Wage garnishments and collections

I'm a walking example of that... You just need to study the laws properly and stay one step ahead of the collectors.

rapidskipper12 said:I'm a walking example of that... You just need to study the laws properly and stay one step ahead of the collectors.

And that’s exactly the catch... you have to be one step ahead!
My comment and question were actually aimed at those who somehow managed to pull something off even while being "a step behind." It would be fair if they shared at least a little something—for the people who are driven mad by injustice and simply don't know what to do next!
Personally, I don't have any issues with collections, though judging by this thread and everyone else's experiences, you never know which year some demon might suddenly teleport itself into the present day!
Anyway... I feel like we all need to help each other out somehow, even if it's just offering a bit of comfort!
Here is what I can offer: I happened to catch a brief article in the paper today while I was out and about. It claims there's a change in the law that supposedly went into effect yesterday... Apparently, regarding all these different service providers, they will soon be required to provide a clear breakdown of what those "fancy bundled packages" actually cost!
If it's true and the law actually holds up... hats off to them. At least it might help for the future..!

Hello! Quick question. Does the notary drafting an enforcement proposal have to be the one with jurisdiction over the debtor's residence, or does that even matter? For example, is it legally fine if a notary from Oakland sends an enforcement proposal to someone living in San Jose? I used to work for a company that handled their own collections, and I know the woman in charge always insisted on using a notary based on the debtor's address.

rowdypilot18 said:Following this thread... honestly... it makes me sick.
It feels like we’re actually turning into modern-day slaves!🙂
Maybe someone who actually managed to win a fight for justice could inject a little optimism here...
But have there been any? Anyone out there who filed an Appeal, a petition, or even just a complaint and actually achieved something?.. A bit of closure, or at least some relief from the misery?..

I did. The garnishment started in 2011. By using administrative freezes and redirecting the garnished portion of my paycheck to a trusted person's account, I prevented the money from bleeding out. Total garnished so far: $6.75.
I drafted the Appeal to the county court myself, and the garnishment was overturned because the creditor screwed up the procedure. The creditor sent a review to the Supreme Court, which in my opinion should fail anyway—even if the court decides to deliberate, legally there's nothing to discuss because the creditor messed up.
Two months ago, that same trusted person blocked my account and assets with a fictitious garnishment.
It took me six months of studying the Obligations Act and enforcement laws to figure this out. My next step is suing the creditor for the recovery of the garnished amount from $6.75 since the garnishment order was vacated.
The problem is that people who get garnished need to hand themselves over without being shot. When they don't, it's not just them who lose—it's also us, because we end up sharing models for escaping garnishment in vain. There is only one relevant group on Facebook that deals specifically with garnishments and escape strategies.
But first off, if you were foolish enough to let the creditor enter those notes and file salary restrictions, not even all of Marvell's heroes can pull you out of those predatory interest rates.

Douglas Green31 said:Hello! Quick question. Does the notary drafting an enforcement proposal have to be the one with jurisdiction over the debtor's residence, or does that even matter? For example, is it legally fine if a notary from Oakland sends an enforcement proposal to someone living in San Jose? I used to work for a company that handled their own collections, and I know the woman in charge always insisted on using a notary based on the debtor's address.

The court must be based on the place of residence, but for notaries, I don't think it matters. So, a notary from a different city can send you a garnishment. On the bright side, notaries have become pretty efficient with this lately; you usually get the proposal within three months at most. Once an objection is filed, the first available court handles it to keep the caseload down.

Hello everyone. I have a question on behalf of my sister.
She just received an enforcement notice from Eos Matrix regarding a debt they purchased from Wells Fargo.
The debt originated somewhere around late 2010 or early 2011 (specifically, an overdraft on her checking account).
Eos Matrix has been relentlessly sending warnings, making threats, and calling her a million times. However, they constantly cite different amounts—one moment the debt was around 14,000 bucks, then suddenly they’re sending notices for $0.83... God only knows.
Now, they’ve submitted a proposal for enforcement for $784.
The actual debt was closer to $5000.
They are citing a debt assignment agreement as the basis for their purchase of the debt, but my sister has never seen such a contract, nor did she ever sign any assignment paperwork.
Basically, we are considering filing an Appeal.
Is it possible this is past the statute of limitations? What exactly is the statute of limitations for debts stemming from a checking account overdraft (believe me, I’ve read through various laws and I just can't make sense of it)? Also, would a different set of laws apply back when the debt was first incurred, given how often regulations change here in the US?

I need some advice: does it make sense to file an Appeal, and if so, what should be the grounds?
The constant discrepancies in the amounts they claim, the questionable assignment agreement, and the possibility of the statute of limitations being met all seem highly suspicious to me.

