Posts by hollowmason64

Honestly, your best bet is to reach out to the utility company directly and work something out with them. Since you’ve already knocked out more than half of the balance, they usually have a history of pulling the plug on service just to wait things out, but I'm mostly worried about you getting stuck with extra fees.
The fact that the mailman handed you an unsigned return receipt means your only real recourse is to file a complaint against the postal carrier.

Mark Murphy79 said:Please move this if needed. Someone with zero income—working under the table, getting paid in cash—has no bank account, basically nothing to speak of... they live in an apartment owned by their daughter, no car, truly nothing at all... can anything actually be seized or enforced against them?

What else could they do? I mean, unless they decide to just take your kidney if it’s healthy—but obviously, that isn't exactly legal around here, so you're probably safe there. 😁

Benjamin Taylor6 said:Theoretically, they can’t touch you. But—and this is a massive "but"—if we're talking about a significant amount of money and the Believer is being particularly persistent, things can get messy. They might start digging around to see if that apartment you're living in isn't actually registered under your daughter's name, even though we all know it was bought with your cash. It's one of those legal grey areas that can turn into a real headache if someone decides to go looking for trouble.

p.s.

I’m actually looking into a similar situation myself—a friend of mine... I don't even know where to start with this—it's just one of those days where everything feels like it's spiraling, isn't it? You think you have a handle on things, you think the path is clear, and then—bam—reality hits you like a freight train. I was sitting there, just thinking about how much effort we put into following the rules, only to find out the system itself is rigged against the little guy. It’s exhausting, really. Just... exhausting. They’re taking a full third of his paycheck now. I actually sat down and poured over the contract—the fine print is brutal—and it turns out he gave explicit consent for them to garnish his wages directly. It’s a mess. The person he’s co-signing for is completely broke, can't meet any of their obligations, and doesn't own a single scrap of real estate to their name. It's just one of those situations where everything hits at once.
But honestly, we’re talking about tiny garnishment amounts here—it's peanuts compared to the real issue. He's also got that loan hitting his paycheck first, which is eating up nearly a third of his take-home pay already. It's a mess.
I've been wondering about this myself—whether he can actually go after that apartment he bought with a mortgage, too. It’s one of those things that sounds simple until you start digging into the legal weeds, right?

Oh man, come on! 🤦🤣

Quick question—does anyone know which private clinics or imaging centers around here handle lower extremity MRIs using insurance referrals?

copperfox172 said:We're staying current on the mortgage. The garnishments on his Chase account are actually several different ones. Between the penalties and the loans, it's a mess.

It doesn't really matter if they're paying the mortgage on time. If they don't start addressing the garnishment, especially if it's a significant amount or if the attorney is being proactive, they can eventually just file a lien against the property just to make sure the debt doesn't expire under the statute of limitations.

John Perez4 said:So, AT&T and the IRS just hit me with some massive levy, and they actually managed to pull money right out of my account for some old debt from nearly a decade ago—some ancient landline bill.
I never even got a single notice that they were coming after me because I moved away from that address before this debt was even a thing.

The notary told me someone apparently signed for a certified letter that I never even laid eyes on. What am I supposed to do when someone else signs for my mail and then just... doesn't give it to me?
But here’s the kicker: AT&T is being incredibly shady and won't tell me exactly when my subscription ended, even though I’m telling them I canceled the service way before this debt ever existed.

Are they legally obligated to hand over those dates, or am I just expected to take their word for it?
And if (or when) it turns out they're full of it, what kind of moves can I actually make to fix this?

Request access to the case files.

Rebecca Morris10 said:Hey there.
Here’s my situation:

1. I received an enforcement order from a notary acting on behalf of Hanžeković, who is representing Eko-flor.
2. Since I have all my payment receipts ready to go, I filed an objection to the order.
3. Then, the District Court ruled that Eko-flor is dropping the whole proceeding.
4. However, the District Court also ruled that I'm on the hook for $33 court costs related to my objection.
5. I paid those within the 8-day legal window.

Question:
Who do I actually send a request to for a refund of those $33 costs—seeing as this wasn't my fault in the first place?

