Wage garnishments and collections

Eric Fowler19 said:I sent it over to the network, but now I realize I should have sent it directly to the receiver's legal representative. That’s obviously Scalia. 🙂
It’s written that way on purpose. They want to make sure nobody knows exactly who to report this to. And what about that notary who's partnered up with Scalia?
I sent him a formal complaint about their lack of cooperation.
What kind of global scum are we dealing with here?
I’m filing an objection tomorrow. Everyone gets one.🙂

Honestly, you should have just sent it to JB so they could pass it along to Hanžeković and call it a day. Look, I get it, there's a mountain of paperwork and it's a total headache to parse through, but you can just read it a few times until it clicks. Based on those papers (the first set), you're on the hook for the bill, the interest and the portion for JB. With the interest, most people just pay a ballpark figure because let's face it, not everyone is a math whiz, and then HRT will just mail you a corrected invoice later if you underpaid.
Back in the day, you could just settle the debt and notify JB without worrying about their fees, but they've totally covered their backsides now; they're claiming they'll freeze the whole enforcement process unless you pay everything . (I've been in both situations 😁). If you ask me, you missed a step here.

Daniel Martinez9 I’ve been digging through some fascinating stuff lately—I just spent quite a while reviewing about ten different rulings from appellate courts and various state district courts regarding debt repayment appeals. It turns out there is a really interesting legal nuance here! Even if you explicitly state that your payment is intended for the principal balance, it seems that under certain interpretations, the creditor still maintains the right to apply funds toward interest first before touching the principal. It looks like that specific section of the Civil Code regarding the "order of application as determined by the debtor" isn't actually mandatory in the way most people assume. From what I can gather, that provision is more of a guideline designed to protect the creditor and essentially nudge debtors toward more disciplined payment habits. It seems the courts point back to a different section of the Civil Code that dictates the actual priority of how payments are applied. It’s definitely one of those tricky legal grey areas where what you *think* you're doing might not be what the law enforces!

vividraven26 said:Honestly, you should have just sent it to JB so they could pass it along to Hanžeković and call it a day. Look, I get it, there's a mountain of paperwork and it's a total headache to parse through, but you can just read it a few times until it clicks. Based on those papers (the first set), you're on the hook for the bill, the interest and the portion for JB. With the interest, most people just pay a ballpark figure because let's face it, not everyone is a math whiz, and then HRT will just mail you a corrected invoice later if you underpaid.
Back in the day, you could just settle the debt and notify JB without worrying about their fees, but they've totally covered their backsides now; they're claiming they'll freeze the whole enforcement process unless you pay everything . (I've been in both situations 😁). If you ask me, you missed a step here.

I contacted the service provider and filed a formal complaint with JB, but I didn't reach out to Hanžeković.
I sent them an email and I'm waiting to hear back. If necessary, I'll just pay the seizure costs directly.

Eric Fowler19 said:I contacted the service provider and filed a formal complaint with JB, but I didn't reach out to Hanžeković.
I sent them an email and I'm waiting to hear back. If necessary, I'll just pay the seizure costs directly.

Now, my dear lady, you can finally rest easy! In my opinion, Hanžeković really should have forwarded that appeal over to JB—whether they actually did or not, well, neither of us truly knows, I suppose. But look, there are specific legal remedies designed for exactly these kinds of situations, and I don't mean just filing an objection, an appeal, or more back-and-forth paperwork—even if you are absolutely in the right. There are much stronger options out there. So, I wasn't just being dramatic when I suggested finding a lawyer right away!

John Clark6 said:Daniel Martinez9 I’ve been digging through some fascinating stuff lately—I just spent quite a while reviewing about ten different rulings from appellate courts and various state district courts regarding debt repayment appeals. It turns out there is a really interesting legal nuance here! Even if you explicitly state that your payment is intended for the principal balance, it seems that under certain interpretations, the creditor still maintains the right to apply funds toward interest first before touching the principal. It looks like that specific section of the Civil Code regarding the "order of application as determined by the debtor" isn't actually mandatory in the way most people assume. From what I can gather, that provision is more of a guideline designed to protect the creditor and essentially nudge debtors toward more disciplined payment habits. It seems the courts point back to a different section of the Civil Code that dictates the actual priority of how payments are applied. It’s definitely one of those tricky legal grey areas where what you *think* you're doing might not be what the law enforces!

