Posts by Brandon Hill8

"The basis for payment cannot be executed. The xxxx judgment lacks the required certification of finality under Article 10 of the amendment to the law on enforcement of monetary assets (NN 112/12)."

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.

Unfounded?

feraltinker8 said: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...

Article 10 of the amendment to the law on enforcement of monetary assets NN 112/12:

The provisions of this Act apply to enforceable decisions and settlements of a domestic court or administrative body that mandate the fulfillment of a monetary obligation and became enforceableafter October 15, 2012.

Since your judgment became enforceable on July 22, 2002—which was way before October 15, 2012—I think it’s pretty obvious why you can't go through the Federal Reserve for direct collection. Even if the Fed gives you some canned explanation, that's the bottom line.

As for changing the assets being seized or any potential statute of limitations issues, you haven't provided enough info regarding whether there might be a stay on the enforcement.

John Clark6 is on the right track here, and coppermoose42 completely missed it because she doesn't know the difference between the enforcement act and the amendment to the law on enforcement of monetary assets.

feraltinker8 said: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.

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.

Chloe Hernandez81 said:Is it actually possible to initiate a collection action against a company that’s already been dissolved?

Thanks,

If the company has been liquidated, then no—it doesn't exist anymore.

Harold Long21 said:Regardless of who you might have heard it from, some of the regulars here on the forum have already stepped up to explain exactly how the whole cesarean section process works.

Why is that? Do you have some kind of allergy to eighty-gram paper with a reminder printed on it?

What kind of proof are they actually expecting that you received it? If that was the standard, nobody would ever bother picking up those delivery notifications at the post office. Let’s be real here—we all know it’s not like an auntie from Australia is suddenly sending us stacks of cash in the mail. It’s pretty obvious to everyone what’s really going on.

He handed those receivables over to T-Mobile when he sold them off, mostly because they probably didn't feel like dealing with someone like you, so they just moved them along for a certain percentage of the value.

They actually have to provide you with a full itemized breakdown of what they claim you owe.👍

...or else 🙏

Well, now you know. Honestly, people fight over pennies far too often, and in my experience, 99% of the time the company is in the wrong. If you happen to be part of that unlucky 1%, start by demanding a detailed specification of the debt just to see exactly what they are trying to charge you for. Once you have that, pull out the contract you signed with T-Mobile and read every single word from start to finish. If you still feel confident that you're right after that, then you can push back.

Here is the process I would suggest following:

1. File a formal dispute stating exactly why you believe you don't owe the amount. They will likely brush you off at first, but you need to keep moving forward;

2. I believe there is a local consumer advocacy group that offers free legal consultations on Thursdays—it might be worth looking into to present your case. You can certainly handle this on your own, but getting a professional opinion is always a good idea. Regardless, move on to step three.;

3. File a complaint with Honor Bound at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. If your consumer rights have been violated, filing this shouldn't cost you anything. Their website outlines the exact procedure and what documentation you need to include. Once the process begins at Honor Bound through the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, they usually organize a mediation session where both you and a representative from the company present your sides. If mediation doesn't work out (which happens quite frequently), the board will make a ruling. Don't back down if you know you're in the right; I went through a similar ordeal once—not with a telecom provider, but the principle was the same—and it ended in my favor.

Just a quick tip: whenever you send anything through the mail, make sure to use certified mail with a return receipt so you have physical proof that they actually received your correspondence.

It’s not debt collection yet. They're just sending a warning.

The notice clearly states that the principal (like T-Mobile) will initiate forced collection proceedings if the debt isn't paid according to the notice.

And they don't even bother showing ID.

Austin Cook74 said:Can anyone actually make sense of Section 107, subsection 3, based on subsection 1?
http://www.law.gov/property-rights-act
Basically, I'm trying to figure out what the daily rate is in dollars for using someone else's land.
Has anyone here actually sued someone and gotten a court order for using their property?!
How long did the whole legal mess take... how much was the daily fine... and did they run into trouble with people resisting, or did the local police actually follow the court's orders?

It all depends on the total acreage and what that land is zoned for. If this ends up in front of a judge, the compensation is going to be determined by an expert witness's report, specifically looking at compensation for partial takings.

You aren't going to be paying a "daily rate." It’ll be one lump sum. It all boils down to the price per square foot based on the land's usage and exactly how much of the property you're occupying.

The courts move relatively fast, and the police don't have anything to do with these specific calculations.

Donna Harris5 said:Nezzz, I wasn't quite sure where to ask—so I figured I’d just post it here. I recently bought some land, but the previous owner had an outstanding lien on it. Now that I’m the official owner, the title shows an active foreclosure—and the court is moving to sell the property. Can they actually sell my land like this? It isn't even my debt—it belongs to the former owner, not me.

Look, if there was already a foreclosure notice filed against that property in the county records, you couldn't have legally become the owner in the first place.

The reason is simple: ownership of real estate—regardless of any contract you signed—isn't official until it's recorded in the land registry. Under Section 48, subsection 3 of the bankruptcy law, you can't officially transfer or acquire ownership once a foreclosure has been noted against the property.

If a buyer shows up, the court is going to sell that property, and they aren't going to stop to ask for your permission. Honestly, all you can do now is sit tight and pray nobody puts in a bid.

rowdyraven112 said:An attachment is either a court order or a notary deed. Here. There’s no deal to be made. Period.The same agencies handle the enforcement—the IRS, the courts, all that. The debtor doesn't have any say in the matter. Collection follows a strict order: interest first, then costs, then principal. Interest is set by law, and the highest I've seen is 15% annually. Short and simple.

Under Section 202, Paragraph 1 of the CIA guidelines, we're looking at a private instrument from the debtor. Paragraph 2 of that same section defines its legal weight—it carries the same force as a final enforcement order and holds the status of a legal transaction under Section 77. I won't bore you with the rest. What does "legal effect" actually mean here? It means if they come after your wages, they can't touch a dime until that determination is finalized. Hope that clears things up.
An injunction or an administrative ban is basically just a contract between two parties. In this setup, the creditor and the debtor... They’re negotiating. That’s the key word right there. They think they can just sit down and cut a deal behind closed doors? Please. Everyone knows how this works. They talk, they scheme, they pretend everything is above board. But we see through it. What are they actually agreeing on? It’s always the same old story. Let’s talk about debt repayment models. It doesn't have to be a third of your paycheck; it could just as easily be a quarter. If you set it up via contract, you aren't bound by the mandatory relationship law where everything is strictly split between interest, fees, and principal. A debtor can actually insist on adding a clause that lets them pause payments whenever they want. Interest rates? Those are whatever you agree upon. As far as I know, before 2011, you didn't even need to have those documents notarized. Correct me if I'm wrong.
You’ll probably tell me that any creditor would look like an idiot if they agreed to terms like this. Sure, they would. I wouldn't agree to these kinds of conditions either if I wasn't backed into a corner just trying to collect what's owed to me. That’s exactly what that section of the CIA code allows—it gives debtors a way to play games and tilt the scales during negotiations.
A debtor signs a loan agreement with a reliable partner—just two bucks, enough to make the legal claim last a lifetime. Immediately after, they set up a garnishment for one-third of their income, or whatever the maximum allowed under mandatory relationship law, plus interest. They can send that garnishment for collection right away, or wait. That’s when the debtor walks over to the creditor and puts the squeeze on them to accept a better repayment plan. If the creditor starts playing games just to stall for time? Just hire an admin for your firm and open a protected checking account.
Why even bother doing this? It’s a direct response to those predatory mandates within the mandatory relationship law and the CIA regulations. They're trying to send a message: don't be malicious. Demand an interest waiver and a reduction in legal fees. Then, agree to pay off the debt in installments. And whatever you do, get everything in writing.

It’s pretty much the same deal with fake invoices during pre-trial settlements, though I bet some people know the ropes better than others.

Can you open a protected checking account that's exempt from garnishment? Absolutely. Just walk into any local clinic and you'll see how Medicare provides administrative exemptions to prevent them from automatically seizing monthly payments. Based on that paperwork, anyone can set up a protected account—I've seen it happen.
Sure, all these tactics are basically an abuse of the system, but if you look closely, even Medicare uses these same loopholes. I'm convinced they target retirees for these exemptions because they're the easiest group to manipulate with these shady schemes.
And listen, gentlemen, this kind of legal abuse needs to be proven in court. Anyone claiming this is just "technicality" either has skin in the game or has never stepped foot inside a courtroom.

I highly doubt you guys will actually get it.

I have to admit, I really didn't get it.

