northernhawk said:I really need some advice here. Today, March 23, 2016, I went to the post office to pick up a letter containing a writ of execution based on a certified document regarding item 4, which basically mandates the forced collection of debt from three unpaid bills for my PBS license fees (specifically for January, February, and March 2007 plus interest; totaling $226.16 as of January 16, 2008). This writ was issued on behalf of PBS by the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Radaković & partner. On top of that, they’ve tacked on $416 in legal costs, $20. The whole thing was signed and certified in Washington, D.C., back on February 21, 2008. So, yeah, it took them eight whole years to finally serve me with this enforcement proposal and writ of execution! I never received a single warning or notice from PBS about owing anything; this is the first I’ve ever heard of this debt. I suppose since I was moving from a rental into an apartment I actually owned at the time, any notices probably got lost in the shuffle or sent to the wrong address. Fine. I accept responsibility. Mea culpa. I don't have any payment receipts from 2008 tucked away, because my habit is to keep things for a couple of years and then toss them. Fair enough. Message received. From now on, I guess I’ll be hoarding every receipt from birth until death. Here is the situation: I owe Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom a grand total of $416.60 + $226.16 = $642.76. I can probably swallow that amount, but what happens if they try to retroactively charge me interest for the entire period while this case was just sitting there gathering dust in their offices!!! Is it actually worth filing an appeal, or will that just drag this whole mess out even longer? Is it better to just pay this predatory bill and put it behind me, or am I opening a Pandora's box by fighting it...?
Did you actually have a subscription agreement in place back then?
Olivia Roberts7 said:If I settle up after being about 20 days late on a demand letter, will that stop a writ of execution? Thanks.
Just send a copy of the payment slip over to the person handling the writ of execution.
Michael Davis17 said:Hi everyone, I’m looking for some urgent advice here... I’ve been sitting on this debt since last August. I received my final notice back in January, and honestly, after being without a paycheck for three months, I was just bracing myself for the inevitable. It’s wild how everything just hit the fan all at once within a single three-day window. Yesterday, March 7th, I headed down to the bank to get ahead of things and set up a protected account—you know, the kind where they can't touch your basic living expenses. The representative there checked the system to see if there was an active garnishment order under my name, and apparently, nothing had popped up yet. She said she’d go ahead and submit the request to establish the protected status of my account. Then, fast forward to today, March 8th, and the process server shows up at my door with the actual garnishment notice. I signed for it, which essentially means I'm acknowledging it. The paperwork says I have eight days to settle the legal fees associated with the garnishment, but the document itself is dated February 18th, 2016. My main concern right now is timing: my protected account setup isn't officially finalized yet, but my paycheck from my new job is scheduled to hit this Thursday. Do you think I’ll run into issues with the funds being frozen before the protection kicks in? Is there any chance I'll actually see that money in my account? Best regards,
They aren't going to freeze your funds by Thursday.
Honestly, I just don't get people who let themselves get worked up over things—whether they're objective facts or just personal feelings (it doesn't really matter)—to the point where they feel miserable. Like, why bother showing up to a place that makes you feel that bad just to file complaints, write legal petitions, and go through all that drama? To me, the logical move would be to just find somewhere else where you actually feel comfortable. It’s not like we’re out here scavenging for our next meal on this 🤷 platform.
Dana Chavez4 said:It’s just ridiculous—dealing with the networks and big providers like AT&T, they claim I don't owe them anything personally, yet they refuse to provide any service because some agency has me flagged. Meanwhile, I can't get a straight answer out of the telecom companies either. It’s wild how the government and current laws allow them to basically freeze your paycheck without even a day in court. And if you actually end up in a legal dispute over it, you aren't even notified properly—I've been through this exact scenario before. You're stuck being forced to pay just so you can access the rest of your wages, even though I don't have the money to spare, let alone the time to file a lawsuit just to get my own cash back.