The debtor still needs to file an objection just to prevent the garnishment from becoming final. Who’s going to guarantee that a creditor won't push the collection through even after everything has been settled? And let's be honest, people are completely clueless about how this works, often paying extra clauses they don't even owe. A notary has no idea if the debt is cleared because they get their fees from the creditor—only the parties involved actually know the truth. Filing an objection is just a way for the debtor to protect themselves from potential fraud or messy situations. On top of that, FINA doesn't verify whether payments were actually made; they just see a mandate and execute it. Only the creditor can pull the plug. Just look at all those posts saying, "I paid the bill, but the garnishment hit my account anyway." 😉

John Clark6 said:Now, my dear lady, you can finally rest easy! In my opinion, Hanžeković really should have forwarded that appeal over to JB—whether they actually did or not, well, neither of us truly knows, I suppose. But look, there are specific legal remedies designed for exactly these kinds of situations, and I don't mean just filing an objection, an appeal, or more back-and-forth paperwork—even if you are absolutely in the right. There are much stronger options out there. So, I wasn't just being dramatic when I suggested finding a lawyer right away!

I think she sent her grievance directly to the notary. "..she wrote a complaint to JB.." The formal complaint was filed back on August 23, 2013, yet she didn't show up here until October 8.
I’m chalking that up to what I said earlier: pure ignorance. Even if she had gone to a lawyer, it wouldn't have changed a thing.
If the legal objection is drafted properly, the court should grant a stay on the enforcement. You can expect a ruling within about six months. Plus, they'll include the costs of... $33 Who’s going to foot the bill? I’m pretty sure she didn't bother getting her tax exemption certificate before filing that request to waive court costs. All I can tell her is: pay up. $33 RIGHT NOW. It looks like you can only file an appeal when submitting a formal objection; otherwise, you're just going to get hit with those extra fees. $33 Costs are going up too. $67Right, I forgot to mention that the law prohibiting the charging of late notice fees doesn't apply to court proceedings.

John Clark6 said:Now, my dear lady, you can finally rest easy! In my opinion, Hanžeković really should have forwarded that appeal over to JB—whether they actually did or not, well, neither of us truly knows, I suppose. But look, there are specific legal remedies designed for exactly these kinds of situations, and I don't mean just filing an objection, an appeal, or more back-and-forth paperwork—even if you are absolutely in the right. There are much stronger options out there. So, I wasn't just being dramatic when I suggested finding a lawyer right away!

You totally missed my point.
The timely objection was sent to the notary back in 2011, along with the payment receipt for the broadcaster. My only mistake was not notifying Hanžeković at that time.
I just sent a formal complaint via email today—2013—to Hanžeković, the broadcaster, and the notary all at once, since the debt was actually settled in 2011.
Well-known people have influence with Hanžeković, so we’re going to try to resolve this directly.😁
We'll just pay a portion of the collection fees, definitely not the final judgment costs.
They promised the account would be unblocked.

I think she filed her objection with a notary public. "..she wrote an objection, dammit.." The objection was actually drafted and sent back on August 23, 2013, yet she didn't show up here until October 8th.
It goes back to what I said earlier: she's completely in the dark. Even if she had gone to a lawyer, the result would be the same.
If the objection is solid, the court will issue an order to stay the enforcement—expect that to take about six months—plus there'll be a cost of $33 that she’ll have to cover. I'm pretty sure she didn't pull her tax clearance or file a motion to waive court costs. So, my only advice to her is to pay those $33 RIGHT NOW (it looks like she can only file that motion when she submits the objection). Otherwise, she'll get a notice for additional $33 fees, pushing the total cost up to $67. Oh, I forgot to mention: the law prohibiting certain fee charges doesn't apply to court proceedings.

if you're talking about my situation, that was August 22, 2011 not 2013
never got a single summons from the court, and two years have passed since then.
It's confirmed, damn it, that the objection was sent to the court, but someone obviously screwed up somewhere between the office and the courthouse.

I’m currently going through an absolute nightmare of a legal battle with NBC over this TV license fee I don't believe I owe. Honestly, as messy as this whole thing is, it's even harder to wrap my head around what you guys are actually talking about here...

You’re complaining to the very person who sent you the garnishment order... basically, the notary. My advice? Just sit tight at home while you wait for a court order to halt the collection process. Eventually, you'll get a summons telling you to pay double the $33 (in my case), and then you just show up to court when called, lay out your side of the story, and let fate decide 😁

Quincy:

@maza! ... if you're referring to my situation, that was back on August 22, 2011, not 2013. I never even got a summons from the court, and two years have already passed It was confirmed that the objection was filed with the court, but someone clearly screwed up somewhere between the filing and the courthouse...

At any point, you can always just walk into the clerk's office and ask them what the hell is going on with your case.

Eric Fowler19 said:I just checked. The public notary issued the debt collection order on July 15th, while CNN provided the ledger extract back on June 28th.
The payment was made on July 5th, 2011.

Wait, so you guys never even received a formal warning before they went straight to enforcement?

Jesse Sanchez90 said:Wait, so you guys never even received a formal warning before they went straight to enforcement?

I haven't, and honestly, nobody in the courtroom seems to care one bit... it feels like the legislature has turned our entire court system into nothing more than debt collectors. When you finally stand before a judge, the prosecutor doesn't even have to prove anything beyond just handing over a dry list of what you owe. The entire burden of proof falls squarely on your shoulders. You're just left trying to navigate the mess of contradictory American laws, though I've managed to stay afloat so far...😁

But then how are you even supposed to know what you actually owe?

Honestly, this feels like the era of the Salem witch trials—people are just being grilled and condemned regardless of whether there's any actual evidence to back it up.

Jesse Sanchez90 said:But then how are you even supposed to know what you actually owe?

Honestly, this feels like the era of the Salem witch trials—people are just being grilled and condemned regardless of whether there's any actual evidence to back it up.

So, I didn't actually get a warning notice beforehand. Instead, I just received a final judgment for garnishment, explicitly stating the exact amount they intend to seize from my bank account, as well as my personal property and real estate... is that clear enough now?...

Boldano hit the nail on the head. The prosecutor doesn't actually have to prove a thing. They just pull up a list of unpaid bills alongside your TV license registration and whatever cancellation paperwork you filed. If you moved, sublet your place, or went off the grid, the burden of proof shifts entirely to you to explain exactly what happened...

I think I’ve seen this movie before. We always seem to circle back to these exact same arguments every few months, don't we? It feels like we're stuck in a loop where we debate the same core issues without ever actually moving the needle forward. I mean, look at how we handled the last major policy shift—we had all these heated discussions, everyone took their stances, and yet here we are again, facing almost identical hurdles. It’s a bit exhausting if you think about it too long, but also kind of fascinating how predictable the cycle can be. I'm curious to see if anyone has a fresh perspective on this, or if we're just going to keep rehashing the same old points. Personally, I'm hoping for some new ideas that break the pattern! kaže:
So, let me clarify things here because I think there might be some confusion. I didn't actually receive a warning or a "final notice" before this hit my desk. What I actually got was a formal judgment for garnishment. It explicitly states the exact amount they’re looking to seize from my bank account, along with my personal property and real estate. Does that make things a bit clearer?

Jesse Sanchez90 is spot on here because the prosecutor doesn't actually have to prove a thing. They basically just pull up a list of unpaid installments alongside your TV license registration and any notices of cancellation you might have filed. If you moved, became a renter, or relocated somewhere else without updating your info, the burden of proof falls entirely on you to show exactly what happened and how things changed.

Jesse Sanchez90, I actually went through something similar with Google. I ended up getting a formal warning about a potential collections action even though I had already settled my balance in full—mostly because Google was being incredibly slow at updating their records regarding outstanding debts on the account. Fast forward a few months, and sure enough, that dreaded court order arrives in the mail. I had to scramble to dig up all my payment confirmations, and I ended up having to fight all five counts! Honestly, it feels like such a shady move by CBS; you aren't always notified immediately about a single missed installment, and this kind of setup within these public-private partnerships just makes it way too easy for them to squeeze people.