Emily Doyle2 said:So, here’s the situation: I co-signed a loan for a buddy of mine. He was doing fine, everything was on track, until he hit a rough patch and lost his job for about six months. Now, because of that, a writ of execution was slapped on me. But here’s the kicker—in the meantime, they also hit him with an execution for that exact same loan. So now, both of us are getting bled dry by two separate executions for one single debt. Is it actually possible for two different people to be facing enforcement for the same damn loan? Since he’s the primary borrower, he should be the only one being chased for it while drawing his regular paycheck, yet here I am, having my own wages docked for the same credit line.

Yeah, it is.

ruggedmaker2 said:But there *is* an execution. 😉
That "administrative hold" thing? That's still an execution. It's just a garnishment where the debtor gives their consent.
In that lady's case, they were only hitting her wages (meaning her employer handles it), rather than seizing everything she owns (which is what the IRS does to every single account you have).
Both versions—the wage garnishment and the total asset seizure—are governed by the Enforcement Law.

Bravo. I just highly doubt they'll actually wrap their heads around it.

Susan Thompson15 said:It’s not a one-year statute of limitations.
Since the city issues the warning notice covering an entire year, we're looking at local utility fees collected directly by the municipality rather than a private utility company (which would just bill you for the service rendered). Essentially, these are treated like taxes, which means they aren't subject to that shorter expiration period. So, it hasn't expired.

Technically, the bill should be addressed to the property owners, but let's be real—in small towns, things get messy...

Municipal fees don't expire under the enforcement law because this isn't a public grant. It's an occasional claim.

The person responsible for the municipal fee is anyone actually using the property, not just the owner.

Jeffrey Long said:The notary public submitted the motion for execution on January 18, 2008 (though it only reached me yesterday 🙄). The core issue is that looking at this specific motion, I can't tell exactly when it was officially filed, which makes it impossible to determine if three or four of these bills have already hit the statute of limitations window.

Wait, how did you even receive it?

The motion for execution has the notary's official stamp showing exactly when it was filed. If you look at the certified documents attached to the motion, the due dates for all those obligations are right there. Basically, any due date that is more than a year older than the date the motion was filed is technically expired.

loneviper8 said:Hey there

I'm running into some trouble here and could really use a hand

It’s about a motion for enforcement based on a promissory note..

Basically, the local court in San Diego received the filing back on November 4, 2004, and they actually signed off on the enforcement order on November 18, 2004.

And then I just get hit with this yesterday?

I'd appreciate any advice or suggestions you guys might have

I already called up AT&T and they're claiming the debt is over $1,500, even though the enforcement motion says it's only $125, so now I've got to sit down with my lawyer to figure out the rest of this mess

Once you factor in interest, we're looking at $330, $12

http://imageshack.com/a/img850/3171/zbm5.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img856/9554/kq4t.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img819/8853/uwuna.jpg

Please, someone help me out

Get yourself a lawyer.

John Clark6 said:I'd suggest finding a more seasoned attorney to draft a formal objection for you—you could challenge the delay in receiving the notice, or even the lack of specificity in the garnishment itself. For instance, the motion should ideally be very clear about what exactly is being targeted, whether it's a specific bank account, real estate, or wages, rather than just being a vague "everything" approach. Addressing those details might actually help lower your potential legal costs. Since the total cost of the proceedings is usually tied to the final amount owed, the more effectively you contest the amount, the less you might end up paying in fees.

P.S. If this truly is the first time you're hearing about this order after all that time, then whoever handled this must be a real heavyweight gladiator.

It’s not "everything," from what I can see, it is specifically defined. Plus, the motion for execution includes all the specific enforcement actions that actually need to be taken.

Jeffrey Long said:So, here’s the situation: we just received an enforcement proposal from our local waste management company. The notary's decision was actually finalized back in 2008. Given that there is a one-year statute of limitations on claims for municipal services, I have a specific question regarding how the interruption of that period is calculated. Does the clock reset based on the date of the notary's decision, or does it start from the date the enforcement proposal was officially filed? According to the proposal, it states that the "proposal was made based on credible documents dated 12/27/2007."

I’m asking because if the calculation starts from the filing date, then four of the bills are technically past the statute of limitations. However, if it counts from that 12/27 date, then only three would be expired. 🤔

Thanks for any insight.

