Wage garnishments and collections

Noah Thompson said:I wouldn't say it's a win for the public. Honestly, I think most people would actually prefer the statute of limitations to kick in sooner rather than later. 😛
plus, it just gives the IRS more time to trigger an audit much later down the road and rack up a massive amount of interest.

just for context, the window for things like phone bills or similar stuff seems about right...

but pushing this tax thing out to 6 years? that's way too long...

You know, you might actually be right there—it seems like the whole goal for Americans has always been to find ways to dodge obligations and just wait for the clock to run out...

John Clark6 said:You know, you might actually be right there—it seems like the whole goal for Americans has always been to find ways to dodge obligations and just wait for the clock to run out...

look, don't get me wrong, I pay my taxes on time.
I'm just saying the reality on the ground is a different story altogether.

John Clark6 said:Has anyone else had a chance to dive into the proposal for the new civil procedure rules? Honestly, it feels like a total mess—just pure nonsense, if you ask me. For instance, they’re suggesting that the first and second-tier courts should now be officially responsible for monitoring statutes of limitations. It seems highly questionable, and frankly, I suspect any ruling that attempts to cover a debt already subject to a statute of limitations would be outright illegal. Under current logic, if a debtor actually pays off a debt that has technically expired, they should have a legal right to get that money back, plus interest. Plus, there's this weird part where, for all debts where proceedings haven't started yet, the statute of limitations period is basically being merged—it goes from a three-year window to a flat six-year absolute limit. I guess, if you look at it from a certain angle, it might actually be smarter to just wait until January 1st, 2017, when these changes finally kick in, before even thinking about initiating an enforcement action.

Could you elaborate on that? In my experience, the court doesn't bother checking if the statute of limitations has passed unless you explicitly raise the issue. And if you do enter into a debate about it, the statute of limitations is automatically waived. You can also initiate a counter-enforcement proceeding to get back what was wrongfully taken from you. However, recovering any other types of losses requires an entirely separate legal process....

Jerry Robinson56 said:Could you elaborate on that? In my experience, the court doesn't bother checking if the statute of limitations has passed unless you explicitly raise the issue. And if you do enter into a debate about it, the statute of limitations is automatically waived. You can also initiate a counter-enforcement proceeding to get back what was wrongfully taken from you. However, recovering any other types of losses requires an entirely separate legal process....

I think both your take and my own confusion are totally valid here! So, just to clarify, we are talking strictly about the statute of limitations regarding taxes (under the General Tax Law)—though now, with the changes, property taxes are stepping in where local utility fees used to be... If you have any interest in the proposed OPZ, you should probably give it a read—perhaps after attending one of those seminars, then we can all figure out what the "typist" actually intended to say... though, well, it’s the same old story, isn't it?
ps. But like I mentioned, it's definitely sitting right there in the proposal...

John Clark6 said:Well, I suppose you could say they're handing out favors to citizens again—mostly because, at this point, most people don't even really need legal counsel regarding statutes of limitations anymore anyway!

Look, let's be real—it's actually the court's duty to assist an unrepresented party, and I'm not trying to sugarcoat anything here. An enforcement creditor definitely doesn't fall into that category. 😁

If they actually want to help people, they'd be better off following the Zoo guidelines and sticking to the deadlines. These current statute of limitations on enforcement actions just don't make any sense to me.

So, I just got hit with a writ of execution based on a court judgment from all the way back in 2006. Since it’s been well over ten years since that ruling was handed down, I was wondering if there's any ground to appeal this based on the statute of limitations?

Here is what I managed to dig up through a quick Google search.
"Claims established by a final court judgment or an order from a competent authority—including court settlements, agreements made before a relevant government body, or notarized documents—are subject to a ten-year statute of limitations, even if the law otherwise provides for a shorter period."

placidgull21 said:So, I just got hit with a writ of execution based on a court judgment from all the way back in 2006. Since it’s been well over ten years since that ruling was handed down, I was wondering if there's any ground to appeal this based on the statute of limitations?

