Wage garnishments and collections

Quick question for you guys.

So, basically, about 7 years ago, I lent a chunk of cash to a friend—well, an ex-friend now, obviously😁. We actually had everything notarized, so the contract clearly lays out how he was supposed to pay me back, when, and exactly how much. There wasn't any interest involved because we didn't talk about that; it was just a straight-up favor between buddies.

But, uh, he hasn't exactly stuck to the plan. He tossed a tiny bit into my account once or twice, but the rest? Nothing. Zilch.

In the meantime, the guy has piled up a mountain of debt—some private stuff like credit cards and mismanaged loans, and some business debt through his own companies too. And honestly, he doesn't have any assets to his name.

As of today, he’s totally broke and unemployed, but I did manage to dig up some info suggesting he pulled some cash out and invested it in vacation rentals down by the coast through his father-in-law. I’m pretty sure about one or two of those units are actually his, or at least tied to him—his father-in-law basically spilled the beans, which is what really got me thinking about taking action.

Now, look, I get that realistically I might just have to eat the loss, but what I’m really wondering is—since my debt is the oldest one on the books—do I actually have priority status when it comes to collecting? Like, if there's no other way, can I somehow jump ahead of the big banks and everyone else to get my money?

If I were to, you know, 😁 politely ask him to sign something stating that I get paid first, is that even legally possible?

What’s really eating at me is this looming threat of that new personal bankruptcy law. If that goes through, I’ll be completely screwed, assuming I even had a shot to begin with.

I’m definitely heading to a lawyer, obviously, but before I do, I wanted to see if you guys think I have any chance at all? Even a slim one? Or am I just chasing ghosts here?

Hey everyone, I was wondering if anyone could maybe help me out with a bit of a situation?
My bank account has been totally frozen for like two years now, and while I’m still trying to keep things moving and working, I'm just kind of stuck on how to actually function, you know?
Right now, I'm looking at a debt of about $18,000 for my healthcare and taxes. I've got some work lined up through the end of the year that should bring in somewhere around $37,000 to $45,000, which is great, but I'm curious about how I can get my account unblocked so I can actually start working without the IRS breathing down my neck immediately. I definitely know I have to settle the debt, but I was wondering if there's any way I could pay it off in installments or something similar?
thanks so much!😵

crimsonbadger24 said:Quick question for you guys.

So, basically, about 7 years ago, I lent a chunk of cash to a friend—well, an ex-friend now, obviously😁. We actually had everything notarized, so the contract clearly lays out how he was supposed to pay me back, when, and exactly how much. There wasn't any interest involved because we didn't talk about that; it was just a straight-up favor between buddies.

But, uh, he hasn't exactly stuck to the plan. He tossed a tiny bit into my account once or twice, but the rest? Nothing. Zilch.

In the meantime, the guy has piled up a mountain of debt—some private stuff like credit cards and mismanaged loans, and some business debt through his own companies too. And honestly, he doesn't have any assets to his name.

As of today, he’s totally broke and unemployed, but I did manage to dig up some info suggesting he pulled some cash out and invested it in vacation rentals down by the coast through his father-in-law. I’m pretty sure about one or two of those units are actually his, or at least tied to him—his father-in-law basically spilled the beans, which is what really got me thinking about taking action.

Now, look, I get that realistically I might just have to eat the loss, but what I’m really wondering is—since my debt is the oldest one on the books—do I actually have priority status when it comes to collecting? Like, if there's no other way, can I somehow jump ahead of the big banks and everyone else to get my money?

If I were to, you know, 😁 politely ask him to sign something stating that I get paid first, is that even legally possible?

What’s really eating at me is this looming threat of that new personal bankruptcy law. If that goes through, I’ll be completely screwed, assuming I even had a shot to begin with.

I’m definitely heading to a lawyer, obviously, but before I do, I wanted to see if you guys think I have any chance at all? Even a slim one? Or am I just chasing ghosts here?