The statute of limitations is five years, and those deadlines are strictly regulated under the Obligations Act.
When they filed that request for enforcement, they were required to attach a valid document proving the debt exists—so, what exactly does that document say?
And obviously, she can challenge Eos's right to collect in her Appeal, since she was never actually handed a copy of the assignment agreement.

I actually know someone close to me who’s dealing with this exact kind of shady business. She owes money to a Bank, and because she's currently unemployed, they don't have much to grab, but they've been hounding her for months to pay even just a tiny bit. Their whole pitch is that if she makes a payment, it’ll stop the interest from piling up—but the catch is, making that payment would reset the statute of limitations entirely.
But here's the kicker in this whole mess: she recently got an offer from a law firm acting on behalf of the Bank, offering her, for that very same debt, a deal where they'll wipe out all the interest and fees if she agrees to a settlement. This basically proves that Eos didn't even buy the debt; instead, the Bank probably just passed it off to five different collection agencies to see who bites first.
What a circus. 🤣

Jeffrey Booth2 said:Hello everyone. I have a question on behalf of my sister.
She just received an enforcement notice from Eos Matrix regarding a debt they purchased from Wells Fargo.
The debt originated somewhere around late 2010 or early 2011 (specifically, an overdraft on her checking account).
Eos Matrix has been relentlessly sending warnings, making threats, and calling her a million times. However, they constantly cite different amounts—one moment the debt was around 14,000 bucks, then suddenly they’re sending notices for $0.83... God only knows.
Now, they’ve submitted a proposal for enforcement for $784.
The actual debt was closer to $5000.
They are citing a debt assignment agreement as the basis for their purchase of the debt, but my sister has never seen such a contract, nor did she ever sign any assignment paperwork.
Basically, we are considering filing an Appeal.
Is it possible this is past the statute of limitations? What exactly is the statute of limitations for debts stemming from a checking account overdraft (believe me, I’ve read through various laws and I just can't make sense of it)? Also, would a different set of laws apply back when the debt was first incurred, given how often regulations change here in the US?

I need some advice: does it make sense to file an Appeal, and if so, what should be the grounds?
The constant discrepancies in the amounts they claim, the questionable assignment agreement, and the possibility of the statute of limitations being met all seem highly suspicious to me.

The statute of limitations is governed by the Obligations Act.
If they initiated the enforcement within the timeframe specified by law, there isn't much room for an Appeal based on the statute of limitations because everything was done legally on time.
Honestly, I don't believe a major Bank would ever let a debt like this expire.
I've never heard of that happening.
If the debt started in late 2010 and the statute of limitations is 5 years, then the deadline to start enforcement was the end of 2015. So, it looks like they timed it perfectly.

Once the enforcement order becomes final, a general statute of limitations kicks in, which in this case is 10 years.

And seriously, why hasn't your sister tried to deal with this or work out a settlement with the Bank all these years? Thousands of people do it every day... they know they owe money, they know life happens and they can't pay according to the original terms, so they go to the Bank and cut a deal.

As for the assignment, it sounds legit to me. The Believer (the Bank) transferred the receivables from your sister to another company and sent her a notice about it.
She doesn't need to give consent for that. Legally, all she needs is to be notified that someone else now owns the debt, and she already got that notification.

She should just reach out to the company, give them a call... and try to negotiate something.
Dragging your feet like this only serves to pile on more interest and extra costs.

Besides, how does someone rack up that much debt on a checking account and then assume the Bank is just going to write it off? 🤦
I mean, would your sister lend a neighbor a bunch of cash and then just sit there doing nothing while waiting for them to pay her back?

ruggedmaker2 said:The statute of limitations is governed by the Obligations Act.
If they initiated the enforcement within the timeframe specified by law, there isn't much room for an Appeal based on the statute of limitations because everything was done legally on time.
Honestly, I don't believe a major Bank would ever let a debt like this expire.
I've never heard of that happening.
If the debt started in late 2010 and the statute of limitations is 5 years, then the deadline to start enforcement was the end of 2015. So, it looks like they timed it perfectly.

Once the enforcement order becomes final, a general statute of limitations kicks in, which in this case is 10 years.

And seriously, why hasn't your sister tried to deal with this or work out a settlement with the Bank all these years? Thousands of people do it every day... they know they owe money, they know life happens and they can't pay according to the original terms, so they go to the Bank and cut a deal.

As for the assignment, it sounds legit to me. The Believer (the Bank) transferred the receivables from your sister to another company and sent her a notice about it.
She doesn't need to give consent for that. Legally, all she needs is to be notified that someone else now owns the debt, and she already got that notification.