Here is what I managed to dig up through a quick Google search.
"Claims established by a final court judgment or an order from a competent authority—including court settlements, agreements made before a relevant government body, or notarized documents—are subject to a ten-year statute of limitations, even if the law otherwise provides for a shorter period."

Well, you see—it’s not just about the broad strokes! One really has to account for the specific months and days that weren't mentioned in your initial breakdown—and, of course, there's the whole matter regarding the fact that there isn't such a thing as an absolute statute of limitations at the Zoo. I mean, even though those ten-year windows are relevant, one truly needs to interpret the expiration laws with a bit more nuance! Since you kept your explanation so brief—perhaps a little too brief, if I may say so—it's no wonder you received such a blunt response. 🙂

John Clark6 said:Well, you see—it’s not just about the broad strokes! One really has to account for the specific months and days that weren't mentioned in your initial breakdown—and, of course, there's the whole matter regarding the fact that there isn't such a thing as an absolute statute of limitations at the Zoo. I mean, even though those ten-year windows are relevant, one truly needs to interpret the expiration laws with a bit more nuance! Since you kept your explanation so brief—perhaps a little too brief, if I may say so—it's no wonder you received such a blunt response. 🙂

So, ten years have passed (the judgment was back in February 2006), then the law firm filed for a writ of execution in August 2016 (with the ruling coming in October), but in all that time, the lawyers didn't actually take any meaningful action.

placidgull21 said:So, ten years have passed (the judgment was back in February 2006), then the law firm filed for a writ of execution in August 2016 (with the ruling coming in October), but in all that time, the lawyers didn't actually take any meaningful action.

The date the sentence becomes final is what matters. That's when the ten-year statute of limitations clock actually starts ticking.

The fact that someone was keeping such a close eye on the statute of limitations—honestly, it just goes to show that we probably don't need any more details from placidgull21 anyway!

I need some help here. Who should the writ of execution be filed against for unpaid HOA fees if the apartment owner is dead, probate hasn't been settled yet, and the deceased's daughter is still living in the unit?

Hey there.

My mom passed away about a year and a couple of months ago. She was on social assistance. After she died, the bank froze her account and told me they couldn't give me any info until probate was settled. Since I knew the account was overdrawn and she didn't own any property, I never even bothered starting the probate process.

But, those folks at the local social services office kept sending social assistance checks to that frozen account for about six more months—until they called me about six months back asking questions regarding my mom, and finally realized she had passed. They immediately issued a termination order for the benefits. I told them straight up to take it up with the bank for the overpayment because I haven't touched a single cent from that account, nor could I since it's blocked.

Anyway, two weeks ago I get this letter from the social services office basically begging me to pay back an overpayment of roughly $833 ASAP, just because I'm technically the legal heir.
So, it’s not some formal threat of a writ of execution, and it wasn't sent by a legal department—just a social worker.
To me, it seems totally nuts, almost like an App move, but I want to be 100% sure—can they actually start a writ of execution against me as an heir if I never even opened probate?
From what little research I've done into case law and a county court ruling I saw—a succession order can replace an enforcement instrument, but if I don't have one, I don't think they can touch me. Plus, I'm pretty sure I'd still have the right to object based on the fact that I shouldn't inherit more debt than assets.

Thanks.

If you knew your mother was still getting social security benefits, why on earth didn't you notify the SSA that she'd passed? You had to let them know so they’d stop the payments. That was on you.
I’ve got a bad feeling you’re going to end up having to pay that money back out of your own pocket.

Look, when someone passes away, you can't just sit on that info. You have to report it to several different agencies... including the people actually cutting the checks.

Well, strictly speaking, the court handles all of those procedures officially—unless, of course, we're dealing with a case involving a death, in which case everything moves lightning fast... it’s pretty much instantaneous at that point...

Respectfully, I don't think there was even any real need to file reports everywhere. It's handled as part of official duties, just like John Clark6 mentioned..

ruggedmaker2 said:If you knew your mother was still getting social security benefits, why on earth didn't you notify the SSA that she'd passed? You had to let them know so they’d stop the payments. That was on you.
I’ve got a bad feeling you’re going to end up having to pay that money back out of your own pocket.