I dealt with something similar last year, except back then they didn't drop the case, so the costs were a bit higher (around $110). In that instance, Eko-flor just wired the money back to my account without any drama. I just can't remember if I sent that request directly to them or to the District Court.

Thanks.

Eko-flor is the one at fault here.
I feel like I hear about them making mistakes like this all the time.

copperfox172 said:Hey. The mailman dropped off a foreclosure notice from a notary for my husband today.
He owes money to Chase. We’re both unemployed right now. He's out looking for work.
Quick question: can they just hit his account, or does it automatically come after my funds too since we're married?
We have a mortgage on our place. Is there any way to protect the house? Even if the bank technically holds the title until the loan is paid off...
Thanks for the help.

If the garnishment is specifically against your husband, then it should only affect his individual accounts.
As for the house—it's possible that if the bank can't collect from his accounts, they might eventually shift their focus and file a lien against the property itself. But honestly, that usually depends on how much is owed.

Oh, sure, let's just change all the rules because you decided that’s what works best... give me a break 🤣

CNN is just how it is. Those of us who post here pretty regularly actually went through the ringer 😢 back in the day before we finally agreed that this style of moderation was the way to go. We did a trial run, things worked out, the PDFs are running smoothly, the mods have settled into the rhythm, and most of the regulars are happy with how everything flows. You can either get used to it or go find a different PDF that matches your vibe better 🤷

And just to add one more thing—you clearly don't have a clue what actual insults look like if you haven't spent any time venting in the threads about CNN 🤣
Those of us who survived can tell you how it is 😬

Joshua Gray75 said:Could someone with a legal background please walk me through how—and on what specific grounds—they would actually initiate a garnishment proceeding? It’s because hasn't provided a receipt for the payment yet. 🤦

Look, the money was paid; there’s a clear transaction ID on the payment order... I just don't understand how the bookkeeping works over at the Office of Management and Budget... 🤦

Fine, it isn't exactly rocket science to send that damn confirmation, so we'll send it... (the bit above is purely a hypothetical question, just out of curiosity...)
Still, I fail to see why the government feels entitled to treat us like complete idiots... nobody should have to go out of their way to send proof of payment to the Office of Management and Budget...

🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂

Did the official notice actually state that you had to provide a receipt?
If it didn't, and if you feel like being a little difficult, you could always give their accounting department a hard time for failing their duty 😁:zločesta:

neonpuma7 said:A quick question for the group.

I owe Citibank two monthly installments. If I miss one more, they will likely move forward with a writ of execution. Neither my wife nor I have any way to cover this.

The loan amount is $20,000, and it has already been restructured over a 20-year term.
I am also making regular payments on a $6,000 loan at JPMorgan Chase.

My spouse is currently unemployed, and we have two children. I am inquiring about the availability of child benefits or related assistance under these circumstances. $133.
I suppose my salary has been processed. $1400.

I am curious whether a bank can garnish my spouse's life insurance policy, specifically regarding the premiums that have already been paid into it. $4000 I suppose I should ask, what exactly expires regarding the 2G?

I am a one-third owner of the apartment we currently live in. This property was granted to my mother, my sister, and me as a benefit for our family following the passing of a veteran. I am wondering if a bank could actually seize this apartment even though I only own a one-third share. If that were possible, how would they actually carry out that process in practice?

I hope I wasn't being difficult.

Thank you.

Of course they'll try to grab any liquid assets they can get their hands on. It’s usually spelled out right there in the fine print of your contract.

I'm a one-third owner of the apartment we live in. We inherited this place as a family benefit following a veteran's passing—it's shared between me, my sister, and my mom. Can the bank actually foreclose on the whole place even though I only own a third? And if they could, how would that even work in real life?

Look, banks generally treat this as a last resort when someone has absolutely no income left. In those cases, they'll typically just place a lien on the property, meaning nothing happens until you actually decide to sell the place.

Honestly, you should try to make at least some kind of payment, even if it's just a partial amount to show good faith.

