Jeffrey Fox4 said:What do you mean there isn't? If a judgment order has dozens of different line items, the collection happens sequentially—one bill at a time. If, after 10 years from when the collection started—assuming the debt is being paid regularly—there are still specific bills that haven't actually been billed yet, then the statute of limitations can totally apply to those specific ones.
Some guy just explained this to me recently using this exact PDF. Obviously, you have to actually initiate the legal process and specifically cite the statute of limitations FOR those particular bills.
Well, if that's the case, then whoever told you that clearly gave you the wrong information...
Matthew Wilson59 said:I know everyone here has much bigger headaches than mine, but if anyone could spare a minute to weigh in on this, I’d appreciate it. Basically, I’ve never actually needed a lawyer before, and I definitely don't have money to throw away on legal fees, so I'm looking for some advice... A garnishment was placed on my bank account. While reviewing the paperwork, I realized I had legitimate grounds to contest the seizure, so I filed an appeal. The court actually ruled in my favor. But even though the court decision came through during the enforcement period (within that 30-day window), the funds were still permanently seized. Now I need to get my money back. The folks at the bank told me they could release the funds either voluntarily or through a counter-garnishment process. I tried reaching out to the creditors directly, but they’re acting like the case is already closed on their end. I'm attempting to track down their clients, but that’s proving to be a massive headache... It’s starting to look like I might have to hire an attorney... Does anyone know how that process actually works? And what kind of costs am I looking at?
I have to admit, I'm finding it a bit hard to follow what you're saying here... In any case, you should probably hire a lawyer, or at least provide a few more details...
Linda Fowler2 said:To whom it may concern, I have a question that nobody seems capable of answering with any degree of certainty, and since I need an answer immediately, I am reaching out here.
The situation is this: Since 2003, I have had a judgment lien against all my bank accounts stemming from a court ruling that went against me back then. This February, the ten-year statute of limitations on that specific judgment finally expires. My question is, WHO exactly do I need to formally invoke the statute of limitations against regarding this 2003 judgment? For the record, there have been no new claims, appeals, or any other legal maneuvers from the opposing party in the interim. Thanks for the help.
The statute of limitations doesn't apply if the enforcement process is still active...
Well, if we're talking about an LLC, the person signing that spreadsheet on behalf of the company has to be someone with legal signing authority. Since the CEO has stepped down, there’s got to be someone else in line who actually holds those powers...
Look, if we're really talking about a distance of maybe 10 or 20 feet, you could have easily just walked it... You can't exactly use the logic that "I didn't put anyone in danger, so I'm not at fault." That’s a slippery slope. You could drive around with a 0.10 blood alcohol content or blow through a red light and claim nothing bad actually happened, but that's not how it works. If a street is one-way, it's one-way, period. Man, you really messed this one up, and that's that. Besides, if it truly was only 10 or 20 feet, why not just back up? Why go through the trouble of pulling a full U-turn and driving the wrong way in the first place???!!!
Well, if you’re looking at damages totaling $20000, I’m guessing we’re talking about a relatively recent—and let’s face it, pricey—ride... so, why on earth don't you have full coverage?
Look, even if the virus mutates, it’s usually just shifting into one of those sub-strains the vaccine was designed to target anyway, so you're still technically covered... honestly, maybe don't get too deep into the weeds on topics that aren't quite your specialty or start spreading generalizations... for instance, everyone who got their shot this year is fully protected because that specific strain of the flu is what's actually making the rounds right now. So, you got vaccinated specifically to avoid getting sick, yet here you are, still blowing smoke about how vaccines are useless.
gentlehound9 said:Actually, it isn't. The influenza virus mutates constantly. You get vaccinated against whatever strain was circulating last season, but rarely does that match the actual beast currently tearing through the population. It’s a guessing game.
Besides, once you've already caught it, the shot is useless. It's strictly preventative. Its whole purpose is to prime the body to create antibodies for that specific virus. Once the infection is already in your system, there's no point in vaccinating; at that stage, your body is just doing the work of creating antibodies on its own anyway.
Please, let's not talk nonsense here... 1) They vaccinate you against the strains predicted to be dominant during the upcoming season, not against whatever was around last year. The whole idea is to prepare you for the specific viruses people will actually be catching this season... 2) Vaccination is typically done two to three months before flu season peaks, which is when you should get it. Of course, it makes no sense to get vaccinated after you're already sick—I didn't say that either...
We’ve actually touched on this right here on the forum before—I believe it was in the thread regarding gastritis and H. pylori... If you have a moment, maybe take a little scroll through those old posts.