Wage garnishments and collections

cosmicmoose2 said:I'm not entirely sure I follow what you're asking... I mean, if there's absolutely no legal agreement and this resident is just staying in the owner's place without any official lease filed with the city or the IRS, how on earth did the water company even find out about them to issue a garnishment order in the first place?

With a standard lease, you can totally agree that the tenant covers extra utilities on top of the rent. But if the responsibility stays with the landlord, then you need to file a formal appeal against that decision. You have to point out that the creditor has zero authority to pursue a garnishment against someone who shouldn't be on the hook...

I guess I'm just as confused as everyone else here. If that's really the situation, how did they even link those debts to that person? That feels like the missing link in the whole thing.

It’s not some missing link... I just think they haven't told us the whole story yet 🙂

John Clark6 said:They absolutely can—provided the Contract specifically transfers all rights and obligations to a new user. For instance, if someone was previously responsible for water usage and trash collection fees while leasing a property, those duties can be shifted. I suppose the key thing here is ensuring the new tenant is officially registered as the responsible party. At the end of the day, it really comes down to whose name was actually printed on the billing statements... it’s pretty much obvious who is meant to be paying!

And honestly, the Public Utility Law doesn't even apply to this situation... that's really just relevant when you're dealing with municipal service fees or water management levies.

Actually, it does. Section 20, subsection 1 lists all the covered services, and subsection 5 states the owner is responsible for paying them.

Let me break this down. We're talking about a married couple. The wife owns the condo outright (the building isn't officially recorded in the county deed office yet, so there’s no formal title, just a purchase agreement naming her as the sole buyer). On the tenant agreement signed by the residents, her husband's name was listed, so I'm guessing the resident rep sent that over to Berkshire Hathaway, and they logged him as the owner and the guy responsible for the bills. Now they're hitting him with charges dating back from 2001 to 2009, even though he hasn't lived at that address since June 2004.

Back in 2012, they updated the billing info themselves, so the accounts have been in the wife's name ever since.

What kind of tenant agreement are we even talking about if she’s the sole owner?
Based on what you're telling me, there's zero way for anyone to give you actual, solid advice here...
That process server basically has two choices: either settle up the debt or grab all the paperwork and head straight to a lawyer to see if there's any legitimate ground for an appeal.

Hello there. I am looking for some advice... I have outstanding debt with my Diner's Club card and AT&T. Naturally, they have passed the debt along to a collection agency, and now I am receiving threats that they will attempt to collect the full amount at once (which is impossible! My paycheck is only $1000) just so I can get by...
What I am wondering is, if I were to make monthly payments, even if it was just around $167, could they still move forward with garnishment? If I keep making regular payments, there is a record showing that I am trying to pay something, no matter how small! I simply cannot afford everything at once. Should I head to court first? Will they come for my wages, or could they actually take my car?
Thank you

Just set up an installment plan and please—don't try to be a smart aleck about it... oh wait, I actually have a car, haha... seriously though, just agree to the monthly payments and stick to them so the costs don't spiral completely out of control... goodness gracious...

I’m not trying to act like an expert here! Look, I have a car that I use to get to work so I can earn minimum wage, which isn't even enough to cover my bills! It's entirely my own fault for not being more financially savvy. I'm just looking for some advice: if I start making small payments toward what I owe, am I going to risk getting my wages garnished?

silverbear56 said:I’m not trying to act like an expert here! Look, I have a car that I use to get to work so I can earn minimum wage, which isn't even enough to cover my bills! It's entirely my own fault for not being more financially savvy. I'm just looking for some advice: if I start making small payments toward what I owe, am I going to risk getting my wages garnished?

Whether they actually pull the trigger and ruin you or not really comes down to the people you owe money to—those who are threatening you in the first place. If you can reach an agreement and stick strictly to a repayment plan, then they shouldn't be initiating any garnishments... sending love your way. And honestly, don't just throw random amounts at them; you really need to sit down and hammer out a formal agreement first.

silverbear56 said:I’m not trying to act like an expert here! Look, I have a car that I use to get to work so I can earn minimum wage, which isn't even enough to cover my bills! It's entirely my own fault for not being more financially savvy. I'm just looking for some advice: if I start making small payments toward what I owe, am I going to risk getting my wages garnished?

Yeah, they absolutely can. Your best bet is to draft a formal letter and try to negotiate a payment plan, but honestly... that all depends on whether they feel like playing nice.
They could legally garnish up to a third of your paycheck, so maybe try to settle on something around $500— $333 just so the payments don't completely crush you.

Maybe if they actually raised taxes to normal levels like we see in other developed countries, then they could finally start treating debtors according to their actual circumstances. Everything else they’re doing right now just feels pathetic.

Sent from my Android using Reddit

Thanks for all the input... I have one more question regarding this judgment: do I need to head to court first, or will they come straight for my paycheck?

Look, if you decide to file a formal complaint, it goes straight to court—and once that ruling becomes final, they head right over to the bank to collect, and from there, the whole process moves forward... essentially, that's how they get paid. I guess it would be helpful if you could just tell us what your actual end goal is? That way, we can give you some real advice instead of guessing—because, honestly, I think I’m starting to see where you're going with all these questions...

