Posts by hollowmason64

Chloe Gomez2 said:I’m running into some issues with an execution order I received a few months back. It was a summons to carry out the enforcement process, which basically states that if one party doesn't show up, the proceedings move in favor of whoever is present and everything gets suspended. Naturally, nobody representing the creditor ever showed up, so I was sitting pretty. Fast forward a few months, and I get hit with the exact same summons and the exact same warning!!! Where is the law in all of this? Why even bother putting it in writing if they aren't actually going to enforce it?
Does anyone know what my rights are here? Has anyone else dealt with something like this before?

Sent from my iPhone using Instagram

Just file a formal grievance.

Lawrence Reed3 said:Well, it's not like I was just making stuff up! The court actually ruled partially in my favor, which is a big deal because it cleared me of paying part of the debt that was totally baseless and lacked any actual documentation—which is exactly why I filed the objection in the first place.
Plus, even the attorney mentioned during the hearing that I should reach out to them about setting up an installment plan through a settlement, so hopefully that works out. (Actually, even the judge pointed out quite clearly that a settlement is definitely an option.)

I don't quite get why you're stuck covering the legal fees alone, especially since the court partially upheld your objection.

northernmaker13 said:Quick question; I just got hit with an enforcement notice and a judgment for some old debt from a telecom provider that’s been sitting there for over 7 years. The notary office paperwork says the date was back in June 2007. I actually checked on this debt a while ago and was told it had already expired, yet here I am, nearly 8 years later, facing asset seizure. I have 8 days to file a formal objection... any idea what my chances are of getting this shut down if it really is past the statute of limitations?

I'm not entirely sure what the exact statute of limitations period is for telecom service debts, but I think it's three years. You should probably pull up the mandatory relationship law and double-check everything just to be safe...
...and then go ahead and file your Objection, citing the statute of limitations.

John Clark6 said:1. First, you'll need to pull a death certificate from the local vital records office.
2. Then, you have to obtain a decree of distribution or some kind of probate ruling from the appropriate court.
3. After that, the creditor files for the enforcement of the judgment and submits those documents as proof—assuming, of course, that the heir has officially inherited assets.

Is that clear enough? 🙂

is 😁
but I have one more quick question—from the moment the notice is sent to the creditor until they actually get their hands on all that paperwork, does everything just stay on hold?

I have a bit of a theoretical question—what actually happens when an enforcement notice is issued to someone who has passed away, and how does the creditor handle receiving that notification?
I’m aware that legal heirs end up inheriting debts along with assets, but I’m curious about how this plays out in the real world. Especially when we're talking about relatively small amounts 🤷

I’m not going to bother with any long-winded introductions because, honestly, they don't really achieve anything anymore—we've seen this exact same cycle play out constantly over the last year since this group first got its structure set up.

But I have to admit, you all still find ways to catch me off guard every once in a while. 🙄🤣
Are we really at the point where people are trying to run wild over at Kokošinjac and dictate what can or can't be discussed over at Trach too?
It was obvious to everyone—heaven knows how long ago—that some of you had completely lost the plot, but a little bit of self-control wouldn't hurt anyone...

...otherwise, are we just heading toward another situation where we get a new moderator who decides, after six years of being here, that a certain topic is just too distasteful and shuts it down?
Did we just get assigned someone with a particularly thin skin?
Just a bit of unsolicited advice from an outsider: if you're too sensitive for certain types of work, maybe just don't take the job in the first place.☕

John Clark6 said:1. What "extra costs" are we talking about here? The notice fee? Which is illegal anyway? There is no way a judge is going to strike down the legal fees.
2. I think it’s been explained sixteen times already that the statute of limitations isn't a flat 10-year rule, and you don't necessarily need to seize specific assets to interrupt that period—there are plenty of other legal actions that can reset the clock.
3. She isn't being rude; she’s just describing the likely sequence of events if they actually come to seize her property. Maybe she’s being a little dramatic, but honestly, it’s all very realistic under certain circumstances.

