Question/Bankruptcy

[hAKEEM]

If you co-signed for a car for and individual and they get behind in payments and the car is repo and now you received a letter from the banks attorney that they are garnishing your check b/c of the individual you help get the car file for bankruptcy what can you do to put a stop on the granishment. You moved and you see this person everyday and they dont tell you aything until you receive the garnishment.

[mr.yet]

They have to have a judgment against you to garnish your account.

File Motion to Quash garnishment, lack of proper service , Lack Subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, for starters.

[charlesa6]

[quote=hAKEEM]

If you co-signed for a car for and individual and they get behind in payments and the car is repo and now you received a letter from the banks attorney that they are garnishing your check b/c of the individual you help get the car file for bankruptcy what can you do to put a stop on the granishment.

Don’t panic, they have to get judgment first and then file motion for asset discovery before any garnishment take place. Let them proof their claims first upon relief can be granted. No proof. No claims.

You moved and you see this person everyday and they dont tell you aything until you receive the garnishment.

Yeah, that is life, you learn from your mistakes.

[mrg]

Hakeem,

Is all you got was a letter from a sheisster?

Look online at your circuit court's clek of court website to see if there is any docket listing for actions taken against you.

Have they filed anything?

If not, and if the letter threatens that they are about to garnish, then they have likely violated FDCPA by making threats that they cannot legally make.

They cannot threaten to or claim that they are garnishing your check w/o due process.

Are they garnishing?

[hAKEEM]

Went to court to stop a garnishment which they won a judgement by misleading the courts with proper service. So we file a motion to devault judgement(dismiss) b/c Lack of proper service.


What amazed me is all they do is file an affidavit seeking judgement and the judge grants judgement especially if you dont show and one Lady showed and disagreed and the judge say just talk with counsel(who is seeking judgement) to discuss the numbers.

So it was my brother turn one thing I told him is do not discuss the debt. The orignal attorney did not show some othe lawyer did in her behalf. He said he seeking to garnish his wages . The judge said Oh you file a motion what is this you wrote on the docket. Mybrother respond I was not served properly I did not and never live there they mislead the courts. The judge stop him said oh lack of proper service. Then the other attorney said he is the co-signer and some more blah blah but the judge stop him and said we have witnesses here now(judges look to my brother) There is something that just came down from the supreme court you have to file a motion this way now maybe you can get with counsel and he can show you how. I said no way then I was told to shut up or leave. So my brother took the motion and we file it next court date is Jan we will win b/c the judge have to dismiss their judgement they won by misleading the courts. We sentit certify mail all I can say is he has not been garnish yet. Oh the only thing my brother said was yeah I co-signed but was never inform of her bankrupcty or outstand debt. So that all attorney got it noted he said that but we wanted to stop the garnishment and we did for now.

[charlesa6]

Good job. As long as you are not giving up, you wil do just fine.

[ndusa]

Originally Posted by hAKEEM

If you co-signed for a car for and individual and they get behind in payments and the car is repo and now you received a letter from the banks attorney that they are garnishing your check b/c of the individual you help get the car file for bankruptcy what can you do to put a stop on the granishment. You moved and you see this person everyday and they dont tell you aything until you receive the garnishment.

Seems to me when you signed your John Henery to the page you damned yourself. Doesn't matter if the person goes bankrupt, just quits paying, ect..., you signed it, and now when it goes south, a chance you took signing it, you don't think you owe. Man, I wouldn't trust some of you people that come in here!

[hAKEEM]

we never siad we did not ower we were stoping a garnishment that was won improperly get your facts straight. He recieved it at work stated next week his wages will be taken so would you allow this certainly we did not. We just wanted to stop the garnish and he is going to join him-self to her bankruptcy as a creditor. Please read carefully before you comment

[ndusa]

Originally Posted by hAKEEM

we never siad we did not ower we were stoping a garnishment that was won improperly get your facts straight. He recieved it at work stated next week his wages will be taken so would you allow this certainly we did not. We just wanted to stop the garnish and he is going to join him-self to her bankruptcy as a creditor. Please read carefully before you comment

Get YOUR facts strait. YOU clearly imply that you are not making payments, and this then resulted in your garnishment. HAD YOU BEEN MAKING YOUR PAYMENTS, GARNISHMENT WOULD NOT BE NECISARY.

The question I have, is what the heck is the difference? Is there a reason you don't want garnishment(perhaps so you can skip payments). Should have thought about this before payments became deliquent. I'm positive you were notified when the other person failed to make the first payment.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by ndusa

He has.

You absolutely positive you have?

I think he is correct, and that you must have misread his posts.

Can you point out exactly where he "clearly implied" he was "not making payments?"

How is "clarity" included within the term "imply?"

He seems to "clearly imply" a potential willingness to stay in honor, just did not want to submit to arbitrary garnishment without due process of law.

Is that unreasonable?

How were they his payments?

Why are you YELLING?

Due process of law?

Now that is how to "imply" something!

Again, due process of law?

Or perhaps he considers it more honorable to make equitable arrangements when noticed without being blindsided by an unnecessary, unlawful, and arbitrary enforcement?

Did he not "clearly imply" he did not know?

How can you be "positive" he was "notified," when he "clearly implied" he was not?

Were you there?

Did you serve notice?

Good post though, very helpful, I am "positive" hAKEEM will be very grateful.

Seems like he is doing ok though.

Good for you hAKEEM.