It really boils down to how much money we're talking about here. Honestly, you’ll most likely have plenty of breathing room to get everything sorted out before anyone even thinks about trying to push through a cross-border writ of execution.

silentorca47 said:Thanks for the input. So, I hit up the legal department over at Verizon, and they’re claiming they sent off some paperwork back in 2003 and 2008, but honestly? I never saw a single thing. Does that actually count as an official attempt at service, or am I just getting the runaround?

If they’re claiming they sent stuff, there has to be a paper trail somewhere. You should ask them for copies of those delivery confirmations and proof that you supposedly failed to pick up the shipments.

gentlerider16 said:They just won't answer the phone. It's been days.

In that case, just skip the phone calls and send them a formal written request. Ask for a payment plan to settle the debt, and make sure to mention in the letter that you've tried calling repeatedly but nobody is picking up. Be sure to include your own number so they can actually reach you.
I remember dealing with something similar once—sending everything via Certified Mail with a Return Receipt (you know, that little orange card you get back). It'll cost you about $3.75, but it gives you physical proof that they received your request. That way, if they keep ignoring you, you can show up in court and prove you made a good-faith effort to settle the debt, but they just left you hanging.

silentorca47 said:Alright, so here’s the deal: I just got hit with a writ of execution from Verizon regarding some nonsense dating all the way back to 2001. We're talking a judgment from December 2001, and I haven't seen a single notification or anything in the mail between then and now. Isn't this stuff well past the statute of limitations?

If absolutely nothing was done during that period—then yeah, it’s true.
If I were you, I’d probably head down to the courthouse first to take a look at the case files yourself. It’s always better to see exactly what's on paper before making any big moves.

gentlerider16 said:Thanks for the input.

Just one more thing, if anyone happens to know... since nobody is getting back to me over there and I can't exactly drop everything to visit them—I've just started my professional certification training—can I submit a written explanation or a formal motion for judgment to the court asking them to approve a payment plan? And how long does it usually take from the start of the lawsuit until the writ of execution actually arrives?

Thanks

The court doesn't really have anything to do with that.
So, how exactly is it that you can't get your hands on them?

I was just sitting here thinking about how much things have changed lately, and honestly, it feels like we’re all just trying to find our footing in this crazy economy. I remember back when things felt a bit more predictable—maybe it was just wishful thinking on my part, but there was a certain rhythm to it. Now? It feels like every time you turn around, there's some new regulation or a shift in interest rates coming out of the Federal Reserve that throws a wrench in everything. It reminds me of a few years ago when I was dealing with some paperwork regarding my old apartment lease. Everything seemed straightforward until the legalities started piling up, and suddenly I was staring down a mountain of documents that felt like they were written in a different language. It’s that same feeling of uncertainty, isn't it? That sense that the rules might change while you're mid-game. Anyway, I've been following some of the discussions here, and it seems like everyone is grappling with similar frustrations. Whether it's navigating the complexities of the Uniform Commercial Code or just trying to make sense of what the IRS is looking for this year, there's a common thread of "how are we supposed to stay ahead of this?" I don't have any grand solutions, obviously. I'm just someone observing from the sidelines, trying to keep my own head above water. But I do think it helps to talk about it. It makes the whole thing feel a little less isolating when you realize you aren't the only one staring at a stack of bills or wondering if your bank—whether it's Chase or Citibank—is actually looking out for your best interests. Just food for thought. Stay steady, everyone. kaže:
I know it’s eventually going to catch up with me. I just want to get a protected account set up before everything actually hits the fan.

Can I just walk into the Federal Reserve and ask to open a protected account without any prior notice or connection? Like, can I just show up, tell them what I want, and call it a day?