She should just reach out to the company, give them a call... and try to negotiate something.
Dragging your feet like this only serves to pile on more interest and extra costs.

Besides, how does someone rack up that much debt on a checking account and then assume the Bank is just going to write it off? 🤦
I mean, would your sister lend a neighbor a bunch of cash and then just sit there doing nothing while waiting for them to pay her back?

Well, she did try to negotiate; she paid off part of it. Then, Eos Matrix took over that debt. She was paying them back for a while—whenever she possibly could.

She should just contact the firm, give them a call... and try to settle something.
By stalling and dragging things out, you're only increasing the interest and the total costs.

They are offering her certain incentives if she pays the debt in one lump sum—but that’s simply not an option. Right now, she isn't even in a position to make modest payments; she literally can't afford basic necessities.
Another issue is that she can't get a clear figure from them regarding the total amount owed. She keeps receiving notices in the mail, and every single time, the amount is different. The discrepancies are HUGE. It ranges from a few dollars to nearly $15,000. Even when they call her, she gets different answers over the phone every time.

How does anyone even think they can rack up that much debt on a checking account and assume the Bank will just write it all off? 🤦 Would your sister lend money to a neighbor and then just sit there doing nothing to get it back?

She had a sick child (I won't go into details, it isn't necessary). Her debt isn't just limited to the checking account. She's taken on debt from all sorts of places. Currently, she owes so much that five lifetimes wouldn't be enough to pay it back, so at this point, whether the interest is a thousand dollars more or less doesn't really matter to her.
That is why I am asking this question here. Her only hope is to somehow "slip away" from some of the debt, because paying it off certainly isn't going to happen.

Thank you for the response.

It’s not going anywhere, honestly. From what I can see, everything was handled right on schedule.
Unless you forgot to mention something.

What'll probably happen now is they'll freeze every single one of her bank accounts. Once that hits, she should head down to the IRS to set up a protected account. That way, things like child support, unemployment benefits, and other protected funds can actually land somewhere safe without getting snatched immediately.

Once she finally lands a job, she can just chip away at the debt bit by bit—unless, of course, the whole thing hits the statute of limitations.

Not sure if this has come up on the forum yet:

Anyway, check that site every 10 days...

ruggedmaker2 said:The statute of limitations is governed by the Obligations Act.
If they initiated the enforcement within the timeframe specified by law, there isn't much room for an Appeal based on the statute of limitations because everything was done legally on time.
Honestly, I don't believe a major Bank would ever let a debt like this expire.
I've never heard of that happening.
If the debt started in late 2010 and the statute of limitations is 5 years, then the deadline to start enforcement was the end of 2015. So, it looks like they timed it perfectly.

Once the enforcement order becomes final, a general statute of limitations kicks in, which in this case is 10 years.

And seriously, why hasn't your sister tried to deal with this or work out a settlement with the Bank all these years? Thousands of people do it every day... they know they owe money, they know life happens and they can't pay according to the original terms, so they go to the Bank and cut a deal.

As for the assignment, it sounds legit to me. The Believer (the Bank) transferred the receivables from your sister to another company and sent her a notice about it.
She doesn't need to give consent for that. Legally, all she needs is to be notified that someone else now owns the debt, and she already got that notification.

She should just reach out to the company, give them a call... and try to negotiate something.
Dragging your feet like this only serves to pile on more interest and extra costs.

Besides, how does someone rack up that much debt on a checking account and then assume the Bank is just going to write it off? 🤦
I mean, would your sister lend a neighbor a bunch of cash and then just sit there doing nothing while waiting for them to pay her back?

This qualification is completely useless. I've seen people pull money from American Express and Diners without any issues. $13Hello !!! $40,000. That’s not some small change. You want to tell people they're irresponsible while credit card companies are handing out massive lines of credit like that? What’s the point? Responsibility lies with both sides here. And who even authorized those overdraft limits on checking accounts in the first place? Look at my balance—I'm already in the red. $433Wait, what kind of negative balance? Who even authorized that? Did they just approve it themselves? Then you get to court and the Card institution or the Bank claims the person was being irresponsible, when they were actually the ones who encouraged that behavior in the first place. Would there even be an enforcement if she wasn't allowed to go into the red? No way. Use some common sense.

Look, this is the straight truth.

Back when I was just 19, I had zero issues getting an American Express or a Diners Club card, and over at Chase, they even let me run an overdraft of more than $300 because, you know, on top of my paycheck, I had other income hitting my account, so they basically calculated my whole limit based on that extra cash.

