Being sued

P

Prelude2TragedyII

Bluelighter
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
1,206
Okay, I had a lawsuit filed against me by a car company , they told me they had an arrangement for 200$ monthly, I never recieved this arrangement, I was harassed by people calling me telling me to sell my clothes, and sell everything I had since it was more important to pay the bill.

They said 1400, now they want 7800 for the lawsuit, is their anything at all that I can do?
 
Also, Ive been paying 50$ monthly, non-stop, and they sued me because that wasnt part of the agreement.

They have told me Im going to get served, what do I do
 
Okay, Let me try to be a little more clear.

My Car was taken (repo) about a year and a half ago.

I have received letter telling me to make payments on the car.
I have made small payments (25-50$ monthly)
Thats all I can afford.
But I am still being harrassed by them, they have told me that they have told me they filed a lawsuit and are going to sue me.

I called back, asking if I could start making 200$ payments (which is what they wanted, but I never received a letter or signed a paper agreeing to this)
The lady I talked to told me that I can't make these payments, it's too late , I have to make the down payment (She said 1800, but she will help me pay half making it 900), after I told her I cant do that, I asked if I could make the 200$ again, and was told then, that I can make 400$ payments monthly (She told me that I had to goto the court and that Im going to get served), now she is telling me that she can cancel it if I make the 400$ payment

My question is, What do I do?
are they lying/harassing me telling me that I HAVE to make such large payments(That I cant make) or Im going to the court, or are they just telling me that so I will break and pay the 400$.
And, I have been making the 25-50$ payments, can I continue to do that?
 
Okay, I havent found how to edit on this forum for some odd reason, but I wanted to try and make things a little more clear than I had.

My Car was taken about a year and a half ago(Repo)
I have been making 25-50$ payments, but have been told that its not enough.
I was recently called , and told that I have to make 1900$(Which is supposed to be a down payment?)
I discussed that I can not make a large payment like that, but no luck.

I called back asking to make 200$ payments, since thats all I can afford (They were telling me I made an agreement to 200$ before, which I never did, I never signed a paper, and never got a paper telling me about this agreement)
I told them that I never received info about this agreement , and the lady told me "Well , I'm seeing here that the paper wasn't ever sent out about the agreement", about 10 seconds later she says "Well, we don't send out papers about such agreements".

After a long discussion, It came down to her telling me, if I pay 400$ , that I can cancel they can stop the lawsuit against me, I told her again, all I can do is 200$ payments, no success.

So my question is, Can I continue to make 25-50$ payments until they agree upon my 200$ , or do I have to pay the 400$. Is it possible they are just trying to harass me and get all they can out of me? They had called earlier and during the conversation asked where I worked, but then I refused to tell them, and they said "It doesnt matter, we have it all on file anways". Are they just trying to scare me into paying them?


(Yes I know this isn't alot of money,and people are going to say , "Just get 400$ and pay it , it would be easier", but I just got out of some rough places and am finding it hard to make a living for myself)
 
Prelude2TragedyII said:
Okay, I had a lawsuit filed against me by a car company , they told me they had an arrangement for 200$ monthly, I never recieved this arrangement, I was harassed by people calling me telling me to sell my clothes, and sell everything I had since it was more important to pay the bill.

They said 1400, now they want 7800 for the lawsuit, is their anything at all that I can do?
Click to expand...

The first issue: harrasment. Collectors are not allowed to harass you. In fact, it is illegal under federal law. SA has a some great posts on this subject in Second Opinion and thie forum.

The second issue: payments. If you did not agree to the payments, then you are entitled -- under federal law -- to dispute the debt. Here's a form letter that you can use along with some general info to help you get started:

http://www.fair-debt-collection.com/Disputing_Collections/initial-dispute-letter.html
 
Okay, but this Isnt the first time Ive heard from them, Its maybe the 3rd or 4th letter (but I have payed since the first letter)

In the link , it clearely states that this is my first time, which its not.

My problem is more based around payments, I understand and have filed reports to FTC about these people. So I believe I have taken a step in the right direction there.

Now , Im very confused on the payments.
I dont have enough money to afford 400$ monthly (They are telling me this is all they will accept for 3 months, then after three months I will have to pay more untill I can make a down payment to get the payments lowered.

They tell me, to not garnish my wages I have to pay 400$ or make a 1900$ downpayment.

What do I do
 
Yeah , 5 posts in my own thread, I still appologize, Im just stressing out, and keep trying to get different opinions, I sat down and thought about it for a while...

Basically, both parties are wrong.

I failed to contact the creditor after the 30 days of sending me the letter.
But,
The other party harrased me and lied about making agreements for payments that I never agreed to , or even received notice about the agreement.

So, We both are at fault.

I was thinking about calling attorneys or some time of person with knowledge of the law (not sure who to call, Im really young, this is all new to me).

Basically I wanted to dispute whats going on, I was wrong for not calling the creditors, but I believe its wrong of them to demand a large ammount of money that I cant afford,
(the first time I was contacted by letter, I called, and was told that all I can do is pay a lump sum for 1700$ within 7 days, I told them i couldnt do that, called back the next day, was told the same thing, and ignored the letters from there on.)