What do you think about just being upfront with them? I mean, why not just call their bluff and tell them straight out—"Look, I want to work this out through a monthly payment plan"? 🤣
Just some friendly advice here—you really don't want to end up with a frozen account or get stuck footing the bill for a writ of execution later on. It’s probably not the best move, right? 😁

ruggedmaker2 said:My bad, totally missed 🙂

If I get word from the Federal Reserve that a worker has a protected account, then one-third goes toward the blocked regular checking account, and the other two-thirds goes to the protected one. (Keep in mind, our paychecks aren't exactly hitting those massive national averages, so I'm talking realistically here).
Any garnishment that hits the paycheck after that just gets sent right back to the creditor, citing sections 172 and 173 of the Uniform Commercial Code. That same creditor always has the option to switch up how they collect—so they should just take advantage of that. They can go through the Federal Reserve themselves, or maybe put a lien on some property. Whatever suits them best.
At the end of the day, the worker needs to get their protected, exempt earnings into that protected account.

As for which collector at the Federal Reserve gets paid first in the queue? Not my problem.
Whoever took out the loan needs to stay on top of their own business.

All of this assumes we're playing by the Uniform Commercial Code. If we're dealing with something under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Family Law, then the whole story changes.

That’s exactly the part I was curious about. Thanks 😍

ruggedmaker2 said:Honestly... I’m just living for the day our brilliant lawmakers finally decide to stop breathing down employers' necks about debt collection. Right now, the whole system is a complete train wreck...
Everything has to go through the Federal Reserve and endless paperwork. I am a massive advocate for simplifying this... if there’s some Facebook group dedicated to this cause... I’ll be the first one hitting that like button. 😁

🤣🤣

ruggedmaker2 said:Look, if you're some young kid just trying to get a foot in the door and land a decent job, I highly doubt you’d actually want to file for personal bankruptcy. Not with all the baggage that comes with it—especially when it comes to how much control you lose over your own damn money.
But hey, I guess time will tell.

But that wasn't really what I was asking you, was it? 😁

crimsonbadger24 said:hollowmason64, thanks for the reply, even if it wasn't exactly what I was hoping to hear.😁

Since this whole new personal bankruptcy law kicked in today (which is really the main reason I was poking around), I might just have to throw in the towel and forget about collecting anything at all. If this person files for bankruptcy, I'm basically screwed because they’ve got a mountain of debt, zero assets to their name, and no job, so I'll probably be forced to just write off the whole thing regardless of whatever court order I managed to get...
Our legal system is just a joke, honestly. I already dealt with this nightmare through my business—having to write off debts during pre-bankruptcy and bankruptcy proceedings—and now it looks like I'm going to get screwed over personally, too.

I mean, what can I say? I totally get where you're coming from. Honestly, I’ve been in that exact same spot more times than I care to admit. 😁

Our legal system is just something else, isn't it? Truly a sight to behold.

Look, I don't claim to be an expert on how our legal system works—honestly, the whole thing can be such a headache—but you can't really blame anyone else for this situation. You were the one who decided to split the cash upfront, and then you sat around waiting for a miracle to happen just to get your money back. It’s one of those things where you reap what you sow, I guess. 🤣

ruggedmaker2 said:hollowmason64 makes a fair point, but honestly, that’s not how the world works. It doesn't work like that. First in line are the people who actually moved to collect—the ones whose writs of execution were filed first.
As the creditor here (yeah, you), you should have already taken steps to get your money back.
Given how things look, I'm guessing you should have filed a private lawsuit and then used a final court judgment to go after the assets via a writ of execution.
But you didn't... you just sat there waiting and hoping. Other creditors weren't sitting around; they acted faster, and now they're the ones at the front of the line getting paid.

This whole personal bankruptcy law isn't going to change anything overnight in practice. Knowing how things usually play out in our legal system, they'll announce it goes into effect on some specific date, and then we'll spend months—maybe years—waiting for them to figure out the fine print, interpret the rules, or release some new regulation... blah blah blah.

And frankly, I doubt any law can actually force a creditor to just write off a debt. A law might use the statute of limitations to strip away your right to forced collection, but to actually demand someone cancel a debt? I highly doubt it.
John Clark6, please correct me if I'm wrong.