Dennis Jackson6 said:Maybe if they actually raised taxes to normal levels like we see in other developed countries, then they could finally start treating debtors according to their actual circumstances. Everything else they’re doing right now just feels pathetic.

Sent from my Android using Reddit

We can dream all we want about getting a raise... personally, I just want to get out from under my debt, but in America, you basically have to starve yourself until the next paycheck just to stay current on what you owe.

John Clark6 said:Look, if you decide to file a formal complaint, it goes straight to court—and once that ruling becomes final, they head right over to the bank to collect, and from there, the whole process moves forward... essentially, that's how they get paid. I guess it would be helpful if you could just tell us what your actual end goal is? That way, we can give you some real advice instead of guessing—because, honestly, I think I’m starting to see where you're going with all these questions...

Look, it's obvious we don't all have the exact same rights. I have a friend who actually works at a major bank, and she told me personally that while foreclosure or garnishment is possible, it usually doesn't happen if you aren't ignoring them for months or even a year... but she also emphasized that making *any* kind of payment makes a huge difference. If there are absolutely zero payments being made, that’s a whole different story, because once a payment history exists, they can't just trigger an immediate seizure! That is exactly why I posted this question here, but it seems everyone has a different opinion on how the process works. In my specific situation, Discover is obviously going to try to demand the full balance or maybe offer a three-month installment plan at $1000, but my paycheck is actually less than that amount.

I hate to be the one to say this—and I really do—but I’m starting to worry you might actually find better advice lurking on the forums (which, let's be honest, isn't exactly a gold standard either!) than from your own rambling theories that don't seem to have much substance... at least, that's my impression based on your last post...

silverbear56 said:We can dream all we want about getting a raise... personally, I just want to get out from under my debt, but in America, you basically have to starve yourself until the next paycheck just to stay current on what you owe.

I know. That’s why I say 😢 It’s honestly pathetic how they ruin people's lives 😢

Sent from my Android using Reddit

silverbear56 said:Look, it's obvious we don't all have the exact same rights. I have a friend who actually works at a major bank, and she told me personally that while foreclosure or garnishment is possible, it usually doesn't happen if you aren't ignoring them for months or even a year... but she also emphasized that making *any* kind of payment makes a huge difference. If there are absolutely zero payments being made, that’s a whole different story, because once a payment history exists, they can't just trigger an immediate seizure! That is exactly why I posted this question here, but it seems everyone has a different opinion on how the process works. In my specific situation, Discover is obviously going to try to demand the full balance or maybe offer a three-month installment plan at $1000, but my paycheck is actually less than that amount.

How old is that Citibank debt anyway?
I've pulled people out of impossible garnishments by dragging the process until the court order was vacated. Don't get too excited, though—those cases make up less than 1% of what happens. It’s not about denying the debt; it’s purely about procedural errors. For example, one guy had his garbage collection fine overturned simply because he proved in court that the sanitation crew didn't actually drive his route. Literally. Sanitation can't prove anything except that they have a schedule. Just throw some news clippings in there showing they missed pickups during a snowstorm and you're set.
The employees at the local water utility are so incompetent they don't even update their records for installed meters. Compare the serial number on your meter to the one on your bill. Match? 80% chance they won't. If the serial numbers don't match, then technically, that bill isn't yours (this doesn't apply to those big apartment complexes in Washington, D.C., where the water bill comes bundled with the Berkshire Hathaway management fee).
Yeah, sure... looking at credit card debt... let's assume you aren't the only one... swiping cards for all kinds of useless crap. jbmu, is it really that hard to pay the utilities first and divide the rest into daily spending limits? Make a grocery list. But no... some mindless consumer sees something on sale and suddenly they need it. Pure consumer psychology.

Greetings. I have a question regarding a specific situation: Is it possible for someone to face foreclosure on an apartment provided by the city of Washington, D.C. through a social housing lease? Under the established rates, the monthly rent isn't particularly high, and I am able to cover it consistently using funds from a protected account, along with my other living expenses.

If the city of Washington, D.C. owns the apartment, it’s a non-starter.

Hello,
A close contact of mine ran into a bizarre situation involving a well-known law firm and a major US telecom provider. I'm looking for some guidance.
The individual tried to sign a contract for phone services today, but was told they had outstanding debts and were directed to a law office. According to them, the debt dates back to the early 2000s and has already been settled. Now, they're being charged for collection costs despite having paid off the full amount previously.
Even if that weren't the case, how is it possible for a debt from a law firm to sit untouched since 2007? No one reached out, no notices were sent, and no collections were initiated. It’s just sat there for over nine years without anyone doing anything about it.

What is the statute of limitations in a case like this? To be clear, the person I'm talking about insists the debt shouldn't have existed in the first place, let alone remained open for this long. This involves an elderly person, and I'm worried they might be getting manipulated or scammed by this law firm. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance.