Wage garnishments and collections

I honestly can't believe it—you're actually the first person I've run into with this specific issue... hahaha! Seriously though, maybe give the older posts a quick scroll through and look for the term "certified mail"

Could someone give me a quick breakdown on this?

feraltinker8 said:To whom it may concern,

Regarding the recent developments in my probate proceedings:

On February 20, 2014, during our initial and only hearing, I settled my half of the legal fees as agreed upon with the notary. I received an invoice at that time for $545...

The other heir hasn't contributed a single cent to date.

By June 8, 2014, I received a certified invoice via mail from that same notary for $545. Since I had already paid my portion, I didn't see any reason to respond.

Today, December 10, 2014, I was served with a collection order—drafted by a second attorney through another notary—regarding that unpaid invoice from June...

The inheritance decree clearly states that we are both entitled to equal 50% shares of the estate.

I have filed a formal objection with the notary who initiated this collection, attaching the receipt from the original hearing. When I inquired whether the other heir was facing similar collection actions, I was told there is no record of it. In short, they aren't being pursued.

My question is this: How are heirs expected to split these costs fairly? Why does it seem as though I am being forced to shoulder the entire burden of the proceedings through a legal seizure?!!

I would appreciate any advice or insight you might offer.

Regards.

Under Section 175 of the Inheritance Law, probate is considered a non-adversarial proceeding.

And per Paragraph 20 of the rules governing non-adversarial proceedings: If multiple people benefit from such a proceeding, they are all jointly and severally liable for the costs.

The legal fees mentioned in Section 191 of the Inheritance Law fall under these procedural costs.

John Clark6, you give the short version; I'll take the long way. The obligation remains the same.

I mean, it just doesn't make any sense—why jump straight to filing a formal appeal instead of just asking a few questions first? It seems like such a missed opportunity... now they’ll probably just get hit with a rejection and have to cough up even higher legal fees on top of it.

Mentor 77—look, if you end up covering the whole debt because of joint liability, you can totally demand that the other debtors chip in for their fair share 🙂 so that, effectively, you’re only paying what actually belongs to you.

Kenneth Allen11 said:Hey there,
I could really use some advice here.
Last Friday by total surprise I logged into my online banking and saw that funds had been seized by the clearinghouse. I’m heading down to their office this Monday to figure out what on earth is going on—it looks like a forced collection for some debt owed to the Social Security Administration. When I asked who exactly was initiating the levy, they told me I’d have to pay a fee just to get a printed copy of the seizure order to find out. Apparently, the creditor is the Social Security Administration, acting through a notary public regarding an outstanding claim from June of last year.
However, I’ve been emailing back and forth with the Social Security Administration, and they’re telling me I don't owe them a dime. In fact, they claim I actually have a $5 credit sitting there, especially since the policy in question was canceled way back in July 2012.
Isn't a notary supposed to send some kind of formal warning or notice before they just go after your money like this?
What am I supposed to do now that the money is already gone? Should I be filing a formal complaint with the notary or directly with the Social Security Administration?

Thanks for any help you can give!

I don't see why you'd go to a notary; they aren't involved in this. If an actual seizure happened, you definitely should have received a formal order. There has to be a legal basis for it, so try looking back through your records from the last few months... otherwise, your best bet is just to call Medicare or head down to their office and explain the situation.🙂

What I’m really trying to figure out is whether they were actually supposed to send me some kind of notice before they just went ahead and charged me.
It looks like I'll have to deal with Medicare directly. But honestly, if this turns out to be some kind of clerical error—what's the actual move there? Like, what's the official process to get my money back?

Kenneth Allen11 said:What I’m really trying to figure out is whether they were actually supposed to send me some kind of notice before they just went ahead and charged me.
It looks like I'll have to deal with Medicare directly. But honestly, if this turns out to be some kind of clerical error—what's the actual move there? Like, what's the official process to get my money back?

Talk to a lawyer, not the front desk clerks. They gave us the wrong info; the legal counsel was the one who finally told us the truth. And keep this in mind: they claimed they were sending notices, but they were going to an old address. Even though we updated our info with Medicare, we never updated it with our supplemental insurance plan.🙂 To be fair, they couldn't find us for ten years while they were supposedly sending warnings; they only bothered once it was time to issue the seizure order.🙂

Hey there.

Is it totally delusional to suggest a settlement to a telecom provider regarding an old debt? Like, maybe asking them to write off some—or all—of the interest? 🙂 (John Doe is currently unemployed and basically has zero assets to his name.)

Oh, please!!! Don't you dare try to settle this amongst yourselves—interest is actually a legal requirement, meaning, by law, it absolutely has to be calculated...

Brandon Hill8 said:Under Section 175 of the Inheritance Law, probate is considered a non-adversarial proceeding.

And per Paragraph 20 of the rules governing non-adversarial proceedings: If multiple people benefit from such a proceeding, they are all jointly and severally liable for the costs.

The legal fees mentioned in Section 191 of the Inheritance Law fall under these procedural costs.

John Clark6, you give the short version; I'll take the long way. The obligation remains the same.

So, what you're telling me is I have to cover the entire bill myself and then sue the other heir just to recoup my money?!
Why didn't the notary realize I was the only one paying? Why didn't they simply send the invoice and a collection notice to the other heir who refused to pay?
It feels like I walked right into a trap... quite the foolish position to find myself in.🙂
If I could actually grasp the reasoning behind why the legislature decided to make us all jointly liable, I might have a chance... but frankly, I don't see the logic in it.
Is there any way to change this law, and if so, to whom should one direct such a grievance?

Hey,
I was at the Social Security Administration office earlier today and found out that back in 2011, I wasn't staying on top of my payments—I kept forgetting to pay them quarterly—so I ended up getting a formal warning before they could go after my assets, which I’ve since settled. Since the contract explicitly stated if payments aren't made regularly, the agreement is automatically terminated, I genuinely thought the whole thing was already dead and buried.
The lady behind the desk tried to convince me that I should have filed a formal written request to terminate the agreement, but because I didn't, she claims they simply "exercised their contractual right" to extend it automatically since all my arrears from the previous year had been cleared.

It seems pretty obvious to me that if I had just been a consistent payer, the contract would have renewed itself without all this drama.

So, I'm wondering if the SSA actually has the legal standing to extend a contract when the payment terms weren't met—especially when those very terms dictate that the contract should be terminated?

Ashley Bailey75 said:Hey there.

Is it totally delusional to suggest a settlement to a telecom provider regarding an old debt? Like, maybe asking them to write off some—or all—of the interest? 🙂 (John Doe is currently unemployed and basically has zero assets to his name.)

Just wait for that new federal debt relief bill to drop.😁
You can always pitch an installment plan. That usually works since they'd rather get something than nothing. If you can negotiate with big banks, I don't see why you couldn't work something out with a telecom company.🙂

feraltinker8 said:So, what you're telling me is I have to cover the entire bill myself and then sue the other heir just to recoup my money?!
Why didn't the notary realize I was the only one paying? Why didn't they simply send the invoice and a collection notice to the other heir who refused to pay?
It feels like I walked right into a trap... quite the foolish position to find myself in.🙂
If I could actually grasp the reasoning behind why the legislature decided to make us all jointly liable, I might have a chance... but frankly, I don't see the logic in it.
Is there any way to change this law, and if so, to whom should one direct such a grievance?

The thing is, the notary isn't going to do that for you. You're the one who has to go after them to get reimbursed for what you paid on their behalf. And no, you can't change the law because it's actually pretty straightforward. Why would a creditor want to rely on a bunch of debtors who probably won't pay? It’s much smarter for them to just pick whoever actually has the cash and collect from them. Just look at it from the creditor's perspective. This isn't just about notaries either; it applies to almost any contract with multiple debtors.

Kenneth Allen11 said:Hey,
I was at the Social Security Administration office earlier today and found out that back in 2011, I wasn't staying on top of my payments—I kept forgetting to pay them quarterly—so I ended up getting a formal warning before they could go after my assets, which I’ve since settled. Since the contract explicitly stated if payments aren't made regularly, the agreement is automatically terminated, I genuinely thought the whole thing was already dead and buried.
The lady behind the desk tried to convince me that I should have filed a formal written request to terminate the agreement, but because I didn't, she claims they simply "exercised their contractual right" to extend it automatically since all my arrears from the previous year had been cleared.

It seems pretty obvious to me that if I had just been a consistent payer, the contract would have renewed itself without all this drama.

So, I'm wondering if the SSA actually has the legal standing to extend a contract when the payment terms weren't met—especially when those very terms dictate that the contract should be terminated?

Look, she told you they extended it because everything owed from the last year was paid up. Even if a contract gets terminated, it doesn't mean you don't owe what you already ran up—you still have to pay.
I can't give you a definitive answer since I don't have my own contract in front of me. Everything you need should be laid out right there in the fine print. 🙂

coppermoose42 said:Look, she told you they extended it because everything owed from the last year was paid up. Even if a contract gets terminated, it doesn't mean you don't owe what you already ran up—you still have to pay.
I can't give you a definitive answer since I don't have my own contract in front of me. Everything you need should be laid out right there in the fine print. 🙂

Right, the debts were cleared following the notice of seizure—and the whole mess started because payments weren't being made regularly, which triggers a contract termination according to the fine print.
The issue isn't about paying off the debt that accrued; it’s about why it happened in the first place—specifically, why the IRS decided to extend the agreement.
What I find really strange is that after they extended the contract, I never received a single late notice or any kind of warning about being in arrears.

Kenneth Allen11 said:Right, the debts were cleared following the notice of seizure—and the whole mess started because payments weren't being made regularly, which triggers a contract termination according to the fine print.
The issue isn't about paying off the debt that accrued; it’s about why it happened in the first place—specifically, why the IRS decided to extend the agreement.
What I find really strange is that after they extended the contract, I never received a single late notice or any kind of warning about being in arrears.

So, get this—a colleague of mine just got hit with a judgment because his assets were seized over some supplemental fees. He decided to fight it, and honestly, I can hardly wrap my head around it, but the court actually ruled in his favor at the appellate level! Apparently, they weren't legally allowed to just automatically extend his contract like that. We're talking about debts dating all the way back to 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. Since the 2009 stuff was already past the statute of limitations, and the rest was thrown out too... HEHE, I seriously can't believe it. I know I've seen some news segments on TV about this before—something about legal disputes surrounding those automatic extensions.

John Clark6 said:So, get this—a colleague of mine just got hit with a judgment because his assets were seized over some supplemental fees. He decided to fight it, and honestly, I can hardly wrap my head around it, but the court actually ruled in his favor at the appellate level! Apparently, they weren't legally allowed to just automatically extend his contract like that. We're talking about debts dating all the way back to 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. Since the 2009 stuff was already past the statute of limitations, and the rest was thrown out too... HEHE, I seriously can't believe it. I know I've seen some news segments on TV about this before—something about legal disputes surrounding those automatic extensions.

So, there might actually be a chance for me. Does anyone happen to know what the legal fees for a fight like that look like? I want to make sure the cost of fighting it doesn't end up being more than the actual amount they're trying to collect (roughly $333).
What’s the standard procedure for filing an appeal?

coppermoose42 said:The thing is, the notary isn't going to do that for you. You're the one who has to go after them to get reimbursed for what you paid on their behalf. And no, you can't change the law because it's actually pretty straightforward. Why would a creditor want to rely on a bunch of debtors who probably won't pay? It’s much smarter for them to just pick whoever actually has the cash and collect from them. Just look at it from the creditor's perspective. This isn't just about notaries either; it applies to almost any contract with multiple debtors.

Perhaps I shouldn't have settled the full amount upfront. If I hadn't, how would a notary even handle it? They would have no way of knowing my financial standing, nor would they know which specific party to serve with a collection notice. It would likely just end up back in litigation...

feraltinker8 said:Perhaps I shouldn't have settled the full amount upfront. If I hadn't, how would a notary even handle it? They would have no way of knowing my financial standing, nor would they know which specific party to serve with a collection notice. It would likely just end up back in litigation...

The law is pretty clear: a creditor can demand full payment from any one of the joint debtors until the debt is totally cleared—so yeah, we're back to square one again. 😉