Damn... there really isn't another word for it. 😁
I just can't seem to find any common ground with these people. Under current US laws, the government can basically freeze your paycheck without even a court hearing. And if you actually do end up in court, half the time you aren't even notified—I've been through it myself. You're stuck paying just to get the rest of your check, and honestly, I don't have the money or the energy to file a lawsuit to get it back.
That's not quite how it works, though. First, send them a formal written request via certified mail with a return receipt requested. Ask them for a full itemized list of the debt and a complete history of all your previous payments, broken down by date. Once you have that in hand, then you'll know exactly what your next move should be.
But honestly, the logic on the other side doesn't really hold up either—with how these collections work here in the States, you have to cover the legal and processing fees first, then the interest kicks in, and only after all that does the principal get touched... ..so I’m just sitting here scratching my head trying to figure out how he could possibly still owe him anything at this point.
Dana Chavez4 said:They’ve gone and seized my wages, even though I don't owe them a dime. Instead of actually helping, they're just blocking everything, and honestly, dealing with these guys at the Department of the Treasury has been a nightmare. I tried to have a civil conversation with them to clear this up, but they aren't interested in giving me any explanations; they just resort to threats, telling me they'll just trigger another garnishment if I don't pay up immediately. My employer even showed me my pay stubs to prove that the specific amount was already deducted for the seizure, but apparently, that doesn't matter to them one bit.
First off, NBC shouldn't be able to deny you service just because you owe a third party—that’s completely against the law. (though, to be honest, I'm not sure why those $27 are getting under your skin so much, but hey, fair enough)
Second—there is absolutely zero legal basis for an amount related to $83 to have ballooned by 1700 in just a few years. There just isn't.
I mean, wouldn't it be a lot smarter if he just double-checked how old this debt actually is, when they sent it off for enforcement, and whether the statute of limitations has already run out? A little bit of legwork could save him a massive amount of money. It’s not a guarantee that he'll walk away with anything, but honestly, it's definitely worth a shot.
So, did you guys actually receive an official enforcement order? Because if the final proceedings based on that order are already moving forward and pulling funds as listed—well, you really should have filed an objection to that order if the court had already granted you an exemption.
Brandon Hill8 said:Yeah, but I’m talking about real estate here, not some IRS seizure. You can't stop an IRS levy once it's moving; honestly, even a judge can barely touch that in practice. But after the fact, if the whole thing was baseless, you can sue to get your money back. We've actually seen cases recently where people were hit with fraudulent billing statements.
Besides, from the start of this debate with Knedla, I've been focusing on property assets—specifically his liens on them.
We're talking about using any available evidence allowed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Of course, there’s no way for you to stop a lien from being recorded.
Look, the garnishments follow the order they were received. Basically—it’s a bit of a "you snooze, you lose" situation regarding when you actually filed for the seizure. 🤷 On the flip side, though—how would you even go about proving that the loan was just some fake paper trail?