Eric Fowler19 said:I think she filed her objection with a notary public. "..she wrote an objection, dammit.." The objection was actually drafted and sent back on August 23, 2013, yet she didn't show up here until October 8th.
It goes back to what I said earlier: she's completely in the dark. Even if she had gone to a lawyer, the result would be the same.
If the objection is solid, the court will issue an order to stay the enforcement—expect that to take about six months—plus there'll be a cost of $33 that she’ll have to cover. I'm pretty sure she didn't pull her tax clearance or file a motion to waive court costs. So, my only advice to her is to pay those $33 RIGHT NOW (it looks like she can only file that motion when she submits the objection). Otherwise, she'll get a notice for additional $33 fees, pushing the total cost up to $67. Oh, I forgot to mention: the law prohibiting certain fee charges doesn't apply to court proceedings.

if you're talking about my situation, that was August 22, 2011 not 2013
never got a single summons from the court, and two years have passed since then.
It's confirmed, damn it, that the objection was sent to the court, but someone obviously screwed up somewhere between the office and the courthouse.

if you're talking about my situation, that was August 22, 2011 not 2013
never got a single summons from the court, and two years have passed since then.
It's confirmed, damn it, that the objection was sent to the court, but someone obviously screwed up somewhere between the office and the courthouse.

if you're talking about my situation, that was August 22, 2011 not 2013
never got a single summons from the court, and two years have passed since then.
It's confirmed, damn it, that the objection was sent to the court, but someone obviously screwed up somewhere between the office and the courthouse.

if you're talking about my situation, that was August 22, 2011 not 2013.
Never got a call from the court, and two years have passed.
Confirmed, damn it, the objection was sent to the court, but someone obviously screwed up between the office and the courthouse.

My bad... I wasn't looking at the year... usually when someone posts about a garnishment here, it's either way too late or they just got hit with it... 😉
In that case, you should have received a ruling from the court regarding the stay of execution or a dismissal of the objection due to procedural errors (like insufficient copies, etc.). Did you get that ruling? Generally, those arrive within a year at the latest.

Let's not overcomplicate this:

http://finance.yahoo.com/questions/credits/...out-of-force/

About two years ago, my local City Hall decided to hire a private firm to handle land surveying. Once the work was finished, the city claimed they didn't have the budget to cover the costs, so they passed an ordinance requiring residents to chip in $83 per identified boundary line.
I couldn't bring myself to agree with that, so I refused to pay $167 for a service I never actually requested. Now, I've received a notice regarding a potential garnishment based on what they claim is a valid legal document. I'm planning to file a formal objection and take this to court.

I would truly appreciate your thoughts on how I should proceed or how best to defend myself in court.

Anyone know if I can get a 6-month delay on an IRS levy?
Just finished paying off one debt to the Treasury back in August 2013, and now I'm stuck with a new one right on top of it. Being a single mom with a kid and dealing with child support hearings in court makes this impossible. Since I run my own business, I don't get those protected accounts—everything hits the levy immediately, leaving me with zero dollars for basic necessities. I couldn't even apply for a payment plan or a settlement back then because I was already frozen out by a bank block and didn't qualify.
If anyone knows if a 6-month deferment is actually a thing, let me know.

Gary King5 said:Anyone know if I can get a 6-month delay on an IRS levy?
Just finished paying off one debt to the Treasury back in August 2013, and now I'm stuck with a new one right on top of it. Being a single mom with a kid and dealing with child support hearings in court makes this impossible. Since I run my own business, I don't get those protected accounts—everything hits the levy immediately, leaving me with zero dollars for basic necessities. I couldn't even apply for a payment plan or a settlement back then because I was already frozen out by a bank block and didn't qualify.
If anyone knows if a 6-month deferment is actually a thing, let me know.

Where exactly are you getting the idea that you aren't eligible for a protected account?
Look, someone here will definitely know more about protected accounts than I do, but I can't take your word for it.
I know a small business owner personally who is drowning in debt, yet they have a properly set up protected account and only have a third of their income garnished.
Mind you, that person is actually an employee elsewhere—they have a business license, but they're working a regular job for someone else right now, so maybe that's the catch.

I could set up a protected account for child support, but since my ex isn't paying through an employer—he’s just sending cash like a regular person—the bank won't protect those transfers. That's what they told me at Chase when I asked. Since he's working under the table and doesn't have a real job, the bank wouldn't even recognize his payments as official child support.

Gary King5 said:I could set up a protected account for child support, but since my ex isn't paying through an employer—he’s just sending cash like a regular person—the bank won't protect those transfers. That's what they told me at Chase when I asked. Since he's working under the table and doesn't have a real job, the bank wouldn't even recognize his payments as official child support.

Jesus, that is absolutely terrifying!
What’s the situation with your ex? Have you tried seeing if he'll just give you cash directly?

Been down this road before and we managed to work things out, but the rules have changed and now? I doubt they'll even listen.
I just need to push back this collection for 6 months until my business gets back on its feet, but I haven't got any legal leg to stand on with the IRS.