The statute of limitations starts running from the day the obligation becomes due. That means you look at the dates on those official documents. If the motion for execution was filed for obligations that became due within a year of that filing, then colloquially speaking, nothing has expired. The only thing that isn't clear is this 2008 writ of execution. Can you clarify that part a bit?

Thomas Williams59 said:There isn't some specific "link" you're looking for, unless you want to dig through the Administrative Procedure Act which basically lays out the deadlines—we’re talking a maximum of a few months here. Honestly, the timelines aren't even the smallest issue, nor does anyone care if they're rushing. As long as they've actually started the process, who cares if it takes an extra month or two? The real headache is the actual substance of the investigation and how those inspectors decide to play it. We won't know what we're dealing with for at least a few weeks. ...
Once they finally draft a decision and we see what kind of mess they've actually put together—which is the only thing that matters—under the Sports Inspection Act, they are required to notify the club members who filed the request for the inspection in the first place. Then, if they don't decide to dump everything over to the 3PM, they might try to appeal to a higher authority, or eventually sue in administrative court... assuming anyone still has the energy or the will left to fight.

Whatever, but you're citing the wrong law.

Jeremy Torres17 said:Nah, being from "Rijeka" is actually a pretty unique and highly respected title for our kind. We’re all over the place, but that label carries some serious weight. 🙂 😁

Sucking up to Mamić on camera? Seriously? Especially when you consider that Italian mobster dumping money into Zamet—which is basically Jovka's playground. 🤣

Daniel Carter9 said:a) Ljubo Pavasović Visković.
b) Filing an unjustified complaint with AT&T over the most trivial nonsense imaginable.
c) NH hasn't even done 1/16th of the legal heavy lifting we needed.

If anyone still doesn't get the picture, I suggest you go back and rewatch that absolute garbage show they aired on Z1.

Keep it up.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there.
It’s obvious that a "cartel" was impossible under the legal definition, but on the flip side, the control Real Madrid has over the Locomotives has been proven. That means this whole thing has to be handed over to the relevant federal department, and we'll see if they actually do their jobs for once. Now we wait to see what happens next.

On another note, I find it way more significant that Real Madrid is finally starting to act like a legitimate business entity. Even the IRS confirmed it this year by finally issuing the ruling that they’re required to pay corporate income tax.

Even failed legal moves are still steps forward. 😉

And Mamić is starting to act a little schizophrenic, which tells you everything you need to know. We're about to find out if we live in a country that actually respects its laws—even the ones that aren't life-or-death—or if we're just a nation where rules are applied selectively depending on who's sitting at the head of the table.

Personally, I'm a pessimist, but let's just wait and see.

Thomas Ortiz3 said:You spent seventeen years in non-possession, and only now has the period of adverse possession actually begun. I don't see the logic here; if the ten-year rule hasn't kicked in, then the statute of limitations hasn't run out either—though, mind you, this isn't my area of expertise. Suing the government? Suing a clerk? Just a collection of tall tales... good luck with that. 🤷

The issue is they’re still in possession, but it isn't lawful. Under the rules for acquiring title via extraordinary prescription, you’re looking at a 20-year requirement based on honest and truthful possession.

This is just one more classic example of the sheer arrogance, overreach, and total incompetence of our "legal" system. Honestly, these cases happen all too often. The European Court of Human Rights is probably salivating at the chance to hear stuff like this, but let's be real—that's cold comfort when you're already screwed.🙄

Regarding the issue of good faith, they’ve actually got a point here. You also have to consider the concept of acquiring ownership from someone who isn't the actual owner. If you dig into the Property Law, you'll see how that's specifically handled. From what I can gather looking through the legal literature, this whole "acquiring from a non-owner" thing is pretty strictly limited to three specific scenarios. One of those involves getting possession from someone who was handed the item via a legal transaction that doesn't actually transfer title—like an inheritance, which seems to be exactly what's happening in this mess if I'm reading this right. However, under Ownership Law, acquiring property from a non-owner is usually restricted to personal property, so you really need to sit down with the Property Law and figure out if those rules apply to real estate too.
Unfortunately, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the outlook here isn't exactly bright. That said, if you don't trust your lawyer's take on this, go find a second opinion—or even a third. Don't just settle for one person's word when your interests are on the line.
At the end of the day, you definitely have the right to sue for damages, though I'm not sure if that offers much cold comfort right now.