Then, by the time I hit 21, they actually reached out to me themselves—like, they sent me a message saying that based on my salary and how much I was spending (back then, I thought it was so cool to pay for everything with my American Express, so I was pushing through maybe $1333 in monthly transactions), I was eligible for a Gold card. That was after only two years! They were basically offering me a massive spending limit, which I only realized because I asked them, "Why would I even want that?" and they told me, "Well, the limit on that specific card is way higher."

But pretty soon, I realized I was actually paying way too much for all that plastic. And by "pretty soon," I mean right after those first two or three years once I started working steadily and those fancy things like American Express and credit cards just weren't such a big deal to me anymore. So, I canceled everything. When I was in the process of closing accounts or cutting stuff I wasn't using, I was blunt with them; I told them straight up that the problem was I was paying a ton of membership fees and stupid little charges for absolutely nothing.

Before I knew it, they literally started bombarding me. It was constant—free annual fees for both the American Express and the Diners Club, a million different perks, instant express loans without having to visit a branch, the whole nine yards. They hit me via mail, email, phone calls... honestly, it started feeling weird, like I was being harassed. Eventually, I had to start threatening them with legal action just to get them to back off.

So, speaking from firsthand experience, it was a pretty dirty game. I really think the banks are largely to blame here; they're at least fifty-fifty when it comes to how they treat clients, and they should really be looking into every single case individually.

I honestly don't get how a Bank and a credit card company can somehow trick someone into spending way beyond what they actually have.
I mean, what if they approve overdrafts or credit limits... whatever the hell they call all that stuff these days.
It’s not like you *have* to use them. There's no obligation, and you don't get slapped with penalties or anything if you just leave that overdraft sitting there untouched.

Look, I've got a massive overdraft myself, but using it isn't even a thought in my head. I know perfectly well that if I dip into it, it's going to cost me big time down the road.
They aren't handing out those options out of the goodness of their hearts, and they certainly aren't giving them away for free—and they definitely aren't doing it hoping the debt just expires through some statute of limitations.

Every few months, I get calls from some lady over at Chase offering me all sorts of different loans and whatnot... but no thanks. I pass. Every single one of their credit offers is just way too expensive for my liking.

If I ever actually find myself needing a loan, I'll put in the work to hunt down a better deal or shop around at a different Bank. But I am absolutely not taking something just because they decided to throw it in my face.

Tyler Jackson5 said:Hello !!!

Last week, the mailman dropped off an enforcement notice from the utility company regarding some unpaid debt.
I wasn't even home, so he just ripped off the orange cardboard sleeve and handed the envelope to my daughter-in-law without anyone even signing for it.
Is that kind of delivery even legal under the Enforcement Law Jurisdiction???
Second thing: I'm looking through this mess and noticed the seizure proposal based on a credible document was drafted on July 13, 2015, and then the entire file and the enforcement decision itself were also dated July 13, 2015.
Is that actually right???
Third thing: This shipment wasn't sent out until August 7, 2015, but the enforcement was already drawn up on July 13... seems like there might be a catch there, since it's almost a month difference.
And fourth: On July 15, I paid $300 for the gas, so the total debt they're hitting me with is $552, which means the remaining balance is now $252.
Does it make any sense to hand a formal objection to a notary, arguing that the debt is lower than what they claim, while maybe mentioning that the delivery was botched—since the envelope specifically said "personal delivery only."
I'm not disputing the actual debt at all, I just want to buy a little time while I scrape the money together....

Just one quick side note, that envelope with the orange return receipt doesn't strictly have to be delivered "personally" regardless of what it says on the outside...

Look, neither you nor I actually reached that breaking point where we felt this desperate need to milk those perks dry.

The whole thing boils down to the fact that banks basically threw caution to the wind back then. They were taking massive risks by handing out loans, overdrafts, and credit lines to people who barely had a year or two of work experience and absolutely zero assets to their name—stuff I honestly couldn't pay back in my wildest dreams.

Even that overdraft was somehow approved based on some inconsistent, sporadic payments from freelance gigs rather than an actual steady paycheck.

I remember this guy at American Express trying to convince me that if I swapped my basic green card for a Gold one, I could get up to $16667 in credit, and even more, like $33333 with the Gold version (don't quote me on the exact numbers, but that's how he was selling it, acting like the Gold card was just way better and more profitable for me).

So, you tell me—how on earth could they approve all that for someone making my measly $2000 salary with zero net worth and actually expect me to pay it back? It makes no sense. They just took a gamble and figured they'd deal with the fallout whenever it hit the fan.

