlying payment basis cannot be executed. Judgment xxxx lacks the required certificate of enforceability pursuant to Article 10 of the amendment to the law on enforcement of monetary assets NN 112/12."

Where am I supposed to obtain this certificate of enforceability? Isn't the judgment itself supposed to serve as an enforceable instrument?

The judgment bears an official seal stating, "This decision became final on xxxxx," along with the court's stamp and signature. It also features a second seal explicitly stating, "This decision became enforceable on xxxxx," accompanied by the court's stamp and signature...

John Clark6 said:I'm not quite sure I follow—what's the issue if there are, say, 20 heirs involved? It's not like they're going to mail out 20 separate bills divided by twenty, right? And if 16 of them don't pay, does that mean the collectors have to file 16 different enforcement actions? I guess the logic of joint and several liability should be pretty clear now! Plus, since you're all considered "extended" family, there's this vague assumption that everything will just sort itself out regarding the payments.

In my own experience involving two heirs, I ended up receiving two separate bills. The first arrived after the hearing, specifying a 1/2 share in the service description. Then, I was blindsided by a second invoice sent alongside the official decision, which also specified a 1/2 share. I simply wasn't fortunate enough to have it handled differently; both invoices were issued in my name, even though they could have easily been directed toward the other heir who actually failed to pay. It seems anything is possible if one possesses a sense of morality or basic fairness. This entire situation is a legal perpetual motion machine; you close one file only to open another. For instance, where in the American legal code does it specify how I am supposed to locate a distant relative in Brazil whom I haven't seen in my entire life? Yet, I am expected to cover their portion and then spend my own time litigating against them just to get reimbursed. Those who benefit from this system are happy to let "distant" relatives chase their own claims. One has to wonder why the records are even required to be kept per individual heir if the outcome is always the same...

coppermoose42 said:The thing is, the notary isn't going to do that for you. You're the one who has to go after them to get reimbursed for what you paid on their behalf. And no, you can't change the law because it's actually pretty straightforward. Why would a creditor want to rely on a bunch of debtors who probably won't pay? It’s much smarter for them to just pick whoever actually has the cash and collect from them. Just look at it from the creditor's perspective. This isn't just about notaries either; it applies to almost any contract with multiple debtors.

Perhaps I shouldn't have settled the full amount upfront. If I hadn't, how would a notary even handle it? They would have no way of knowing my financial standing, nor would they know which specific party to serve with a collection notice. It would likely just end up back in litigation...

Brandon Hill8 said:Under Section 175 of the Inheritance Law, probate is considered a non-adversarial proceeding.

And per Paragraph 20 of the rules governing non-adversarial proceedings: If multiple people benefit from such a proceeding, they are all jointly and severally liable for the costs.

The legal fees mentioned in Section 191 of the Inheritance Law fall under these procedural costs.

John Clark6, you give the short version; I'll take the long way. The obligation remains the same.

So, what you're telling me is I have to cover the entire bill myself and then sue the other heir just to recoup my money?!
Why didn't the notary realize I was the only one paying? Why didn't they simply send the invoice and a collection notice to the other heir who refused to pay?
It feels like I walked right into a trap... quite the foolish position to find myself in.🙂
If I could actually grasp the reasoning behind why the legislature decided to make us all jointly liable, I might have a chance... but frankly, I don't see the logic in it.
Is there any way to change this law, and if so, to whom should one direct such a grievance?

John Clark6 said:I’m thinking that you all share joint and several liability—which basically means the creditor can pick whichever debtor they want to go after for the full amount—but then you could potentially file a recourse action against the other heirs to recover their portion of the debt...

Regarding the regulations governing the fees and expense reimbursements for a notary acting as a court-appointed trustee during probate proceedings (as detailed in the Federal Register, issue 135/03), Article 6 specifies the following...

During the probate process, the notary collects their designated fee and reimbursement for expenses directly from the heirs...
Regarding the calculation and collection of fees and expenses—including any potential advances paid toward these costs—the notary shall maintain a dedicated accounting ledger within the file. Regardless of whether these individual amounts are documented separately in the probate records, this ledger will provide a chronological account of all transactions... It would be prudent to maintain a meticulous record of all payments made to each individual heir... The total amount of paid awards and expense reimbursements will be finalized by the billing statement, which serves to confirm whether all such fees and costs have been fully settled...

It appears that if I have inherited a one-tenth share, regardless of whether they decide on their own whim to designate me as the sole individual responsible for the collection process—leaving me to deal with the fallout from the other heirs—how exactly am I supposed to collect the funds...