I think you’re asking the right person here—I should be able to give you a solid answer on this one.
So, I was thinking about this scenario the other day—just a bit of a hypothetical legal headache. Let's say you’re running a business and you have an employee who's currently dealing with some garnishments. They’ve set up a protected account through the Federal Reserve to shield a portion of their income, which we all know can get complicated. Now, let's play out the math. Suppose Chase is the first one in line to collect on a loan they issued, so they're technically the primary creditor waiting on that money. But then, out of nowhere, Citibank sends over a notice for a different garnishment directed straight to your accounting department. It makes you wonder: who actually gets the hands on that specific slice of the paycheck? Does the money go to Chase because they were first in line, or does it head over to Citibank since they're the ones who just filed the paperwork? It’s one of those "whoever reaches the finish line first" type of situations, but with much higher stakes for everyone involved.

I don't see this personal bankruptcy law actually taking effect anytime soon. It’s just one of those things that sounds good on paper, but getting it through the system is going to be a massive uphill battle. In my experience, when you deal with stuff like this, there's always a huge gap between what gets signed into law and what actually starts happening on the ground. I honestly wouldn't hold my breath for any real changes in the near future.

I have to say, looking at how things are set up right now, I’m having a hard time seeing how this actually crosses the finish line. It just feels like it's going to be an uphill battle to get it approved in its current state.

I’m honestly not so sure that any specific law can actually force a creditor to just write off a debt. Sure, the statute of limitations can definitely step in and prevent them from having the right to pursue forced collection, but for a law to mandate that they simply wipe the slate clean? I don't think that's really how it works.
John Clark6, feel free to jump in and set me straight if I've got any of this wrong.

Look, if you don't have the legal standing to go after a debtor through forced collection, and they just flat-out refuse to pay up voluntarily, you’re basically stuck. You don't really have any other moves left besides writing it off as a loss. At that point, you're just sitting there watching the clock run out until the whole thing eventually hits the statute of limitations.

crimsonbadger24 said:So, I mean, what if we just headed over to the notary today and hammered out some kind of addendum or an amendment to the existing contract? Like, we could have him basically sign off stating that the debt is exactly this much and that much, and then give me the green light to go after it through a writ of execution if things don't work out any other way... or something along those lines, I guess.

Why the hell not? I mean, seriously, what's the big deal? I guess I'm just asking because it seems like everyone’s always looking for some reason to say no when there’s absolutely no reason to hold back, you know? Maybe I'm just being difficult, or maybe I'm just seeing things more clearly than most people around here, who I don't know, are always overthinking every single little thing until it's basically paralyzed by indecision. Honestly, if we're just gonna sit around waiting for the perfect moment or some cosmic sign that everything is absolutely flawless, we might as well just pack it in now. So yeah, why not? Just throw it out there and see what happens, right?
Look, I’m just saying, if you follow any kind of actual common sense—you know, like real-world logic instead of that nonsense they teach in textbooks—the first debt you ever take on is basically the one that comes back around to haunt you first. It’s just how the cycle works, I guess. You pull the trigger on a loan, you set things in motion, and eventually, that original debt finds its way right back to your doorstep. It’s almost poetic, if you think about it, but mostly it just sucks.
Don't you think it’s just absolutely wild that I'm stuck sitting here waiting on my own damn money, all because this guy is busy paying off credit card balances and loans he racked up using cash he basically borrowed from me? Like, seriously, isn't that just beyond messed up?
I mean, look, you’re basically acting like someone who goes out and signs up for a brand-new loan just so they can tell the bank they aren't paying back the old one—like, "hey, I'll settle the new debt first, then maybe I'll get around to the old one." Seriously, just try saying that to a loan officer at Chase and see what happens, right? I guess you’d probably get laughed right out of the building, or maybe just flagged immediately, because honestly, who actually thinks that logic holds any water? It sounds totally delusional if you really stop to think about how the banking system works here.

Look, I’m pretty sure they have no clue, honestly. I actually sat down and mapped out the whole timeline for the proceedings, including the actual process itself and what those legal fees are gonna look like, so if they had even a shred of sense, they could at least give me a ballpark figure.

Look, if I’m being totally honest here, I haven't quite figured out if this guy is actually an accountant or some kind of lawyer—honestly, who even knows anymore?—but he seems like he's got everything under control, you know? Like, he clearly wants to help, at least up to a certain point, and since I’m pretty much guaranteed to end up hiring a real attorney down the road anyway, I figure I might as well let him give me a hand now. I don't need him to start quoting specific sections of the Uniform Commercial Code or pulling out a bunch of legal jargon and stuff, I guess... I just really need to get a general sense of where things stand so I'm not walking into a meeting completely blindfolded.

Look, for the Federal Reserve to process a writ of execution, you need to have clauses regarding enforceability and finality. Basically—you need a final court judgment.
It doesn't matter what he signs for you. He could sign a paper saying he's gifting you his kidney, but if it’s not legal, you aren't getting that kidney. Got it?

Why not?
Common sense dictates that the first debt incurred should be the first one paid back.
Doesn't it seem a little weird to you that I'm stuck waiting for my money because he's busy paying off credit cards and loans he took out *after* he borrowed from me?
It’s like taking out a new loan and telling the old lender, "Hey, I'm not paying you yet; I'm paying off this new guy first." Just imagine what a banker would say to you if you tried that logic at Chase.

Because that's just how it works. 😁
Nobody cares about your "common sense"—the law has its own logic, and it carries more weight. And yeah, it happens all the time: people facing multiple garnishments end up paying off whichever bank filed the first writ of execution, not necessarily the one that lent them the cash first.

John Clark6 said:Honestly, that just didn't cross my mind at all... but I have to say, it’s a pretty great idea! 🙂

Go ahead and laugh if you want, but I was honestly hyperventilating when that notice showed up at my door. 🤣

ruggedmaker2 said:It might seem pointless if you ignore the fact that the IRS doesn't actually verify whether those seizure documents are even legit.
We’ve had cases where people got hit with seizures based on completely forged paperwork.
All someone had to do was type up some nonsense on their laptop that looked official, slap on a fake stamp, and hand it over to the IRS.

The IRS doesn't give a damn—they just freeze the money and leave the debtor to struggle however they can to prove the document is a total fraud.
Trying to prove that in 30 days? Practically impossible. 60 days feels like a much more reasonable window. (And look, you have to consider how slow things move in this country and all the hoops you have to jump through at different government offices).

But hey, you aren't going to see this reported on the news or discussed on TV. You only hear stuff like this at industry seminars from people who actually work inside the IRS. 😁

I mean, I get that the deadline was pushed back because the courts were complaining it wasn't enough time—and I'm not going to get into whether that's a valid excuse or not—but what really gets under my skin is how they can rake in interest on all that massive amount of seized cash during those two months. 😁

crimsonbadger24 said:Okay, fine, I get why that would make sense in certain cases, but why on earth am I being hit with extra fees in a situation like mine?

So, look, there's nothing controversial here—I'm actually on pretty decent terms with the debtor, it's just that he isn't paying me back, even though he promised he would as soon as he started working again.

If I followed this legal process, I'd at least be making sure that once he actually lands a job, I'm the one getting paid, instead of him starting up with those same old excuses about how he has to pay off other creditors first and doesn't have anything left for me (and honestly, this has been dragging on for two years now, which sucks because I actually do believe him, but I can't and won't just forget about this debt, especially since it's super obvious now that his business is doing way better and he pulled some cash out to invest elsewhere while still dodging me by giving me tiny little bits at a time, claiming he's gotta cover payroll or taxes or whatever).

Besides, my debt is the oldest one on the books, and it feels totally unfair that everyone else gets to collect before I do; I mean, logically, you'd think the oldest debts should always be settled first, right?

But instead, I've got to shell out who knows how much more money (only crimsonbadger24 knows, I'm just sitting here waiting for them to reach out 😁 ) and then wait who knows how long (not even crimsonbadger24 knows how long) only to end up feeling like I'm still not even going to be first in line to get my money back.