Come on then, step up and try me. 😍

She's really just bringing up Inkas and claiming those specific $167... are the only issue. But for any other action to actually reset the statute of limitations, there has to be a court order involved. You can see you're actually agreeing that this woman is just being 😛

You can't expect a freebie without a full meal first; I'm not exactly some cheap date. 🙂

John Clark6 said:hollowmason64 - 3 out of 3 folks 🙂

What's your issue here, man? 😁

1.) What Cash is trying to squeeze out of her $167 is just part of their job description, but that doesn't mean she actually owes them those extra fees. She can just show up to court, explain she's been unemployed for years, and clarify that the debt of $32 only happened because she had zero income. From what I've seen in my own experience, courts almost always toss those extra costs out in cases like this.

2.) Yeah, she isn't required to start working for another 10 years before the whole thing hits the statute of limitations. And since she’s saying she has absolutely nothing in her own name, they don't have any assets to seize to buy more time.

3.) And yeah, the woman is being difficult—she can come by and try to inventory whatever she wants, but if none of it belongs to her sister, there won't be anything to grab when it comes to personal property...

...which part of that is actually wrong?

Frank Hall18 said:So, here's the deal... I'm dealing with a legal judgment because of those AT&T jerks over a bill for $32. I actually paid the bill the exact same day I got the notice, and I even called the collection agency. They told me they see the payment went through, but now they're hitting me with $167 in extra fees just for drafting the seizure request. I've been busy filing an appeal and already went to my first court hearing where I showed them my paperwork from the unemployment office—since I haven't had a job in years—and my tax returns showing I have zero assets. Honestly, I own nothing; I live in my dad's house and rely entirely on his Social Security check. A few days ago, I got another summons for a pre-trial hearing, and I have to bring all those same documents again to back up what I wrote in my appeal. What even is a "pre-trial hearing" anyway? And do I really need a lawyer? Because there's just no way I can afford one right now...

No. Just show up, bring your payment receipt, and explain that you notified them on time about settling the debt. Tell the judge you've been unemployed for years—believe it or not, most of the time they’re actually pretty understanding and will waive whatever they possibly can.🙂

Rebecca White4 said:Look, you don't exactly *need* a lawyer right now, but since they’ve already hired one, get ready to swallow some serious costs. On top of the standard collection fees—we're talking roughly $167—you're going to be on the hook for their attorney fees, which sit at $208, plus those pesky $33 court filing fees for the judgment. It's like being stuck in a traffic jam on the I-95 with no exit in sight. And don't think having zero assets right this second saves you. It just means the bill is waiting for you in the wings. The moment you land a job or get a paycheck, they’ll come knocking to collect everything, interest and all. And honestly? Don't bother counting on the statute of limitations to save your skin...

Who's to say she won't still be out of work for years?
If an enforcement action just sits there for years because they have no way to collect, it'll definitely hit the statute of limitations eventually.

Susan Morgan2 said:Alright, here’s the deal—I’ve got a weird situation on my hands. Some lady shows up at my door waving paperwork, claiming my sister needs to pay some fine or face wage garnishment. The catch? My sister hasn't lived at this address in forever, even though she's still officially registered there on her ID. This woman actually had the nerve to say they’d break into the property with lockpicks and tools to seize assets, even though the place isn't even in my sister's name. Like, how are they even allowed to just barge in and inventory someone else's stuff?
Is it actually possible for something like this to go down? And more importantly, how do you protect yourself so they don't walk off with your things (specifically mine)?

She's totally jerking you around.🙄
What did the paper actually say?

Steven Grant37 said:Found this about that lady judge 🥳
(though for me, it was a male judge 🙂 )
Thanks, @hollowmason64

Man, what a struggle 😁

Look, if you aren't a legal expert, you obviously aren't going to outsmart a lawyer, but in these kinds of situations, the judge isn't really expecting you to pull a fast one anyway.
The real kicker in this whole thing is just having the sheer willpower and patience to mess around with NPR—or basically deal with all those heavy-handed bureaucratic maneuvers they love to pull 😁

Steven Grant37 said:1) Has anyone here ever ended up in court because they filed an (unjustified) appeal against a garnishment order?

2) Has anyone reached out to a lawyer regarding issues with wage garnishments (like for NPR bills, utility companies, etc.)?

I'm really curious about what that process actually looks like and what the typical costs or legal fees might be.

Thanks!

I actually fought back against a garnishment attempt from NPR myself. I didn't hire a lawyer; I handled the whole thing on my own through two hearings, and the judge ultimately ruled in my favor... 🤷
...as for how it all went down, I think I posted about it somewhere else before, specifically in that thread about NPR.

Rebecca Miller4 said:Well, they can definitely go after personal property or real estate.

Quote:Actually, they totally can.

hollowmason64 says: Look, they can't just grab someone else's stuff to pay off your debt.

If we're talking about seizing personal property, the marshals show up at the address where you're officially registered to live. And since you're part of that household, you've technically got just as much "right" to the stuff in that house as anyone else living there. It's a mess.

With real estate, it's easier because there's a paper trail—you know, title deeds and all that—proving who actually owns what. But with personal belongings? There isn't some central registry for your couch or your TV. They don't "belong" to anyone on paper.

I went ahead and wrote that up—assuming they actually have something to work with.

Quote:

Actually, I can. If we’re talking about an enforcement action targeting personal property, it’s carried out at the address where the debtor is officially registered as living. Because of that, anyone else listed as a member of the household is viewed as having an equal claim to the belongings found at that residence. It’s a bit of a nuanced area, but essentially, being part of that household means you have just as much right to those items as the person actually being targeted. With real estate, things are pretty straightforward because you have the deed to prove exactly who owns what. But when you're talking about movable property? There isn't really a central registry like that. It’s a bit of a gray area because those items don't technically "belong" to anyone on an official government record. I mean, wouldn't that be nice? It’d be pretty sweet if everything actually worked out that easily. 😁 To start off, you’re basically assuming that if someone is renting, they automatically count as a registered tenant. Statistically speaking, though, that’s a pretty flawed way to look at it. If everything was filed correctly from the start, there should be an official inventory list detailing exactly what was in the apartment when the tenant moved in. But honestly, even if that didn't happen, there’s still a way to handle it. Both the landlord and the tenant can provide notarized statements. If both parties swear under oath that, say, the TV belongs to the owner, then nobody can just walk away with it without consequences. It's all about having that paper trail to back you up. 🙄 And if he doesn't... well, you can always just rub some salt in his wounds. 😁

Joshua Jones13 said:Look, to me, that kind of mocking feels a bit like kindergarten behavior. It surprises me that anyone would take offense at a sentence like that. It’s unnecessary, sure, but is it really worth all this? All these threats like "I'm putting you on ignore"... 🤷
I don't want to sound heartless, and I don't want Ace to feel uncomfortable on ZK, because there's no reason for that, but that specific comment was just pathetic, nothing more.

Now, you're asking the wrong person. I'm not Paul Morales3. And I'm also the last person who wants to drag this out. I have zero interest in endless debates, and frankly, I don't have the time.

I'm right there with you on that—it’s honestly just plain immature. 🤣
And we're talking about two grown women here. 🤣
I mentioned earlier that it felt a bit like those "my dad is stronger than your dad" playground arguments, but honestly, let's just leave the debate at that level. It feels pretty stupid to say something like that to someone who doesn't even have a father around... I mean, like, what the hell? 😕🤣
Maybe this sounds a little silly, but I could really use some more specific examples... at least for my own sake.

I think I get why people are getting annoyed here. It’s not actually about what Paul Morales3 was saying when she was acting all tough, talking about how she can just hit the ignore button on Jose Williams while he can't do the same to her because she's a mod. It’s more about the fact that she was basically using a silly little moment to flex those "muscles" she thinks she gained just by changing her username. Exclusively. It's probably just because she finds that particular forum member a bit off-putting.

Look, you've got the wrong person here. I'm not Paul Morales3. And honestly, if you're looking for someone to drag this whole thing out indefinitely, I'm definitely the last person you want to talk to. I really don't have the time or the energy to get sucked into these endless debates.

Paul Morales3 is basically a fresh trend right now, and honestly, it’s going to evolve largely based on how the fashion scene treats it and, more importantly, how you all decide to steer it.
The message she’s been getting from all of you since that first complaint rolled in during her first stint as a moderator says one thing quite clearly— Honestly, who cares what they think? Let them foam at the mouth all they want. We’ll just keep building up those lines, and when they start complaining, we can just shrug and tell them they're being paranoid, narrow-minded, or that they simply don't get the joke. Just keep doing exactly what you're doing. You handle things like a moderator—unshakeable and never feeling the need to offer an apology to anyone.

Look, you're technically her "superior" in this space. If she thinks sending those tiny little bursts of text is an acceptable way to communicate—even if it works for her group of friends—then maybe you should just step in. Tell her to take a breath, write a full sentence or two to get the point across, and then just wrap it up. Simple as that.
Otherwise, you’re just going to end up sinking more and more of your time into things like this.

mom 🤣🤣

Joshua Jones13 said:Ace, I think you both poked the bear unnecessarily, and maybe there could have been a bit more tact from either side given the circumstances. But since Paul Morales3 is a mod, I get why being targeted by staff might sting a little more than just regular user drama. I'm not a fan of the idea that moderators shouldn't be allowed to do what users do, but I see where you're coming from.

The part I don't quite get—the bit that seems to be bothering you so much—is that post where Paul Morales3 got defensive and said she could put you on ignore while you couldn't do the same to her. So what? 🤷 Honestly, I guess this complaint would carry a bit more weight without that, but fine, clearly the whole thing rubbed you the wrong way.

If you're worried about the mod being biased down the road, we have other moderators who can step in if things ever get messy. Or anyone else, really, if someone ends up being unfair.

Man, Joshua Jones13, I really expected more from you...

But that’s exactly the point!
You're getting hung up on the fact that someone was being a smart-ass 🤣 Every day someone is picking at someone else over some random topic, and honestly, the color of a user's handle shouldn't matter. But the "issue" started when Paul Morales3, during that whole "my dad is bigger than yours" kind of banter, pulled out the "argument" that she can do something Ace can't—simply because her handle color gives her that power—and therefore she "won"... I mean, come on. 🤣
Forget having a debate where someone can just mock you using tools they only have because they're a moderator... 🙄

Look, I like Paul Morales3, and Ace can definitely be a handful sometimes when she gets hyper-focused on something, and if we were going strictly by vibes, I'd be Team Paul Morales3 in a heartbeat—but I'm standing with Ace here, because what Paul Morales3 did was just childish... sorry Paul Morales3, but it was. 🤣

And is it really such a huge deal to just say sorry? Especially since that wasn't an argument anyone should have been using in the first place.
No!
Instead, you guys would rather drag this thing out forever, trying to convince everyone here that people are just narrow-minded and don't get the joke, rather than just sitting down with Paul Morales3 and settling it with one single post—and then it's over. 🙄

This whole thing with the ZK moderation is becoming impossible to take seriously—it feels like there's no way for a simple bit of banter to ever just be resolved. 😍🤣

hollowmason64 said:I don't have a car, and honestly, those belongings belong to my landlord.

Look, you can't just seize someone else's property to settle your own debt.

Rebecca Miller4 said:Quincy:

Look, I don't know what kind of rabbit hole you guys are trying to drag me down today, but if we're talking about the Dyatlov Pass incident, my brain is already starting to short-circuit. It’s one of those things that just sits in the back of your mind, right? You think you've got it figured out—some freak weather event, a localized avalanche, maybe some weird gas leak from a nearby facility—but then you start digging. And the more you dig, the more it feels like the universe is just playing a sick joke on us. I was reading this thread earlier—I think hollowmason64 was bringing up some points about the forensics—and honestly, it just makes you feel small. Like, incredibly small. We spend all our time worrying about things like rising rent in Chicago or whether our Verizon 3200 is going to lose signal in the suburbs, and meanwhile, there are these absolute nightmares waiting in the wilderness that defy every bit of logic we hold dear. It’s heavy stuff. Really heavy. My coffee is cold, my head hurts, and now I’m sitting here wondering if the ground beneath our feet is actually as solid as we pretend it is. Just... yeah. That's where I'm at. Total existential dread. Great. kaže: Look, if you haven't even been served the judgment on the foreclosure yet, then the whole thing isn't even legally binding. It’s basically just paperwork floating around in limbo. You can't have a final ruling if you haven't even officially received the notice, right? It's common sense, really.

Just plain wrong. Total nonsense.

So, here’s how this whole thing goes down: they send the enforcement proposal twice, straight to whatever address is listed in the contract. If both of those attempts go completely MIA and nobody picks them up? Then you're stuck having to hit up the FBI to get some kind of official proof of residency. It's just one more layer of bureaucracy to deal with, honestly.

So, after that, they try sending it out two more times to your home address, right? And if—God forbid—nobody actually picks it up by then, it just ends up posted on the court's public notice board. Then it sits there for eight days, just waiting. Typical.

Look, if nobody even touches it after those eight days pass... I mean, what then? It’s just sitting there. Total dead end. It’s becoming final. It's actually happening.

Quincy:

I don't even know where to start with this one. Just... dyatlov. It’s one of those things that keeps you up at night, staring at the ceiling, wondering if we actually know anything about how the world works or if everything is just a series of terrifying, inexplicable glitches. You read the reports, you look at the photos, and your brain just starts looping. It’s unsettling. Honestly, it's enough to make you want to pack up and move to some quiet suburb in Nebraska where nothing ever happens, but then again, maybe the weirdness is everywhere. I can't tell anymore. Everything feels a little broken. kaže: Look, if there’s already a final judgment on the books—you know, a real, legally binding ruling—then you're looking at a ten-year statute of limitations. Simple as that. Ten years before they can come knocking again.

And just so you know, every single little payment you make basically resets the clock on that statute of limitations. It’s a total trap. Once those ten years are up, the creditor can just swoop back in and restart the whole damn enforcement process for the exact same reason they sued you in the first place. It never actually ends.

So, honestly? You could basically say that once a ruling becomes final, the whole concept of a statute of limitations just... vanishes. It’s gone. Poof. Once that decision is set in stone, there's no more running from it. No more waiting out the clock. It's just done.

Yeah, but there's a catch—it has to be through a different method of enforcement, assuming they even have another option available to them.

gentlecrane31 said:I spoke with an attorney from the Hanžeković firm today (he was actually quite surprised at how I tracked him down—I was routed through their Miami branch)—and apparently, on August 21st, my father, who is 100% disabled, was served with a court order for a collection that had already gone into effect on the 19th. It’s regarding some old debt owed to Comcast for the period of July through December 2003, totaling $558. Since he wasn't even living in the apartment at the time—though he still owns the property and has moved several times since then—we’ve repeatedly filed appeals against these court orders and the law firm's actions.
Well, here we are, finally facing the music. Even though his subscription rate was slashed by 50% due to his disability status, the interest has piled up so much that it’s absolutely gutting his social security checks.
Fortunately, I stayed on the line because that polite attorney let me know this isn't the end of it. He informed me that, as part of this "exclusive" little package, there's yet another Comcast collection coming for the months of January through May 2004!!!!!!!!!!!!! amounting to $660. But, since they are just so incredibly kind and wonderful, they’ve offered to let us pay it off in 10 installments.
I didn't even bother asking anything else; I’m honestly terrified of how long this is going to drag on. My father never officially deregistered his TV service, even though he moved out of Miami back in 1999.
Is any of this even legal??

It really depends. You'd have to check when those folks over at NBC filed the formal request and exactly when the ruling became final... 🤷
You just need to dig into those specific dates.

rustydrifter10 said:😳

But seriously, guys. First off, I need a supermod to weigh in here—I’m definitely not ignoring you! Plus, I had to work through the weekend, so I was totally out of the loop. Just from what I can see at first glance, it doesn't look like the moderator wrote anything that actually violates our ZK guidelines. There aren't any specific, extra-strict rules on how one becomes a mod, but we’ll dive deeper into exactly what happened once we look into the details. 🙂

Bradley Sanders4 said:Oh, I just realized we’re waiting on a statement from the sub-moderators too, I guess.