No calls were recorded, and no one I called worked with me to get a payment that I could agree to with my wage.

The only thing that was documented by a lady I talked to.
What she wrote down was " Pays for rent and storage, sleeps where they can, hung up and said Thanks for your help" , thats what was documented, Basically, I never payed storage, I was staying with my mom and paying rent at the time.

So, Who do I call to defend myself, Are the creditors wrong? and what are they wrong about? What would be the best way to go about this?
 
I don't understand why they expect you to pay for a car that they have repossessed. Did you seriously damage the vehicle while it was in your possession such that its value was nowhere near what you owed on it?
 
Ojom said:
I don't understand why they expect you to pay for a car that they have repossessed.
Click to expand...
Because you have signed a loan/lease agreement. Credit really is as simple as that. The repossession is akin to collections and is likely not carried out by the original lending agency.
 
So when signing a loan/lease agreement, I'm not agreeing to pay for the car, I'm agreeing to pay them some predetermined amount of money because I like giving other people money? I think not.

I'll admit I don't know the details, but it still does NOT make sense to have to pay off a loan for a car you no longer have. If the repossessing of the car did not go to satisfy the money owed on the car that sounds like flat out THEFT. I do understand having to pay off collection fees, difference in value of the vehicle at time of repossesion and (amount loaned - (amount paid - minus interest accrued)).
 
If you entered into a contract with the car company (dealer, leasing company, whoever), you agreed to pay a certain amount of money up front, a certain amount of money each month for the specified amount of months, and if it's a lease, a certain amount of money at the end of the lease term to either turn in the car or buy it from them. You also agreed to late payment fees and most likely to pay for collection costs.

They agreed in return to give you the car. They also kept title to the car, or a lien on the title, until all your payments were satisfied.

At some point you weren't making the payments, and they took the car back so that they'd stop losing money on you and have something to sell or lease to someone else to pay off what you owed them. They value the repossessed car at a certain value. If this is less than the sum total of what you owe them, they can sue you for the rest.

Even if you don't have the car, they're entitled to what they bargained for, which is their profit on the deal, and also to be paid for their trouble trying to chase you down to get this profit.

Imagine this scenario: you collect vinyl records. You have a collection of 100 rare records that you built up over a while. You spent $200 on them over time, but they're worth $1000 on the open market now. You want a big TV, so you decide to sell the records for $1000. But the buyer doesn't have that much, so you take $100 down and $100 a month for 10 months. I.e., you are being paid $100 interest for having to wait 10 months to get all your money. You agree that if the buyer doesn't make the payments, you can take the records back - you would sell them to someone else, keep what you're owed, and if there's any left over, you would give it to the original buyer. Then you buy the TV and agree to make monthly payments on it, part of which will come from the record buyer's payments.

The buyer pays for three months, and then stops. Now you're in a jam, because you still have to make the payments on the TV. So you take the records back. But some of them are scratched or missing their jackets. You can sell them now for only $400. This means you have $400 from the original buyer, and $400 from the new buyer. It cost you another $100 to take back the records and resell them. Your original deal was to get you $1100 for the records, and you now have only $700 after expenses. The original buyer still owes you $400 even though he no longer has the records.

This is just a rough example. The car company probably biases the contract so that if you stop paying, you get socked with heavy penalties and they end up with more money than they bargained for. But you agreed to that when you entered into the contract to begin with, and they really don't want to be doing this, they probably make more than enough money on the original deal compared to what they'll make from from repossessing a car and going after you.
 
Last edited:
^ Let me add that the above assumes you actually entered into the car purchase or lease agreement they're trying to collect on, and that this agreement is legal.

It's a little unclear whether they have been asking you to pay more than you originally agreed. I have the impression that the agreement required you to make payments of a certain amount, but you could only afford to make a smaller payment and that's why they repossessed your car. But if I'm wrong, make sure you check out the link that Banquo posted about disputing the debt (you should check it out regardless).
 
It makes sense that they are still able to collect some money even after repossessing the car. New cars lose some value as soon as you take ownership of it. Some of the price paid is pure profit for the dealer as well, rather than value relating to the car. I just don't see why they have to be such asshats about collecting so much money so quickly. And since in this case the posters credit is probably shot anyway, and the debt collection agency is unwilling to work with me in what I can pay, I'd force them to put a garnishment on my wages.

It still sounds like the collection people are trying to collect an absurd amount of money for a repossesed vehicle. The original poster hasn't stated for how many months they want him to make payments, but $400 a month adds up quick. What did he do, buy a hummer, or was it a lexus SUV? Maybe a porsche boxter?
 
It was a small car, not a bad price for the vehicle , I owe 7,400
(Owed any who, now I owe 9,000 after they did all their work to sue me)
they want payments of 400$ for 3 months, then they want to raise it to 475 every month after...

And as for Johnny, you pretty much hit the nail on the head.
So , where should I go from here?

The above poster is talking about Garnishing my wages, what would be the benifits , what actions do I take to do this?
 