I don't even know where to start with this mess. It’s one thing to deal with bureaucratic nonsense, but when you realize how much they're trying to skirt the rules, it's infuriating. Honestly, I’m just sitting here staring at my screen wondering how anyone can sleep at night knowing this kind of stuff is happening under our noses. It feels like every time you think you have a handle on the situation, some new loophole pops up. It’s exhausting. You try to follow the law—you try to do things by the book—and then you see people playing games with the system. It makes you want to throw your laptop out the window. There’s zero accountability, and frankly, that's the most insulting part of the whole ordeal. We deserve better than this constant runaround. kaže: Look, if you’re operating in Marvel’s world and you actually have someone reliable on your side, you solemnize a loan agreement with a repayment term spanning a few years. But here's the kicker: you bake in a clause stating that the first installment has to be paid within 10 days of the solemnization. If they miss even a single payment after that? The creditor has the immediate right to trigger enforcement under the Uniform Enforcement of Judgments Act. You don't need me to walk you through it—all the details on how solemnization works are easily available online. What's the catch? Look, people need to get this straight: there is a massive difference between a certified document and an enforceable instrument. You can’t just lump them together. If you’re trying to go after someone using a certified document, you aren't hitting up the IRS for immediate collection. It doesn't work like that. But once you have an enforceable instrument? You're straight to the collection phase immediately, regardless of whether the judgment is final or not. Get it right. Once you get that loan agreement notarized, it becomes an enforceable instrument. I’m pretty sure the IRS would even allow for direct collection if you file the right paperwork—though I might be slightly off on the exact technicality there. Either way, if you can't go through the IRS to settle it, your next move is hitting up the courts to file for a judgment. Once the court hands down that ruling, your judgment goes straight to the IRS for collection. You need to move fast—immediately file through the court to switch up the payment method and get that lien recorded. If the value of what they owe you actually exceeds the value of the property itself, you can use that lien to secure ownership of the real estate. Don't just sit there waiting; take control of the process. That’s exactly how things work in the comic book world. Here’s the catch. Let’s say someone abuses the system because a close relative doesn't have the cash to cover a loan they secured with a lien. The silver lining here? A third party can’t come along and challenge a contract made between two other people. So, if you just keep your mouth shut and don't go blabbing about it, you could actually save a piece of real estate by having that relative transfer the title into your name. Why on earth are there three separate contracts? You’ve got one for the property, one for the IRS, and then another one just to verify where the income is coming from. It makes zero sense. It’s a little late in the game to be reacting once the creditor is already gearing up to pull the trigger on an enforcement action. You really should have moved much faster than this. It’s pretty obvious this whole thing is going to tank if there’s already some kind of lien on the property. A gift contract isn't the silver bullet everyone thinks it is. Here’s why: any third party can come out of the woodwork and challenge that agreement for up to three years. After that window slams shut, they're out of luck because the statute of limitations kicks in. It’s a massive loophole you have to account for. Sure, I’m just talking out of my ass here. But this is just a tiny glimpse into the playbook these big shots use when they borrow billions and then just walk away from the debt. This is exactly why we’re sitting on $50 billion in non-performing assets. Those bottom-feeders? They probably account for maybe a billion of that total.
And you still haven't actually answered my question.
Look, your line of reasoning opens the door to massive civil liability—we’re talking huge payouts—for at least three different reasons. Plus, you're staring down potential criminal charges. Honestly? It’s basically a dream scenario for any lawyer.
To actually dismantle your entire little scheme for dodging an enforcement action, I’d need to sit down and write a medium-length essay—but let’s just keep it brief for now.
Look, an enforcement instrument isn't the same thing as a legal basis for payment under the Uniform Enforcement of Judgments Act. Period. That means just because you have an enforcement document doesn't mean it automatically serves as the grounds for a direct seizure of funds. Take your notarized contract, for example—that’s an enforcement instrument, sure, but it isn't the specific basis that allows the IRS to go straight for your bank account. And honestly, even though you're tripping over your own feet here—one second you say they are, then you say maybe they aren't, then you act like you aren't sure—you're actually heading in the right direction.
Look, let’s get one thing straight: all the payment basics don't just need to be legally binding—they have to be enforceable. There's a massive difference. You can't jump the gun here. Finality comes first, then enforceability follows. It works like this: once a judgment becomes final, you wait out the grace period for voluntary payment. Only after that window slams shut does the order actually become enforceable. That grace period is usually spelled out right there in the legal instrument itself, but if it isn't? Then you fall back on the standard provisions under the Uniform Enforcement of Judgments Act. Simple as that.
