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?
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.
steelnomad65 said:So, what's my move here? Any advice? My employer definitely didn't include my unpaid wages in their pre-bankruptcy filing... Is there really no way at all to recover what I'm owed?
If I remember correctly, your claims—meaning all debts owed up until the bankruptcy filing—get wiped out if they aren't officially filed; basically, you lose the legal right to collect them. And honestly, you probably should have filed those claims yourself, even though the employer was supposed to list them too. I'm not entirely sure which stage of the bankruptcy process they're in right now, but maybe try filing an appeal? I think there might be some kind of priority status for unpaid wages (I'm not positive, though!), so it's worth looking into. You can check the court's website—just type in the company's name—to see exactly where things stand in the proceedings.
It’s actually impossible—until that pre-bankruptcy settlement is officially finalized before the bankruptcy court, you still have to report all wages or any other outstanding debts as part of the pre-bankruptcy filing...
I don't think that's quite right—honestly, I suspect the most expensive "fee" actually happens when an account gets frozen. In those cases, I believe they charge something close to $60 just to try the transaction again... I'm not entirely certain, though! It feels different to me, because you aren't really paying to settle the original balance, you're just paying for the privilege of unfreezing the account itself.
There’s actually a specific legal procedure laid out in the law for this—and honestly, we’ve already touched on all of that earlier in this thread... so I don't want us to just end up going in circles...
Oh, come on now—what on earth are you all talking about? These supposed statements from the IRS... honestly, they don't mean a thing to anyone, and they certainly aren't grounds to halt a foreclosure or a levy. I mean, does an IRS document actually list whether I own a television or a laptop? Of course not! A tax statement isn't some kind of definitive proof—it’s just a partial snapshot at best, and it really doesn't reflect the actual state of someone's assets.
Walter Lee2 said:So, what you're telling me is that people just get cut loose regardless? Even if the cash from selling one specific property doesn't cover everyone? It seems to me—and correct me if I'm wrong here—that the remaining creditors just have to hope the liquidation of whatever else is left in the bankruptcy estate covers them...
Basically, once a property is sold, it comes off the market totally clear—meaning it's free and clear of any encumbrances. It doesn't really matter who actually got their money back first or how much of their claim was satisfied in the process.
Look, Grba, I’ll be honest—I’m not entirely sure I follow your logic here—or maybe I just missed your point—but I really don't see the utility in filing an objection if the debt is legitimate and hasn't hit the statute of limitations. It feels like you're just objecting for the sake of objecting, which, in my opinion, is pretty much pointless. All you're doing is potentially dragging things out and forcing yourself to pay for yet another legal consultation, which just inflates your total costs. Honestly, the only smart move is to settle the full amount now to avoid those extra notary fees used to certify the finality of the debt—though, from what I've seen lately, some lawyers actually include those fees right in their initial collection proposals anyway. If you file an objection without any real grounds, you aren't stopping anything; you're just delaying the inevitable, and that enforcement order will eventually become legally binding regardless. As for what you mentioned regarding the principal amount... hmm... I don't think that works quite that way, and here is why: enforcement costs kick in the very moment the collection proposal is drafted—basically, as soon as the notary receives the request. You can only dodge those specific costs if you pay off the debt *before* the enforcement order is actually issued. Even if you were to pay off just the principal, the attorney still has a perfectly valid legal right to claim their procedural fees—which is totally standard practice. Plus, you might be overlooking a big one: by paying even a portion of the debt, you are essentially acknowledging that the debt exists and validating the enforcement action itself. It’s almost a contradiction in terms—you're complaining about the debt while simultaneously paying it! At the end of the day, both the court-mandated and the attorney's fees are completely justified and legitimate.
Hey, Alex—would you mind walking me through that one more time? I might be totally off base here, but I'd love a bit more clarity!
Honestly, I’m just sitting here typing this out because, let’s be real—I really don't have the energy to deal with... you know, employers who apparently can't even figure out how to calculate interest properly 🙂
Yeah, I suppose they’ll just prioritize whoever signed up first—and if there isn't enough room for everyone else, those later entries might just get wiped out entirely.
? Is that really it? ... In short, Rebecca James2, that’s basically your final word on the matter—even if I have to say, this whole proposal feels a bit scattered and all over the place...
Daniel Martinez9.... my friend.... I think you might have overcomplicated things just a little bit here—and honestly, even the way you've laid out these legal proceedings is pretty tangled up! Kudos to you for putting in the effort, though—really, *claps loudly*—but if I’m being honest, maybe 70% of your post is actually spot on, which just isn't quite enough to serve as a reliable guide for everyone else. You seem to be presenting these scenarios as if there's only one single template for how an enforcement action works, when in reality, every situation is different, and the legal grounds used to reach a decision can vary wildly from case to case.
1. I mean, it’s certainly possible, 2. they probably want to kickstart the whole process again just to "reset" that ten-year statute of limitations—you know, since those windows can basically be extended indefinitely if they play their cards right. 3. Sure, the proceedings are currently stayed, but that doesn't mean they can't just pick things back up whenever they feel like it.
Megan Wilson8 said:It’s a mess—half of it is in my name, half goes to my aunt and uncle. Or rather, since my uncle passed away too, I’m stuck wondering if it actually belongs to his wife or his son now. My grandfather split everything into quarters, but my grandmother actually signed her portion over to me while she was still around. She had a life estate on it, so technically, everything is still legally tied up in her name.
Alright, they finally blinked and agreed to cover half the costs—which is something—but I’m still stuck in a massive bind here. Honestly, sitting around waiting isn't really an option for me; I’ve got enough on my plate dealing with a bunch of hysterical clients who won't stop blowing up my phone and breathing down my neck.
Just for the sake of clarity—does this affect my aunt's account too? She lives in Mexico, but she holds dual citizenship and spent a huge chunk of her career working here in the States, so she’s actually drawing a pension from the US.
Everything you're asking about has basically been covered in the last few pages. The legal seizure process will likely target Grandma once the mail carrier returns her mail marked "deceased"—they'll pull the death certificate to confirm the status, and then the creditor will request the succession decree from the court. Once they see exactly who the heirs are, they'll just update the seizure to include the rightful heirs.
Megan Wilson8 said:Let me try to break down my situation a bit more clearly for you all....
Here’s the deal: I inherited half of a house from my grandmother—so I own half, and my aunt and uncle each own a quarter.
Nobody actually lives in the house (because my aunt refuses to rent it out), and even though we switched to flat-rate utilities, we’ve still racked up $500 a massive debt for gas, and now we're facing a garnishment.
I am completely broke because I’m a student, working at an SC for peanuts just to stay afloat, and paying my own way. I don't have the cash to cover this. As for the others involved? They're playing dumb, and getting them to agree to anything is impossible.
I am literally stuck choosing between borrowing money to pay this debt or borrowing money to pay my tuition. If I don't pay my tuition, I'm kicked out of school, and my first installment is already falling through—so this is basically my last resort before everything falls apart.
My question is: can they actually garnish my wages from the SC, and is there any point in filing a complaint or appealing anywhere....
Also, does the garnishment apply to just one owner of the property, or everyone? Can someone explain how this process actually works...
And one more thing—this isn't directly related to the garnishment, but I can't focus on anything else right now—is there any way I can force them to buy me out? This house is nothing but a millstone around my neck. They won't rent it, they won't sell it, and they won't pay the bills..... I'm just sitting here watching my tiny income—which barely covers my basic living costs anyway—get eaten alive. I don't want to just give it away either, since it's the only thing I have and I'd be literally out on the street without it....
You are all jointly liable debtors if they initiate a levy, so anyone in the group could be targeted—you might as well just gift them the property or, better yet, make them buy you out.
It probably won't hit your car right away—they usually go after your paycheck or freeze your bank account first. Honestly, I don't know much about how their installment plans work, and from what I've heard, they can be pretty cold toward people who fall behind on payments. If you manage to settle things within eight days—or whatever timeframe is listed in the decision—you might be able to dodge some of those extra collection costs, specifically the fees for getting the finality clause notarized. I think they’ve actually started including that detail at the end of the proposed enforcement decision lately, if I'm not mistaken.
Look, my friend, what you've got there is an official enforcement order—and if that isn't settled within the 8-day window, they’re going to move forward with seizing assets wherever they can find them, whether it's your paycheck, your bank account, or... well, pretty much anything else.
Gregory Martin7 said:A month ago, a woman was supposed to receive her third severance installment. So far, nothing. She went to the IRS today to ask about the next steps in the process, and the agent there told her she needs to go back to her former employer and demand a formal statement detailing the unpaid third installment. The problem? The employer is refusing to provide any documentation. Does anyone know what the actual procedure is here? Who should we be contacting next? Last year, under the previous regulations, she had to go through the District Court just to get the second installment.
Daniel Martinez9, I think we’ve gone over this at least sixteen times now—but let me say it again clearly: child support claims take absolute precedence, and in your specific situation, they definitely come first! Furthermore, people often misunderstand how statutes of limitations work regarding mobile carrier debts—it’s rarely as simple as you think. Usually, the clock isn't just about when the customer was billed, but rather when the notary officially received the documents. So, even if there's a one-year limit, it could potentially stretch to five years if the notary processed it back in 2007... it's still valid. Most laypeople, myself included sometimes, tend to overlook those nuances. Anyway, here is another bit of free advice for you... though, honestly, maybe you should just head to a lawyer? You'll quickly realize they actually charge a set fee for legal consultations!