Consumers who owe credit card debt need to understand that collection attorneys are not prepared to document the money they owe before the court.
Instead these attorneys are banking on the consumer not answering the credit card lawsuit because he or she is "guilty" of owing the debt.
The consumer who intelligently answers his or her summons demanding proper documentation will find credit card debt relief by causing the collection attorney to abandon the case.
Collection attorneys do not get paid until they actually collect money from a debtor.
If a court summons results in the consumer debtor not responding and defaulting, then getting a judgment and subsequently collecting some money is relatively easy.
However, if the debtor disputes the documents, or lack of documentation, in their summons answer, then the attorney must decide whether or not to pursue the case, according to the Credit Card Debt Survival Guide.
Their bank card company client will pay a 30 percent commission to them on what they collect.
30 percent of a $15,000 debt is $4500.
That is less than the minimum $5000 retainer any attorney gets to take on a civil suit for a defendant.
That is not enough time to litigate a victory and make money.
Consequently when a debtor answers their summons, the collection attorney drops the case.
The collection attorney knows the debt dispute will take a lot of time because these card companies are not organized to be able to easily comply with a special request for information on an individual account.
Their degree of automation and lack of clerks working directly with individual credit card accounts make it expensive to compile information about an individual account beyond fetching the current and a few past month's statements.
Original signed contracts do not exist.
A scanned copy of a card application will have to do.
No one working for the company has personal knowledge of any individual accounts.
The court requires the collection attorney to supply an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the account documents furnished and sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the account.
Each collection law firm has only a few attorneys, but many paralegals, who process summonses and the default judgments that result from them.
These firms are not equipped or able to be compensated to actually litigate credit card debt cases.
They could not stay in business if they had to try each case resulting from a summons.
Card contracts contain a clause for attorney fees to be paid by the debtor in a debt collection court case, but individual state laws limit those fees to "reasonable fees.
" California, for example, limits attorney fees to 25 percent of the amount in dispute.
In a $15,000 case that would limit attorney fees to $3750.
Original account documentation does not exist when a collection attorney represents a junk debt buyer.
The original creditor, the credit company, has sold the debt to the junk debt buyer for one-tenth its value and has no reason to take on the difficult task of documenting the debt.
Junk debt buyers tell their attorneys to get out as many summonses as possible, then to go after the debtors who default and do not answer their summons.
If there is an answer demanding proper documentation, the case is dropped.
An article on a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ruling in the Wisconsin Law Journal stated [Palisades Acquisition LLC's, a large junk debt buyer] business model only contemplates obtaining default judgments against debtors, but not actually trying cases.
When [the debtor defendant] appeared for the trial at issue in the article, Palisades dismissed the case.
To a consumer debtor, who cannot pay, receiving a credit card debt summons from a collection law firm can be unnerving.
A consumer can find credit card debt relief by learning what language to use to answer that summons.
Language demanding documentation of the alleged debt will motivate the collection attorney to drop the case.
Instead these attorneys are banking on the consumer not answering the credit card lawsuit because he or she is "guilty" of owing the debt.
The consumer who intelligently answers his or her summons demanding proper documentation will find credit card debt relief by causing the collection attorney to abandon the case.
Collection attorneys do not get paid until they actually collect money from a debtor.
If a court summons results in the consumer debtor not responding and defaulting, then getting a judgment and subsequently collecting some money is relatively easy.
However, if the debtor disputes the documents, or lack of documentation, in their summons answer, then the attorney must decide whether or not to pursue the case, according to the Credit Card Debt Survival Guide.
Their bank card company client will pay a 30 percent commission to them on what they collect.
30 percent of a $15,000 debt is $4500.
That is less than the minimum $5000 retainer any attorney gets to take on a civil suit for a defendant.
That is not enough time to litigate a victory and make money.
Consequently when a debtor answers their summons, the collection attorney drops the case.
The collection attorney knows the debt dispute will take a lot of time because these card companies are not organized to be able to easily comply with a special request for information on an individual account.
Their degree of automation and lack of clerks working directly with individual credit card accounts make it expensive to compile information about an individual account beyond fetching the current and a few past month's statements.
Original signed contracts do not exist.
A scanned copy of a card application will have to do.
No one working for the company has personal knowledge of any individual accounts.
The court requires the collection attorney to supply an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the account documents furnished and sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the account.
Each collection law firm has only a few attorneys, but many paralegals, who process summonses and the default judgments that result from them.
These firms are not equipped or able to be compensated to actually litigate credit card debt cases.
They could not stay in business if they had to try each case resulting from a summons.
Card contracts contain a clause for attorney fees to be paid by the debtor in a debt collection court case, but individual state laws limit those fees to "reasonable fees.
" California, for example, limits attorney fees to 25 percent of the amount in dispute.
In a $15,000 case that would limit attorney fees to $3750.
Original account documentation does not exist when a collection attorney represents a junk debt buyer.
The original creditor, the credit company, has sold the debt to the junk debt buyer for one-tenth its value and has no reason to take on the difficult task of documenting the debt.
Junk debt buyers tell their attorneys to get out as many summonses as possible, then to go after the debtors who default and do not answer their summons.
If there is an answer demanding proper documentation, the case is dropped.
An article on a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ruling in the Wisconsin Law Journal stated [Palisades Acquisition LLC's, a large junk debt buyer] business model only contemplates obtaining default judgments against debtors, but not actually trying cases.
When [the debtor defendant] appeared for the trial at issue in the article, Palisades dismissed the case.
To a consumer debtor, who cannot pay, receiving a credit card debt summons from a collection law firm can be unnerving.
A consumer can find credit card debt relief by learning what language to use to answer that summons.
Language demanding documentation of the alleged debt will motivate the collection attorney to drop the case.
SHARE