If you’re trying to stop a foreclosure on your property, listen up. You need to act fast before things go south. If you want to protect your real estate from being seized, there are specific legal maneuvers you can pull, but you have to know the rules of the game. Look, if you're staring down the barrel of a judgment, you need to understand how the Uniform Enforcement of Judgments Act works in this country. It’s not just about waiting around for a process server to show up at your door; it’s about knowing your rights under the law before the hammer drops. Most people just sit there and let it happen because they’re paralyzed by fear, but that’s a losing strategy. I've seen people try to hide assets or shuffle paperwork at the last minute, thinking they're being clever. It rarely works, and honestly, it usually just makes the legal headache ten times worse. You need a solid plan, not a bunch of half-baked excuses. Get your ducks in a row, look into the exemptions available under our laws, and for heaven's sake, talk to someone who actually knows their way around an American courtroom before you lose everything.Look, let’s be real here—it’s physically impossible to pull that off without the debt being backed up. Period.Look, you don't go to court just to run to the IRS, only to end up back in court again. That’s a massive waste of both time and money. If you’re sitting on a fake contract that you're trying to pass off as an enforceable instrument, you can skip the runaround and head straight to the courthouse to file a fraudulent lien against their real estate. But hey, let's actually break this down for a second.
First off, you aren't recording a lien; you're filing a notice of levy, which just gives you priority in the repayment queue based on when it's recorded. Hmm. Hmm...
The question that pops out of nowhere from your little "plan" is this: Are you trying to block a foreclosure on real estate or a seizure of cash assets while the actual creditor starts collecting?
Look, if you follow your plan and use some fake contract to hit the IRS, they’ll go after your real estate. But if you target the real estate first, the creditor will go after your bank accounts (assuming they haven't already secured a lien on the property, in which case they're definitely going for the house). Now, if you don't have any liquid cash, the creditor is going to start hunting for your properties—the very ones you've already tried to "foreclose" on using your sham contract. Then, they pull that notarized agreement out of court. They see how you signed after you already owed him the money, and boom—your fake foreclosure gets frozen and you're stuck in litigation. You'll face a challenge to the validity of your contract, you'll get slapped with legal fees, and you'll end up having accomplished absolutely nothing except being liable for the entire debt plus interest, plus attorney fees that are now five times higher, plus whatever you spent on the notarization.
Furthermore, there's the bright side: a third party can contest an agreement between two other people and argue that the whole thing is void. Especially in your specific scenario involving a fraudulent contract that the law explicitly deems null and void—call it invalidity or whatever makes you feel better. If a third party could never contest a contract between two other parties, then a wife whose husband mortgaged or sold their joint furniture (or the house they built together) without her knowledge would have zero legal protection.
Also, statutes of limitations don't apply to void contracts.
And another thing: you're confusing a notice of levy with the registration of a real estate lien. It's not that surprising, honestly. Registering a lien is a completely different legal mechanism with totally different consequences. A notice of levy is an enforcement action carried out by the court automatically the moment a levy petition is filed. But here's the kicker: regardless of whether we're talking about registering a lien (which you consent to by signing a loan agreement, for example) or a notice of levy, neither can be stopped. You can't stop the first because you agreed to it, and you can't stop the second because it's a mandatory enforcement action. Even if you somehow beat the creditor to the punch with the second one, the truth comes out (that you signed the deal after you were already in debt), and we're right back to what I said before.
Get it? Or don't. That's the reality.
Bottom line: draw your own conclusion about how much nonsense you're talking. If nothing else, go back to the second and third sentences of my post and let them sink in—for you and for anyone else who thinks your "strategy" is actually a solution. But hey, I've already told you this on this forum before, so do whatever you want.
Hold on a second. Are you actually suggesting that one creditor can just step in and freeze another creditor's ongoing collection process simply because they lent money to the debtor *before* the current person started collecting? Under what part of the Uniform Enforcement of Judgments Act does that even happen?
Look, I’m not really the type of person who likes to jump down people's throats or play critic here, but man... I honestly don't get how you let things escalate this far without having any clue what's actually happening or why they're coming after you for these specific amounts. First thing you need to do is figure out the actual basis for the seizure—go down to the courthouse and take a look at the case files yourself... ..otherwise, you're basically just sitting there waiting to get hit.