Look, when someone passes away, you can't just sit on that info. You have to report it to several different agencies... including the people actually cutting the checks.

Why would he even report it? I mean, the money goes straight into her account, not his. That's something you deal with at the bank, not with him.

Honestly, I had absolutely no clue the court even handled stuff like this.
Every single person I know who’s gone through losing a parent—they were all running around carrying death certificates (that's the right term, right?)
In my entire experience, seriously, nobody has ever mentioned anything about involving the court in this whole mess.

But if the court is supposedly responsible, then why the hell didn't they sort this out in the case mentioned above within just a few months?
Can people actually rely on the legal system when things go sideways, or should we all just expect the same headache the original poster is dealing with?

As far as I can tell, the court acts as little more than a middleman in this whole process—just a bridge between the deceased's estate and the notary. Honestly, I don't see why this even lands on the court's desk instead of being handled automatically; if there’s a dispute, the court will step in anyway. As it stands, the court just assembles the file, forwards it to the notary along with any relevant excerpts from the registry, and once it comes back, the probate order is filed away. The real headache is when they have to pull everything out of the archives again because some previously undiscovered assets turn up, forcing them to send it all back to the notary.
And yes, most of the time, the local administrative offices send death certificates straight to the court. Sometimes they don't. And occasionally, notaries will hold onto the final orders if the parties haven't cleared their fees—they basically sit on the paperwork until the check clears.
If you try to file an enforcement motion against a deceased person, the court actually has the right to reject it on the grounds that the individual is passed away. Technically, the motion should be filed in the name of the heir, but... well, good luck navigating that minefield.

Alexander Cruz32 said:Hey there.

My mom passed away about a year and a couple of months ago. She was on social assistance. After she died, the bank froze her account and told me they couldn't give me any info until probate was settled. Since I knew the account was overdrawn and she didn't own any property, I never even bothered starting the probate process.

But, those folks at the local social services office kept sending social assistance checks to that frozen account for about six more months—until they called me about six months back asking questions regarding my mom, and finally realized she had passed. They immediately issued a termination order for the benefits. I told them straight up to take it up with the bank for the overpayment because I haven't touched a single cent from that account, nor could I since it's blocked.

Anyway, two weeks ago I get this letter from the social services office basically begging me to pay back an overpayment of roughly $833 ASAP, just because I'm technically the legal heir.
So, it’s not some formal threat of a writ of execution, and it wasn't sent by a legal department—just a social worker.
To me, it seems totally nuts, almost like an App move, but I want to be 100% sure—can they actually start a writ of execution against me as an heir if I never even opened probate?
From what little research I've done into case law and a county court ruling I saw—a succession order can replace an enforcement instrument, but if I don't have one, I don't think they can touch me. Plus, I'm pretty sure I'd still have the right to object based on the fact that I shouldn't inherit more debt than assets.

Thanks.

It’s definitely an APP move. On what grounds did they decide you're the heir? Just because you're a descendant? That's a stretch...
If you were actually the legal heir—meaning you went through formal probate and accepted the estate—nobody would be "politely asking" you for anything. They'd already have a succession order in hand, which they could use to charge you or even initiate a writ of execution if necessary.

Just write back to them, and make sure it's in writing, stating that no probate proceedings were ever held for the deceased and that there are no heirs. As for those overpayments, tell them to contact the bank where the deceased held the checking account they were making payments to.
It wouldn't hurt to send that via certified mail.

Quick question here... can you actually start an enforcement action using a writ of execution as the underlying document? Let me clarify what I mean...
Say a creditor tries to collect based on a certified document—like an unpaid invoice. The court approves the request and issues a writ of execution, but then the whole enforcement process gets stayed or shut down. Now, my question is: can that creditor take that specific writ of execution from the old case and use it as the legal basis to kick off a brand-new enforcement proceeding? Same debtor, same debt, obviously.