Well, that wouldn't quite work that way. By that logic, you could just seize someone's assets even if they had already paid you back. How is a clerk at the courthouse or someone at the Federal Reserve supposed to know that?
The fact that your debt is the oldest doesn't affect the order of collection. Everything follows the sequence of when the writ of execution was filed in the registry. Should someone who was more proactive than you get to jump "ahead" of you just because you lent them money first? 🤣
And of course John Clark6 doesn't know when you'll see your money—he isn't carrying his friend's private ledger around in his pocket. Though, if you actually hired him, purely just talking shop here on the forum, he'd probably manage to squeeze out that 😁

John Clark6 said:I mean, you’re basically forced to file a lawsuit first just to secure a judgment—you know, that enforceable writ—before you can even think about starting any actual collection proceedings... It’s honestly always been a bit baffling to me—if you already have a notarized contract in hand, why on earth do you have to waste all that precious time litigating? You end up essentially proving the exact same thing that is clearly laid out right there in the notarized document (though, I suppose, having the court's backing gives you a much stronger hand in the end).... yeah, the bottom line is that you can't just jump straight to the seizure process without going through the legal motions first.

Well, did it ever occur to you that they do that to protect people from being sued over money they already paid back?
I actually went through this myself... luckily, her mom insisted we put down in writing exactly how much cash I had handed over (this friend was traveling abroad at the time), and we literally just scribbled it on the corner of some random folder.

To me, the rule about the bank not releasing seized funds within 60 days makes way less sense. Waiting 30 days felt like an eternity 🙄

crimsonbadger24 said:Quick question for you guys.

So, basically, about 7 years ago, I lent a chunk of cash to a friend—well, an ex-friend now, obviously😁. We actually had everything notarized, so the contract clearly lays out how he was supposed to pay me back, when, and exactly how much. There wasn't any interest involved because we didn't talk about that; it was just a straight-up favor between buddies.

But, uh, he hasn't exactly stuck to the plan. He tossed a tiny bit into my account once or twice, but the rest? Nothing. Zilch.

In the meantime, the guy has piled up a mountain of debt—some private stuff like credit cards and mismanaged loans, and some business debt through his own companies too. And honestly, he doesn't have any assets to his name.

As of today, he’s totally broke and unemployed, but I did manage to dig up some info suggesting he pulled some cash out and invested it in vacation rentals down by the coast through his father-in-law. I’m pretty sure about one or two of those units are actually his, or at least tied to him—his father-in-law basically spilled the beans, which is what really got me thinking about taking action.

Now, look, I get that realistically I might just have to eat the loss, but what I’m really wondering is—since my debt is the oldest one on the books—do I actually have priority status when it comes to collecting? Like, if there's no other way, can I somehow jump ahead of the big banks and everyone else to get my money?

If I were to, you know, 😁 politely ask him to sign something stating that I get paid first, is that even legally possible?

What’s really eating at me is this looming threat of that new personal bankruptcy law. If that goes through, I’ll be completely screwed, assuming I even had a shot to begin with.

I’m definitely heading to a lawyer, obviously, but before I do, I wanted to see if you guys think I have any chance at all? Even a slim one? Or am I just chasing ghosts here?

🤣🤣

Let’s just say everyone is playing nice and he agrees to sign—how exactly do you think that puts you at the front of the line?
In the official court records, there's a specific order for collections. If you go through the legal system, you can only get to the very end of the queue—assuming the debt hasn't hit the statute of limitations, though you didn't mention when his last payment was made.
The only way you're truly "first" is if he hands you the cash directly.

Melissa Sanders9 said:Hey everyone, I was wondering if anyone could maybe help me out with a bit of a situation?
My bank account has been totally frozen for like two years now, and while I’m still trying to keep things moving and working, I'm just kind of stuck on how to actually function, you know?
Right now, I'm looking at a debt of about $18,000 for my healthcare and taxes. I've got some work lined up through the end of the year that should bring in somewhere around $37,000 to $45,000, which is great, but I'm curious about how I can get my account unblocked so I can actually start working without the IRS breathing down my neck immediately. I definitely know I have to settle the debt, but I was wondering if there's any way I could pay it off in installments or something similar?
thanks so much!😵

Don't take this the wrong way, and it's not just you, but—come on guys, let's try to use some proper grammar.