cosmicheron22 said:So, the lawyer representing the creditor (an insurance company like Travelers) called me up. She basically told me it would be "best" if I just paid the debt and mentioned she had already submitted a request to the IRS for a lien on my real estate—which, by the way, I don't even own. That request has been sitting there with them for about 3 or 4 months now. AND THEN, out of nowhere, I get this letter saying the seizure of my personal property is suspended. Then she calls me again, threatening that the IRS is going to come after everything I own! I'm totally lost... what am I supposed to do? Is she just trying to scare me? It doesn't make sense. To give you some context, I signed a contract back in 1998 with this insurance company for cargo coverage because I had a shop at the time. The business went under, and I didn't pay it. They didn't bother notifying me about the debt for years since the shop was in a rented space, so I had no clue. Eventually, they tracked me down at my home address and sent me a certified letter about the enforcement. So, WHAT NOW? And she actually told me that the whole thing regarding the personal property (that old TV) has nothing to do with this and that I should just pay the debt.
So, what does that contract you signed with the CO actually say? Does it actually support their claim regarding the debt?
Look, it sounds like she's just trying to intimidate you into paying any way she can. You mentioned yourself that you don't own any real estate, so there's nothing for them to seize there. At most, they could only go after your income.
It’s honestly just like what we're seeing today with people stuck with those Swiss franc loans; it really goes to show why it's about time we force banks to actually shoulder some of the responsibility instead of just chasing the profits. In almost everything you deal with in life, you end up getting hit with both the good and the bad—I don't see why these institutions should be any different.
The statute of limitations is five years, and those deadlines are strictly regulated under the Obligations Act. When they filed that request for enforcement, they were required to attach a valid document proving the debt exists—so, what exactly does that document say? And obviously, she can challenge Eos's right to collect in her Appeal, since she was never actually handed a copy of the assignment agreement.
I actually know someone close to me who’s dealing with this exact kind of shady business. She owes money to a Bank, and because she's currently unemployed, they don't have much to grab, but they've been hounding her for months to pay even just a tiny bit. Their whole pitch is that if she makes a payment, it’ll stop the interest from piling up—but the catch is, making that payment would reset the statute of limitations entirely. But here's the kicker in this whole mess: she recently got an offer from a law firm acting on behalf of the Bank, offering her, for that very same debt, a deal where they'll wipe out all the interest and fees if she agrees to a settlement. This basically proves that Eos didn't even buy the debt; instead, the Bank probably just passed it off to five different collection agencies to see who bites first. What a circus. 🤣
rustyharbor3 said:I’ve been lurking in this thread since day one, but honestly? I haven't felt like typing anything. It just doesn't feel worth the effort. Every single time a topic like this pops up in this corner of the internet, it follows the exact same predictable trajectory and ends in the same inevitable disaster.
I just want to send some solidarity to everyone—Hilda, kiss me, David Foster80, Leeloo, and the rest of you—who still possesses the sheer willpower and patience to engage in debates with that absolute tumor known as Zillow, or that infantile clique of people who lack even the most basic social skills and can't hold a conversation without descending into hysterics, vomiting insults, and being plain abusive. And all of this happens under official supervision, no less.
Of course it always ends the same way—you can see it coming a mile away. But that’s exactly why I won’t let these individuals, who you keep flattering by calling them broad-minded and tolerant (🤣🤣🤣🤣), just go ahead and fawn over each other while admiring how "cool" they are. They really need a little nudge to lose their cool, just enough to reveal the absolute poverty of their ability to actually argue with logic. 😁
I have to say, looking at this picture, they all look a bit lost to me—kind of like flies without heads, and honestly, a little pathetic. 😢
David Foster80 said:I guess that’s why they went ahead and colluded with the site admins and moderators 🎉
They wouldn't even let me brag about how many refugees from Canada we've taken into our homes. 😢
ET, and there's that "humanity" in action for you. 😢
coastalwolf87 said:Seriously, that was a disaster. The kid literally said she wanted a technical foul herself. I don't see how Peter’s decision made any sense at all. What I really want to know is if they intentionally used that playground bullying tactic—that whole fascist little trick—just to shut the conversation down. If that was the plan, it was pretty smooth. 😁 👍
Look, I really don't give a damn about the ban... the beauty of the WNBA PDF is that you can basically bark whatever you want, and if that means scrolling past a post like that, then so be it. Big deal. 🤷 It's just so rare to have actual interesting topics like this...