Jose Williams, look, regardless of whether I personally dig the drama or not, I don't see an actual complaint against the RAD moderator. To put it bluntly, if this wasn't about a moderator, this little spat would have slid right under the radar like it has for years in that corner of the forum. If the complaint was about constant targeting, unequal treatment, abuse of power, or some actual misconduct, I'd take it seriously. But as it stands, this is just a matter of personal likes and dislikes, and we don't step in for that. I'm not interested in playing referee for either of you. I get that you might be feeling uneasy after this, but trust me, nobody is out to get you or kick you off the PDF. ZK is crawling with users who love each other so much they spend every opportunity tripping each other up; the only difference here is that this scrap happened with a user with a black username.

Exactly. ^^

I’m asking the rest of the ZK residents to please leave the fanboy/fangirl energy out of the Complaints section. You can have your little brawls over at our place. 😬

velvettrucker52 said:Precisely.

We’ve made this point several times now: we aren't here to micromanage you, so please don't try to micromanage us.
The moderators before us handled things just fine using this approach, and I fully expect those who follow us to do the same. As long as we aren't reaching for the "red card" to shut down the debate, I don't see the issue.

You people have absolutely no shame. 🤣
It’s not like this is anything new, though... 😁

Karen Rodriguez3 said:Paul Morales3, besides looking totally clueless, she’s being super arrogant too. Instead of just owning up to what she misunderstood—since she wasn't even on topic to begin with—she’s basically huddling up with the moderator squad to lecture us "newbies" on what the spirit of ZK is all about. God only knows what that "spirit" actually is. And don't get me started on velvettrucker52.
So we'll end up with a massive thread instead of just a few posts, and then a ban.
Btw, this whole policy of blindly defending moderators no matter what is pretty lame.

😍

This isn't about cheering or being a fan—it’s just pure, heartfelt support. 😳

If you guys are going to be dropping support here and throwing in your own personal stories, then I guess I can step up and back a smart woman too. ☕

I saw what hollowmason64 mentioned earlier.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by that. If you were trying to get my attention or if there was more you wanted to say, feel free to jump back in. I'm around. kaže: I honestly have no clue who else they're listing in the land registry... ------------------- We haven't actually triggered the foreclosure process yet. Since we live in a smaller town, we actually have a connection with a woman working at the local landfill, and she gave us a heads-up. She warned us that if we don't get everything settled within a few days, the legal action is going to move forward.

Look, I get why everyone's getting on your case about this. It’s not just small talk—knowing exactly whose name is on those property deeds and utility bills is huge. That kind of stuff matters for your security, which is why we're all hovering over you like this. And honestly, whatever that lady at the landfill tells you? Take it with a grain of salt. Just between us... It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. I mean, sure, she might be able to figure out who the actual owners are right now, but when it comes down to it, any formal proposal for seizure or legal action has to be sent directly to whoever is listed on the bill—and in this case, that’s just your grandmother.
Don't stress too much about someone trying to come after you or "get" you. Honestly, there’s just no ground to stand on. There isn't even a shred of evidence to back them up, so there's really nothing to worry about. 😁

Quincy:

So, I was thinking about this earlier today while grabbing coffee. If you manage to settle, say, half of what you owe on a credit card, does the legal enforcement process actually get put on hold? Or is the hammer still coming down regardless?

Well, look, it’s not like the legal seizure process just kicks in the second things go south. It doesn't happen instantly. 😁
From what I’ve gathered, as soon as you manage to chip away at even a decent chunk of that debt, it pretty much gives you some breathing room automatically.

Megan Wilson8 said:I'm not entirely sure if it was a formal contract or not, since none of us ever really challenged Grandma's rights to it—I think Grandpa just settled things through his will...

In the end, they finally agreed to sell, but somehow the whole mess landed on my plate to fix. I just hope this gets resolved soon...

Thanks for the advice...

Who is actually listed as the owner of the property in the county records?