Under which specific provision of Probate Law does a notary acting as a court-appointed administrator have the authority to collect their fees in such a manner...

I have been unable to locate that specific section of the law anywhere. If someone could point me toward the exact citation, I would be grateful...

Furthermore, if a notary is acting as a court-appointed commissioner during probate proceedings, then it stands to reason that Inheritance Law would apply, specifically under the provisions outlined in Article 191, Section 2...

Legal expenses...

Article 191...

Each party shall bear their own costs incurred during or in connection with the proceedings...
If any shared expenses were incurred, the court will determine how those costs are to be apportioned between the parties...
Upon the motion of one party, the court may determine that the opposing party is liable for reimbursing legal costs incurred due to demonstrably bad-faith conduct...

I truly cannot fathom why the courts or our legislators would create such a self-defeating mess. If I am forced to pursue a claim for damages simply because I was left holding the bill for everything, then the logic behind the law is nonexistent. It leads me to believe that these statutes are either fundamentally flawed or intentionally drafted—perhaps even interpreted—to favor those with the most leverage...

If anyone has a sensible answer, please share it. This situation is rapidly turning into a nightmare... 😠

To whom it may concern,

Regarding the recent developments in my probate proceedings:

On February 20, 2014, during our initial and only hearing, I settled my half of the legal fees as agreed upon with the notary. I received an invoice at that time for $545...

The other heir hasn't contributed a single cent to date.

By June 8, 2014, I received a certified invoice via mail from that same notary for $545. Since I had already paid my portion, I didn't see any reason to respond.

Today, December 10, 2014, I was served with a collection order—drafted by a second attorney through another notary—regarding that unpaid invoice from June...

The inheritance decree clearly states that we are both entitled to equal 50% shares of the estate.

I have filed a formal objection with the notary who initiated this collection, attaching the receipt from the original hearing. When I inquired whether the other heir was facing similar collection actions, I was told there is no record of it. In short, they aren't being pursued.

My question is this: How are heirs expected to split these costs fairly? Why does it seem as though I am being forced to shoulder the entire burden of the proceedings through a legal seizure?!!

I would appreciate any advice or insight you might offer.

Regards.

I have obtained a court judgment stating that my employer owes me a specific amount plus interest. Is it possible to take this ruling to the FIN and have them garnish the funds directly from the employer's account? Thank you in advance.

Which specific documents qualify as enforceable instruments that can be submitted in person to the IRS to initiate a seizure?

When I visited the IRS office, they informed me that this process typically requires a notary public, an attorney, or an official seizure order sent directly by the enforcement office. However, I recall reading somewhere that if you present certain items—like a court order or a verified pay stub—the IRS might be able to proceed with the seizure on the spot... I seem to have forgotten the rest of those details.

I appreciate any guidance you can provide.

redcrane22 said:Look, if they haven't actually filed for legal action yet, there shouldn't be any court costs or extra junk to worry about. Just give T-Mobile a call and work out a nice payment plan with them.

Pay them a portion now, send an email confirming the payment, and let them know you'll cover the rest next month. That usually settles things...

I hold a final judgment from the District Court ordering my debtor to pay the debt along with interest. Based on that judgment, I filed a Motion for Execution back in 2003 with the Sheriff's Office. Since I discovered the debtor was employed at the time, I managed to collect payments for about a year and a half. However, the debtor stopped working, and the payments ceased...

Recently, I attempted to initiate an execution against the debtor's liquid assets through Finance, presenting them with a "Motion for Execution based on an enforceable instrument" (which was drafted by an attorney in 2003 and submitted to the Sheriff's Office, where it was subsequently processed). I was told that I must either return to the Sheriff's Office or retain an attorney to resolve this legally...

Am I required to submit a new Motion for Execution through the Sheriff's Office, an attorney, or a notary...

Does a final court judgment serve as a sufficient document to execute an attachment of funds—essentially acting as the Invoice—allowing me to go directly to Finance to claim the monetary assets? Or must I first visit the Sheriff's Office and then present that specific order to Finance...

I already possess an existing execution order that was previously submitted to the Sheriff's Office and successfully used to collect funds from the debtor. Now, I wish to restart the collection process using that very same order, yet Finance insists that I must revisit the Sheriff's Office and file a fresh Motion for Execution...

Is a final court judgment considered a valid document for executing an attachment of bank accounts via Finance...

Specifically, the Finance website states:
"INVOICE — Finance initiates the execution process based on a received Invoice. An Invoice may consist of an execution order, a security order, a promissory note..."

What exactly does Finance categorize under the term "Invoice"...

I would appreciate any suggestions, proposals, or insights you might have...

Pos.