🤣🤣

Let’s just say everyone is playing nice and he agrees to sign—how exactly do you think that puts you at the front of the line?
In the official court records, there's a specific order for collections. If you go through the legal system, you can only get to the very end of the queue—assuming the debt hasn't hit the statute of limitations, though you didn't mention when his last payment was made.
The only way you're truly "first" is if he hands you the cash directly.

Melissa Sanders9 said:Hey everyone, I was wondering if anyone could maybe help me out with a bit of a situation?
My bank account has been totally frozen for like two years now, and while I’m still trying to keep things moving and working, I'm just kind of stuck on how to actually function, you know?
Right now, I'm looking at a debt of about $18,000 for my healthcare and taxes. I've got some work lined up through the end of the year that should bring in somewhere around $37,000 to $45,000, which is great, but I'm curious about how I can get my account unblocked so I can actually start working without the IRS breathing down my neck immediately. I definitely know I have to settle the debt, but I was wondering if there's any way I could pay it off in installments or something similar?
thanks so much!😵

Don't take this the wrong way, and it's not just you, but—come on guys, let's try to use some proper grammar.

If the IRS froze your account, they are the only ones who can unfreeze it, and that usually requires paying them off. Since you'll be making more than double what you owe this year, what's the hold-up? 🤷
They used to offer installment plans a year or two ago... I think it was about two years back. Whoever set one up then, set it up. You can always try to reach out for a settlement or file a formal request.

hollowmason64 said:🤣🤣

Let’s just say everyone is playing nice and he agrees to sign—how exactly do you think that puts you at the front of the line?
In the official court records, there's a specific order for collections. If you go through the legal system, you can only get to the very end of the queue—assuming the debt hasn't hit the statute of limitations, though you didn't mention when his last payment was made.
The only way you're truly "first" is if he hands you the cash directly.

Don't take this the wrong way, and it's not just you, but—come on guys, let's try to use some proper grammar.

If the IRS froze your account, they are the only ones who can unfreeze it, and that usually requires paying them off. Since you'll be making more than double what you owe this year, what's the hold-up? 🤷
They used to offer installment plans a year or two ago... I think it was about two years back. Whoever set one up then, set it up. You can always try to reach out for a settlement or file a formal request.

Apparently, you can request an administrative garnishment if he gets a new job.
Like, his boss could be forced to divert a third of his paycheck straight to me to cover this debt, which would technically jump me ahead of everyone else. Or, I guess, there's the logic that since my debt is older than the others, I should naturally be first in line anyway, depending on how the dates shake out.

Honestly, I don't have any beef with him right now; I'm still playing dumb and just sitting here listening to him whine about how he'll pay me back the second he gets the chance.

I actually stumbled onto all this because I'm pretty tight with his father-in-law—we used to vacation together back in the day—so I ended up recommending him to some friends for a summer trip.

Then they tell me they aren't even sure yet if they're staying at his place or at his father-in-law's place in Washington, D.C., since he also runs rentals for him.
And yeah, he only has one father-in-law.😁

The best part is, he's been paying me under the table most of the time; I might have like two actual bank transfers to show for it. He knows I'm too much of a pushover to drag him through the mud, which is why he keeps acting like we're cool.

Personally, I think I'm gonna be totally blunt with the lawyer about how much cash I've already received under the table. I might even list those discounts he gave me back when he ran his own business as part of the debt repayment, just to keep everything transparent. I don't care—I just want him to learn his lesson and pay back what he owes, even if the amount isn't massive (around $4000).

We signed a contract back in 2008 where he promised to settle everything within two years, and if I remember correctly, the statute of limitations is ten years.

I mean, you’re basically forced to file a lawsuit first just to secure a judgment—you know, that enforceable writ—before you can even think about starting any actual collection proceedings... It’s honestly always been a bit baffling to me—if you already have a notarized contract in hand, why on earth do you have to waste all that precious time litigating? You end up essentially proving the exact same thing that is clearly laid out right there in the notarized document (though, I suppose, having the court's backing gives you a much stronger hand in the end).... yeah, the bottom line is that you can't just jump straight to the seizure process without going through the legal motions first.