If the IRS froze your account, they are the only ones who can unfreeze it, and that usually requires paying them off. Since you'll be making more than double what you owe this year, what's the hold-up? 🤷
They used to offer installment plans a year or two ago... I think it was about two years back. Whoever set one up then, set it up. You can always try to reach out for a settlement or file a formal request.

frozenwolf19 said:I just received an enforcement order regarding a piece of land in Washington, D.C. Here’s the kicker: the city took that land from me back in 1996 and gave me an apartment in exchange. I was only five at the time. Is it actually possible for them to use this ruling to go after my apartment? Thanks in advance for any insight.

No.
If the legal decision specifically targets that one plot of land, then it applies strictly to that land and nothing else.

neontiger63 said:A guy works hard.
Then he gets laid off.
He had an overdraft limit—let’s say $1000.
Since his paycheck stopped hitting the account, the bank eventually starts cutting back that limit—reducing it by, say, $100 every single month.
No big deal.
So, the following month, his balance sits at -$1000, where $100 is the unauthorized part and $2,700 is within the allowed limit—$3,000 total.
The man deposits $100 and now he's just sitting within his authorized limit. He tracks the reduction of the limit carefully... making sure he doesn't slip into the red.

Now, here is the situation:
Authorized limit is -$900, but the actual balance is -$2,705. This means he's $1.75 over the limit because of some accrued interest. Fine... that's perfectly logical.

Then, out of nowhere, a garnishment arrives—doesn't matter who from—for the amount of $333.
The clearinghouse processes it with extra fees of about $53 and they just grab his money
straight from the checking account... which pushes him from an authorized overdraft of $1.75 straight into an UNAUTHORIZED overdraft of $55.

HOW IS THIS EVEN POSSIBLE? They take his money and then plunge him into an UNAUTHORIZED deficit???

They might as well have just taken the additional $333 he owes right then and there. Unbelievable...

Is this actually legal???

Banks don't just let you slide into an overdraft beyond what's actually approved.
Did you actually head down to the branch and ask them, or are you just venting on a forum?

Taylor Roberts3 said:Just got hit with an enforcement order from PBS. What the $500 hell.
Here’s the deal: about six months ago, I got an initial notice for this thing. I filed a complaint, ended up in a lawsuit, and they couldn't produce a single scrap of paper proving I ever even signed up for the service or had a receiver installed.
Then, a few weeks after that first notice, a second one pops up. Same case number, same notary, just a different date. I didn't bother fighting it then because I figured we’d just settle everything once we actually got in front of a judge.
Fast forward to two weeks ago—another notice. Same case number, same notary, yet another random date. Since I already had the court ruling in my hand, I didn't say anything.
So now what? Am I totally screwed? Who do I even talk to about getting this enforcement dropped? Is that even possible? They have absolutely zero basis to come after my money for a service I never requested and definitely don't use.

Nobody... honestly. Next time, just try to handle things before they escalate.

George Palmer27 said:Proposed garnishment for water/sewer services

So, my elderly parents got themselves into a bit of a mess and missed their payments for water, trash pickup, and whatever else was lumped onto that same bill from January through June of 2014. I stepped in to fix things as soon as I could and paid the whole thing off—mostly around December or January of this year.

But get this: American Water handed this over to a law firm way back in September 2014. They made a decision to start the collection process in November 2014, and now, out of nowhere, a legal notice shows up at the house today.

Basically, they (the water company) are using this to demand the water usage fees from the total bill amount (I’m assuming the sanitation fees are included too), but since I already paid it, I'm stuck. I have no clue if I should even bother filing an objection with the law firm, or if I should just grab my receipts and head down to the Goldman Sachs office on Potomac to sort it out? What do I even do?

And then there's those extra legal fees $73 that apparently have to go to the law firm. Am I stuck paying those regardless? Is there any way around it?

First off, maybe type a little clearer so I don't have to read this three times just to follow along... at least I hope I understood you correctly. 🤣
If it's already been paid, start by filing a formal dispute stating the debts were settled—basically, tell them you paid the parents directly, attach copies of the receipts or transfer confirmations, and send it via certified mail.