I'm not really contributing a lot to helping you, but I just don't understand how you can owe that much money still on a car thats been repossessed. Something does not seem right about this situation. Are you sure the car was not just outright stolen from you? Because thats what it sounds like to me.

Was the initial loan for $7400? Shouldn't you owe significantly less than that if the car was repossessed?
 
ok SA has already linked to some information you need to get to and research. but a quick and easy answer, without delving into specifics is to tell you YOU have the upper hand. you have the money. all they can do is keep selling the loan for pennies.

from now on out, no phone calls. you inform them you will only work through certified mail. get an address. send something stating the amount you can afford and the amount in full you are willing to pay. give them a specific time frame where upon you expect an answer or else you will allow it to go to collections. if it seems as though you are attempting to work this out, it is likely they will work for you. just save EVERYTHING. if you have a contract deciding upon a set amount that is official, then...... they either break that, or do not remove this from your credit report, you have the proof that will easily win your case when you bring this to court.

credit hassles are uber tough, much tougher than a thread can do justice. you need to do a lot of research or find someone close to you who really knows what they are doing.
 
Ojom said:
it still does NOT make sense to have to pay off a loan for a car you no longer have. If the repossessing of the car did not go to satisfy the money owed on the car that sounds like flat out THEFT. I do understand having to pay off collection fees, difference in value of the vehicle at time of repossesion and (amount loaned - (amount paid - minus interest accrued)).
Click to expand...

As you and Johnny alluded to, the issue partly lies in the difference between a secured loan and an unsecured. Here, one of loan conditions was offering the car as collateral, or security, for the debt. If the debtor defaults, then the secured property becomes the creditor's.

Many things for which a person takes a loan, like a car, depriciate over time. In this instance, presumably, the car is not worth the full value of the debt -- especially when considering interest and the low amount paid. The debtor can become personally liable for the remaining amount, depending on the terms of the agreement.

Had this been an unsecured loan -- not guaranteed by the car -- then (1) the loan probably would have not been possible or (2) the interest rate would have been much higher.
 
Johnny1 said:
If you entered into a contract with the car company (dealer, leasing company, whoever), you agreed to pay a certain amount of money up front, a certain amount of money each month for the specified amount of months, and if it's a lease, a certain amount of money at the end of the lease term to either turn in the car or buy it from them. You also agreed to late payment fees and most likely to pay for collection costs.

They agreed in return to give you the car. They also kept title to the car, or a lien on the title, until all your payments were satisfied.

At some point you weren't making the payments, and they took the car back so that they'd stop losing money on you and have something to sell or lease to someone else to pay off what you owed them. They value the repossessed car at a certain value. If this is less than the sum total of what you owe them, they can sue you for the rest.

Even if you don't have the car, they're entitled to what they bargained for, which is their profit on the deal, and also to be paid for their trouble trying to chase you down to get this profit.

Imagine this scenario: you collect vinyl records. You have a collection of 100 rare records that you built up over a while. You spent $200 on them over time, but they're worth $1000 on the open market now. You want a big TV, so you decide to sell the records for $1000. But the buyer doesn't have that much, so you take $100 down and $100 a month for 10 months. I.e., you are being paid $100 interest for having to wait 10 months to get all your money. You agree that if the buyer doesn't make the payments, you can take the records back - you would sell them to someone else, keep what you're owed, and if there's any left over, you would give it to the original buyer. Then you buy the TV and agree to make monthly payments on it, part of which will come from the record buyer's payments.

The buyer pays for three months, and then stops. Now you're in a jam, because you still have to make the payments on the TV. So you take the records back. But some of them are scratched or missing their jackets. You can sell them now for only $400. This means you have $400 from the original buyer, and $400 from the new buyer. It cost you another $100 to take back the records and resell them. Your original deal was to get you $1100 for the records, and you now have only $700 after expenses. The original buyer still owes you $400 even though he no longer has the records.

This is just a rough example. The car company probably biases the contract so that if you stop paying, you get socked with heavy penalties and they end up with more money than they bargained for. But you agreed to that when you entered into the contract to begin with, and they really don't want to be doing this, they probably make more than enough money on the original deal compared to what they'll make from from repossessing a car and going after you.
Click to expand...

I was gonna say, Johnny, your example is incredibly sympathetic to the car dealership. I'd go as far as to say that while 9/10 people will pay their lease without issue, that last 10% is simply the risk of entering into a business such as this. The car dealership needs to just cut its losses and carry on with their otherwise lucrative business.
 
Banquo said:
As you and Johnny alluded to, the issue partly lies in the difference between a secured loan and an unsecured. Here, one of loan conditions was offering the car as collateral, or security, for the debt. If the debtor defaults, then the secured property becomes the creditor's.

Many things for which a person takes a loan, like a car, depriciate over time. In this instance, presumably, the car is not worth the full value of the debt -- especially when considering interest and the low amount paid. The debtor can become personally liable for the remaining amount, depending on the terms of the agreement.

Had this been an unsecured loan -- not guaranteed by the car -- then (1) the loan probably would have not been possible or (2) the interest rate would have been much higher.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm being naive, but it sounds like they're willingly gouging this poor guy and letting a signed piece of paper act as their moral compass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top