David Sanders4 said:Hello there.

Back in 2006, I was charged with a criminal offense. A final judgment was handed down in 2009, which included a prison sentence as well as the forfeiture of assets—a fairly significant amount, actually. It wasn't until late 2014 that they finally moved to garnish my wages and freeze my bank accounts...

Is there any chance this could be considered past the statute of limitations?

Just bumping this thread since I haven't heard anything yet... hopefully this document provides some clarity.

It’s all a bit confusing. The Vinkovci Municipal Court originally ruled on the amount, but that decision wasn't actually final at the time; it was part of a retrial. The case was then moved to El Paso Elementary School, where they somehow "overlooked" the forfeiture of the proceeds from the crime (if you can believe that), only for the judgment to become final in 2009 following an appeal...
I still haven't received a response from the Supreme Court regarding my petition....

crimsonbadger24 said:Apparently, you can request an administrative garnishment if he gets a new job.
Like, his boss could be forced to divert a third of his paycheck straight to me to cover this debt, which would technically jump me ahead of everyone else. Or, I guess, there's the logic that since my debt is older than the others, I should naturally be first in line anyway, depending on how the dates shake out.

Honestly, I don't have any beef with him right now; I'm still playing dumb and just sitting here listening to him whine about how he'll pay me back the second he gets the chance.

I actually stumbled onto all this because I'm pretty tight with his father-in-law—we used to vacation together back in the day—so I ended up recommending him to some friends for a summer trip.

Then they tell me they aren't even sure yet if they're staying at his place or at his father-in-law's place in Washington, D.C., since he also runs rentals for him.
And yeah, he only has one father-in-law.😁

The best part is, he's been paying me under the table most of the time; I might have like two actual bank transfers to show for it. He knows I'm too much of a pushover to drag him through the mud, which is why he keeps acting like we're cool.

Personally, I think I'm gonna be totally blunt with the lawyer about how much cash I've already received under the table. I might even list those discounts he gave me back when he ran his own business as part of the debt repayment, just to keep everything transparent. I don't care—I just want him to learn his lesson and pay back what he owes, even if the amount isn't massive (around $4000).

We signed a contract back in 2008 where he promised to settle everything within two years, and if I remember correctly, the statute of limitations is ten years.

Look, "administrative ban" isn't even a real legal thing anymore. It’s just old-school slang people still use, but what they’re actually talking about is a wage garnishment or some other recurring deduction from your paycheck.
For an employer to actually pull a garnishment on your wages, they need a legitimate legal document—like a signed consent form from the debtor—to make it stick.

If you want to see how that consent form is supposed to be laid out according to the federal regulations:

John Clark6 said:I mean, you’re basically forced to file a lawsuit first just to secure a judgment—you know, that enforceable writ—before you can even think about starting any actual collection proceedings... It’s honestly always been a bit baffling to me—if you already have a notarized contract in hand, why on earth do you have to waste all that precious time litigating? You end up essentially proving the exact same thing that is clearly laid out right there in the notarized document (though, I suppose, having the court's backing gives you a much stronger hand in the end).... yeah, the bottom line is that you can't just jump straight to the seizure process without going through the legal motions first.

Man, I was actually counting on you for the answer since you know this stuff firsthand. Thanks for the help.

So, okay, step one is hitting up a lawyer, but then what?
What am I looking at in terms of a ballpark price for the whole ordeal—lawyer fees, court costs, everything—and how long is this whole mess gonna drag on?
I know it’s super tough to give even a rough estimate, but if you could just give me a hint so I know what kind of rabbit hole I'm jumping into, I'd appreciate it.