And yeah, that ridiculous nonsense she used to lock the thread was legendary—I actually pulled it into a separate window because we need to preserve it. 🥳 It's one of those perfect, clear examples of how someone uses stupidity and incompetence to mask themselves by attacking others. She tried to play the fashionista, couldn't handle managing a single thread, and then flipped it around to suggest that we're all too dim-witted and incapable of discussing anything besides trivial nonsense. 🙏 Well, Peter, I have to say it again—bravo. 👏
Bradley White73 said:So, does a women's version of this thread actually exist? 🤣
Not quite. 🥳 I’d love to tell you that the way our Women's Corner gets locked proves the guys in politics are just weak, but hey, they told us it's because we lack the capacity to handle it. 😢
Alex Miller3 said:It’s just selective and totally hypocritical. I mean, sure, you can go off about those "Catholic liberals" and how they're supposedly running things... but the second anyone tries to zoom out and look at the bigger picture? Suddenly everyone's being labeled a fascist or a Nazi. It’s such a cheap way to shut down a conversation.
Look, if you guys only wanted a narrow discussion about helping refugees, you could've just locked the thread after two pages. I mean, seriously, everyone already agreed on that part anyway...
Personally, I don't really care if some clone or anyone else here calls me names—I just don't take things personally, and my heart isn't tied to someone else's ego.
...but honestly—by the rules, Peter's Door should probably be handed a warning card. She'd need to find Nica, because Peter doesn't have the guts to actually issue one. Besides, she doesn't have the capacity for much more than just fluff (if you believe her own admission), so her easiest move is just to lock the whole topic. 😁 Way to go, Peter 👏
I don’t have an issue with anyone's vocabulary, but I definitely have an issue with the moderator. And these damn pinned threads... seriously?
Petra - if you aren't capable of handling one single thread on this forum, then just step aside. Honestly, I'm just fed up with all these people with various complexes who use moderation to fill gaps in their actual lives, which isn't what it's for... and every once in a while, we end up here bickering because of people like that.
You will never, ever see someone from the Women's Corner complaining about why someone didn't get a warning, but we constantly see ourselves losing our cool because some moderator is messing with us through sheer incompetence... ...one shows up and shuts down a thread about babies just because she finds it "disgusting," another comes along and locks a gossip thread that was never even "essential" just because we were talking about someone she knows personally, then a third one arrives knowing full well nobody wants her as a mod, but she wants it so bad that she arranges her own appointment, causing total chaos on the forum. Then you show up for the first time and immediately start clashing with us in the gossip section because you start deleting things that you think shouldn't be there, then you quiet down, leave, and now you're back locking threads—because you clearly aren't capable of managing anything other than threads about oatmeal Honey, regardless of whether moderation requires a fancy degree or not, it's still a fact that it isn't for everyone. So if you can't do it—why are you even bothering?
David Clark said:Here is how things stand: last November, I lost my job. I had a checking account at my local Bank where my paycheck used to go, but I ended up overdrawn by about $2,500. Right now, I’m collecting unemployment benefits, but those funds are held in a protected account at that same Bank. They’ve handed my debt over to a collections agency, which reached out to me claiming that if I pay $500 immediately, they will hold off on filing a lawsuit for another month. I made it clear to them that I simply don't have the cash right now. On top of that, I don't own any real estate or personal property—there’s nothing in my name, so there isn't much for them to actually seize. Does anyone know when the statute of limitations kicks in for cases like this? Also, if anyone has some advice or has been through something similar, I’m all ears...
Actually, the Bank was supposed to notify you before shutting down your overdraft protection and should have offered you a way to pay it back over 12 months. If they didn't, I'd suggest walking into your local branch, asking to speak with the manager, and finding out why they didn't follow those steps.