So, we can't exactly say people are solely to blame for everything that happened, right?
That’s why I said, in my opinion, the blame should be split pretty much fifty-fifty.

You're absolutely right on that point.

It’s honestly just like what we're seeing today with people stuck with those Swiss franc loans; it really goes to show why it's about time we force banks to actually shoulder some of the responsibility instead of just chasing the profits.
In almost everything you deal with in life, you end up getting hit with both the good and the bad—I don't see why these institutions should be any different.

I have a quick question if anyone can help me make sense of this. I just received a ruling and a conclusion from the Commercial Court in San Jose, so let me quote it for you:😛Regarding Judge X and Judge Y in the enforcement case involving Creditor X, represented by Attorney X, against me as the Debtor, it has been decided: the seizure of personal property is suspended. That’s the conclusion, but here is the part I’m really scratching my head over:

The court's accounting department is ordered to pay the remaining balance of the deposited deposit to the creditor's checking account, specifically after all justified and unpaid travel expense receipts have been settled.
Then comes the explanation:

Based on this court's decision number X and Y dated June 1st, 2001, an enforcement was ordered via the sale of the debtor's seized personal property at a first public auction.
On May 15th, 2015, the first public auction was held to sell the debtor's personal property, but it was unsuccessful because there were no interested buyers (honestly, just some old TVs), and the document goes on to say that within 15 days of the auction, no party proposed scheduling a new one. Therefore, based on Article 142, Section 5 of the Enforcement Law Jurisdiction, it was decided as stated in the ruling.
So, does this mean the enforcement process is officially over, or what exactly is the explanation here?

I’ve got a quick question if someone can help me make sense of this. I just received a ruling and a conclusion from the Commercial Court in San Jose, so let me quote it for you:😛Judge X and Judge Y, in an enforcement case involving creditor X represented by attorney Y against me as the debtor, have decided: the seizure of movable property is suspended. That part makes sense, but here is what I’m struggling to wrap my head around:

The court's accounting department is ordered to pay the remaining balance of the deposited down payment to the creditor's checking account, following the reimbursement of all justified and unpaid travel expenses.
Then comes the reasoning:

Based on this court's ruling number X and Y dated June 1, 2001, a seizure was ordered via the sale of the debtor's seized movable property at a first public auction.
On May 15, 2015, the first public auction was held to sell my belongings, but it fell through because nobody showed up to bid (it was just some old TVs, honestly). The document goes on to say that within 15 days of the auction, no party requested a new auction date. Therefore, based on Section 142, Subsection 5 of the Enforcement Law Jurisdiction, it was decided as stated in the ruling.
So, does this mean the whole enforcement process is officially over, or is there more to the story? What’s the actual explanation here?

ruggedmaker2 said:It’s not going anywhere, honestly. From what I can see, everything was handled right on schedule.
Unless you forgot to mention something.

What'll probably happen now is they'll freeze every single one of her bank accounts. Once that hits, she should head down to the IRS to set up a protected account. That way, things like child support, unemployment benefits, and other protected funds can actually land somewhere safe without getting snatched immediately.

Once she finally lands a job, she can just chip away at the debt bit by bit—unless, of course, the whole thing hits the statute of limitations.

It's never going to be collected, since she's already blocked anyway. And with amounts like these, they'll likely never even get around to pursuing collection.

Regarding that statute of limitations—does that ten-year period just expire automatically, or are there specific conditions that have to be met?

cosmicheron22 said:I’ve got a quick question if someone can help me make sense of this. I just received a ruling and a conclusion from the Commercial Court in San Jose, so let me quote it for you:😛Judge X and Judge Y, in an enforcement case involving creditor X represented by attorney Y against me as the debtor, have decided: the seizure of movable property is suspended. That part makes sense, but here is what I’m struggling to wrap my head around:

The court's accounting department is ordered to pay the remaining balance of the deposited down payment to the creditor's checking account, following the reimbursement of all justified and unpaid travel expenses.
Then comes the reasoning:

Based on this court's ruling number X and Y dated June 1, 2001, a seizure was ordered via the sale of the debtor's seized movable property at a first public auction.
On May 15, 2015, the first public auction was held to sell my belongings, but it fell through because nobody showed up to bid (it was just some old TVs, honestly). The document goes on to say that within 15 days of the auction, no party requested a new auction date. Therefore, based on Section 142, Subsection 5 of the Enforcement Law Jurisdiction, it was decided as stated in the ruling.
So, does this mean the whole enforcement process is officially over, or is there more to the story? What’s the actual explanation here?

They're trying to seize an old TV from you? 🤔

Man, it's a good thing they didn't put your underwear up for auction too. 🙏