And also, is there any way I can dodge the whole legal fight by getting him to sign something? Anything at all. I mean, unlike most messy situations, he isn't even trying to deny he owes me money or anything; there aren't even any issues with the guy himself.

John Clark6 said:I mean, you’re basically forced to file a lawsuit first just to secure a judgment—you know, that enforceable writ—before you can even think about starting any actual collection proceedings... It’s honestly always been a bit baffling to me—if you already have a notarized contract in hand, why on earth do you have to waste all that precious time litigating? You end up essentially proving the exact same thing that is clearly laid out right there in the notarized document (though, I suppose, having the court's backing gives you a much stronger hand in the end).... yeah, the bottom line is that you can't just jump straight to the seizure process without going through the legal motions first.

Well, did it ever occur to you that they do that to protect people from being sued over money they already paid back?
I actually went through this myself... luckily, her mom insisted we put down in writing exactly how much cash I had handed over (this friend was traveling abroad at the time), and we literally just scribbled it on the corner of some random folder.

To me, the rule about the bank not releasing seized funds within 60 days makes way less sense. Waiting 30 days felt like an eternity 🙄

Honestly, that just didn't cross my mind at all... but I have to say, it’s a pretty great idea! 🙂

Hey there...

If anyone can point me in the right direction... I recently received a garnishment notice regarding some unpaid debt to Tim Cook. Since I was out of work at the time and didn't have the funds to clear it, I filed an objection. Now, about four months later, I’ve been served with a court summons. In the meantime, I’ve actually started some professional training to get back on my feet, so I was wondering—is it possible to reach out to a law firm and negotiate a payment plan to settle this in installments?

Thanks

hollowmason64 said:Well, did it ever occur to you that they do that to protect people from being sued over money they already paid back?
I actually went through this myself... luckily, her mom insisted we put down in writing exactly how much cash I had handed over (this friend was traveling abroad at the time), and we literally just scribbled it on the corner of some random folder.

To me, the rule about the bank not releasing seized funds within 60 days makes way less sense. Waiting 30 days felt like an eternity 🙄

It might seem pointless if you ignore the fact that the IRS doesn't actually verify whether those seizure documents are even legit.
We’ve had cases where people got hit with seizures based on completely forged paperwork.
All someone had to do was type up some nonsense on their laptop that looked official, slap on a fake stamp, and hand it over to the IRS.

The IRS doesn't give a damn—they just freeze the money and leave the debtor to struggle however they can to prove the document is a total fraud.
Trying to prove that in 30 days? Practically impossible. 60 days feels like a much more reasonable window. (And look, you have to consider how slow things move in this country and all the hoops you have to jump through at different government offices).

But hey, you aren't going to see this reported on the news or discussed on TV. You only hear stuff like this at industry seminars from people who actually work inside the IRS. 😁

hollowmason64 said:Well, did it ever occur to you that they do that to protect people from being sued over money they already paid back?
I actually went through this myself... luckily, her mom insisted we put down in writing exactly how much cash I had handed over (this friend was traveling abroad at the time), and we literally just scribbled it on the corner of some random folder.

To me, the rule about the bank not releasing seized funds within 60 days makes way less sense. Waiting 30 days felt like an eternity 🙄

Okay, fine, I get why that would make sense in certain cases, but why on earth am I being hit with extra fees in a situation like mine?

So, look, there's nothing controversial here—I'm actually on pretty decent terms with the debtor, it's just that he isn't paying me back, even though he promised he would as soon as he started working again.

If I followed this legal process, I'd at least be making sure that once he actually lands a job, I'm the one getting paid, instead of him starting up with those same old excuses about how he has to pay off other creditors first and doesn't have anything left for me (and honestly, this has been dragging on for two years now, which sucks because I actually do believe him, but I can't and won't just forget about this debt, especially since it's super obvious now that his business is doing way better and he pulled some cash out to invest elsewhere while still dodging me by giving me tiny little bits at a time, claiming he's gotta cover payroll or taxes or whatever).

Besides, my debt is the oldest one on the books, and it feels totally unfair that everyone else gets to collect before I do; I mean, logically, you'd think the oldest debts should always be settled first, right?

But instead, I've got to shell out who knows how much more money (only crimsonbadger24 knows, I'm just sitting here waiting for them to reach out 😁 ) and then wait who knows how long (not even crimsonbadger24 knows how long) only to end up feeling like I'm still not even going to be first in line to get my money back.

Hey, so I just cleared one judgment from a local landlord, and now there’s another one hanging over my head... I really want to get this settled, but I’m wondering if it's smarter to just swing by my Chase branch and drop the cash directly into my account to kill it, or if I should deal with the court clerk instead... basically trying to figure out which route is less of a headache. Also, does the bank unfreeze everything immediately once the payment clears, or am I going to be stuck waiting forever before I can actually use my debit card and finally breathe again 😁

Hey everyone, hope you're all doing well.
I’ve got a question regarding collections and some of this legal nonsense.
Basically, I was a customer at a credit card company and ended up owing a few thousand dollars that, due to some really unfortunate circumstances, I just couldn't clear. Now, through a law firm, they're telling me I have eight days to pay off the entire balance in full, or they'll start the garnishment process and—get this—file criminal charges against me for fraud under the penal code.
I tried to emphasize that I've been with the same employer for the last three years and still have my steady income and a solid contract. So, sure, they could technically garnish my wages until I'm basically living on ramen, but still...
I'm going to give them a call today to see if I can work out a settlement, but if that fails, I need to know: can they actually pull this move given the situation? I absolutely cannot afford to have a criminal complaint filed against me.

So, today—March 10, 2015—I got served a municipal court writ of execution from the San Francisco municipal court dated back to November 9, 2000. It says I have exactly 8 days from the date of delivery to pay the creditor the sum of $40, plus whatever costs they tacked on.
The thing is, this Writ of Execution doesn't even list my name, my address, or who the creditor actually is—just some business ID scribbled in by hand. I’ve got an 8-day window to file an objection. It also mentions that the execution can't happen until the writ becomes final; but wait—is a Writ of Execution from 2000 even considered "final" anymore?? What kind of legal status does a document from 15 years ago have when it’s being handed to someone today?? How is this even possible??
Looking through the photocopies they sent—the motion for execution and an excerpt from certified business books—I figured out this is all regarding the San Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni). Apparently, it's about parking tickets—specifically three of them totaling $67, plus some "additional fine" nonsense (not sure what that entails, but it looks like $27 per ticket)—bringing it to $80, plus three warnings which add another $38;
The total claim comes to $184, plus interest calculated from whenever they filed the motion with the court, based on those specs. On top of that, they’re claiming court fees and administrative costs of $40.
Both attached documents are dated October 31, 2000. Problem is, I hadn't even used that last name for over a year back then, and I definitely wasn't living at the address they listed. So, if they were sending warnings back then, there's zero chance I ever saw them.
In the actual municipal court writ of execution, it says I owe the creditor $40. But the $553.50 mentioned in the motion for execution against San Francisco Municipal Railway isn't even listed there. How am I supposed to read that? Did the court only partially accept the motion for execution against San Francisco Municipal Railway??

What's the move here? Who do I complain to? Do I go after the court first, or hit up Muni?
Am I really expected to pay for something that happened 15 years ago that I didn't even know existed?
Do I even owe anything after nearly 15 years?? What happened to the statute of limitations on parking tickets??
When does the statute of limitations kick in for a municipal court writ of execution issued back in 2000?

I honestly cannot believe that both the Supreme Court of the United States and the San Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni) are coming after me 15 years later for parking fines I never knew about because they had the wrong info—and now I'm supposedly on the hook for the principal AND interest??!
Please tell me this isn't real... please tell me the statute of limitations has passed...
:/

I'm just sitting here waiting to see if anyone’s actually gonna bother to reply to me, but hey, might as well try to help you out while I'm at it.

So, check this out, here's the article you were looking for:

http://zakonipropisi.com/hr/zakon/ka...anak-prijevara

Now, you really gotta sit back and think about whether you actually scammed them or anything.
Like, did you mess around with payroll, or fake an ID, or lie to an employer, or whatever else?
And even if you did—and I'm just saying, I don't know—is there actually any proof?😁
If there isn't, then honestly, why are you even sweating it?
And yeah, look, the whole burden of proof is on their side, right? They have to actually come up with hard evidence for whatever they're claiming; they can't just waltz in and file a report without having something to back it up.
I mean, even I know that, and I'm definitely no lawyer, but if one of them does track you down, they'll give you a straight answer, but basically, this is just hanging over your head and you're the only one who really knows if you should be worried or not.😁

John Clark6 said:Honestly, that just didn't cross my mind at all... but I have to say, it’s a pretty great idea! 🙂

Go ahead and laugh if you want, but I was honestly hyperventilating when that notice showed up at my door. 🤣

ruggedmaker2 said:It might seem pointless if you ignore the fact that the IRS doesn't actually verify whether those seizure documents are even legit.
We’ve had cases where people got hit with seizures based on completely forged paperwork.
All someone had to do was type up some nonsense on their laptop that looked official, slap on a fake stamp, and hand it over to the IRS.

The IRS doesn't give a damn—they just freeze the money and leave the debtor to struggle however they can to prove the document is a total fraud.
Trying to prove that in 30 days? Practically impossible. 60 days feels like a much more reasonable window. (And look, you have to consider how slow things move in this country and all the hoops you have to jump through at different government offices).

But hey, you aren't going to see this reported on the news or discussed on TV. You only hear stuff like this at industry seminars from people who actually work inside the IRS. 😁

I mean, I get that the deadline was pushed back because the courts were complaining it wasn't enough time—and I'm not going to get into whether that's a valid excuse or not—but what really gets under my skin is how they can rake in interest on all that massive amount of seized cash during those two months. 😁

crimsonbadger24 said:Okay, fine, I get why that would make sense in certain cases, but why on earth am I being hit with extra fees in a situation like mine?

So, look, there's nothing controversial here—I'm actually on pretty decent terms with the debtor, it's just that he isn't paying me back, even though he promised he would as soon as he started working again.

If I followed this legal process, I'd at least be making sure that once he actually lands a job, I'm the one getting paid, instead of him starting up with those same old excuses about how he has to pay off other creditors first and doesn't have anything left for me (and honestly, this has been dragging on for two years now, which sucks because I actually do believe him, but I can't and won't just forget about this debt, especially since it's super obvious now that his business is doing way better and he pulled some cash out to invest elsewhere while still dodging me by giving me tiny little bits at a time, claiming he's gotta cover payroll or taxes or whatever).

Besides, my debt is the oldest one on the books, and it feels totally unfair that everyone else gets to collect before I do; I mean, logically, you'd think the oldest debts should always be settled first, right?

But instead, I've got to shell out who knows how much more money (only crimsonbadger24 knows, I'm just sitting here waiting for them to reach out 😁 ) and then wait who knows how long (not even crimsonbadger24 knows how long) only to end up feeling like I'm still not even going to be first in line to get my money back.

Well, that wouldn't quite work that way. By that logic, you could just seize someone's assets even if they had already paid you back. How is a clerk at the courthouse or someone at the Federal Reserve supposed to know that?
The fact that your debt is the oldest doesn't affect the order of collection. Everything follows the sequence of when the writ of execution was filed in the registry. Should someone who was more proactive than you get to jump "ahead" of you just because you lent them money first? 🤣
And of course John Clark6 doesn't know when you'll see your money—he isn't carrying his friend's private ledger around in his pocket. Though, if you actually hired him, purely just talking shop here on the forum, he'd probably manage to squeeze out that 😁

hollowmason64 said:Go ahead and laugh if you want, but I was honestly hyperventilating when that notice showed up at my door. 🤣

I mean, I get that the deadline was pushed back because the courts were complaining it wasn't enough time—and I'm not going to get into whether that's a valid excuse or not—but what really gets under my skin is how they can rake in interest on all that massive amount of seized cash during those two months. 😁

Well, that wouldn't quite work that way. By that logic, you could just seize someone's assets even if they had already paid you back. How is a clerk at the courthouse or someone at the Federal Reserve supposed to know that?
The fact that your debt is the oldest doesn't affect the order of collection. Everything follows the sequence of when the writ of execution was filed in the registry. Should someone who was more proactive than you get to jump "ahead" of you just because you lent them money first? 🤣
And of course John Clark6 doesn't know when you'll see your money—he isn't carrying his friend's private ledger around in his pocket. Though, if you actually hired him, purely just talking shop here on the forum, he'd probably manage to squeeze out that 😁

So, I mean, what if we just headed over to the notary today and hammered out some kind of addendum or an amendment to the existing contract? Like, we could have him basically sign off stating that the debt is exactly this much and that much, and then give me the green light to go after it through a writ of execution if things don't work out any other way... or something along those lines, I guess.

Why the hell not? I mean, seriously, what's the big deal? I guess I'm just asking because it seems like everyone’s always looking for some reason to say no when there’s absolutely no reason to hold back, you know? Maybe I'm just being difficult, or maybe I'm just seeing things more clearly than most people around here, who I don't know, are always overthinking every single little thing until it's basically paralyzed by indecision. Honestly, if we're just gonna sit around waiting for the perfect moment or some cosmic sign that everything is absolutely flawless, we might as well just pack it in now. So yeah, why not? Just throw it out there and see what happens, right?
Look, I’m just saying, if you follow any kind of actual common sense—you know, like real-world logic instead of that nonsense they teach in textbooks—the first debt you ever take on is basically the one that comes back around to haunt you first. It’s just how the cycle works, I guess. You pull the trigger on a loan, you set things in motion, and eventually, that original debt finds its way right back to your doorstep. It’s almost poetic, if you think about it, but mostly it just sucks.
Don't you think it’s just absolutely wild that I'm stuck sitting here waiting on my own damn money, all because this guy is busy paying off credit card balances and loans he racked up using cash he basically borrowed from me? Like, seriously, isn't that just beyond messed up?
I mean, look, you’re basically acting like someone who goes out and signs up for a brand-new loan just so they can tell the bank they aren't paying back the old one—like, "hey, I'll settle the new debt first, then maybe I'll get around to the old one." Seriously, just try saying that to a loan officer at Chase and see what happens, right? I guess you’d probably get laughed right out of the building, or maybe just flagged immediately, because honestly, who actually thinks that logic holds any water? It sounds totally delusional if you really stop to think about how the banking system works here.

Look, I’m pretty sure they have no clue, honestly. I actually sat down and mapped out the whole timeline for the proceedings, including the actual process itself and what those legal fees are gonna look like, so if they had even a shred of sense, they could at least give me a ballpark figure.

Look, if I’m being totally honest here, I haven't quite figured out if this guy is actually an accountant or some kind of lawyer—honestly, who even knows anymore?—but he seems like he's got everything under control, you know? Like, he clearly wants to help, at least up to a certain point, and since I’m pretty much guaranteed to end up hiring a real attorney down the road anyway, I figure I might as well let him give me a hand now. I don't need him to start quoting specific sections of the Uniform Commercial Code or pulling out a bunch of legal jargon and stuff, I guess... I just really need to get a general sense of where things stand so I'm not walking into a meeting completely blindfolded.

Look, the court isn't just going to jump on a statute of limitations issue on its own initiative; you actually have to step up and make it part of your argument.
You really need to reach out to the folks over at because they might be able to help you navigate this whole
mess.Check out what they have to say here: