centex

Best way to get that in writing is to engage the attorney you spoke with...most institutions reply very quickly to letters from counsel, especially when counsel is known for BK filings.

The moment they tried to jack the APR is the precise moment I would have walked on the deal. Toyota dealers are not quite a dime a dozen, but you can locate several nickels within driving distance...

Allowing the issue to fester COULD also result in a uptick in the amount of escrow that will be required. Is it really worth risking your home to play letter games? Consider this the penalty for not keeping up with something that is a recurring matter that should be on the calendar and then make yourself a regular at the civic meetings if there are any questions about the notices. Very few people ever bother to attend those meetings even though that is where things are put on the floor and passed that impact things as mundane as what day you can mow your yard or whether you can keep a vehicle in the driveway.

Before doing ANYTHING...HAS she shopped at Bealls in the recent past? Think for a moment how many people only hear the 'would you like to save 10% today...blah blah blah' without thinking about it being no different than any other application for credit. If she has NOT shopped at Bealls in the recent past, and I guess specifically on August 8, then yeah, move to the prospective ID theft/fraud steps...

Responsible consumers know that APR doesn't matter. It is all about the benefits. For those who, for whatever reason, elected to revolve a balance, the APR has ALWAYS been known to the consumer. But because we had people who won't read the Agreements they enter into, we now have to see crap in ~96x fonts...and then the consumer STILL cries.

"specialize in" does not mean "exclusively works."

Except that you ALSO told them to threaten claims for 'sewer service' when there is no showing that service was improper to begin with. There is a growing trend on the boards to encourage people to pursue litigation that has no real basis in law. The "other side" has caught on and won't hesitate to *Admin and our Terms of Service prohibit profanity*slap someone with a Motion for Sanctions. At least you are not one of the ones trying to tell people that attorneys will take the case on contingency 'because fees can be awarded.' That one frustrates me to read perhaps even more than frivolous litigation because too many people don't realize that attorneys have bills to pay and that the failure to pay them can result in Bar sanctions. Further, a settled case rarely comes with fees because there WAS no judgment award...consumer law is NOT like personal injury litigation where the deep pocket insurance carriers will often settle for policy cap and the attorney keeps 40%.

Don't be like the idiot in the other thread and make assumptions. There has been no showing in either thread of improper service, and in this instance, it actually complicates matters for the OP given that the hospital HAD a family address. Further, where someone goes in for treatment and KNOWS the address is not current, they run the risk of being slapped with an 'unclean hands' reply to a Motion alleging improper service. After all, in such an instance, the fundamental claim would likely be the Respondent's actions directly contributed to a need to seek alternate service (and that would only be if Local Rules did not permit service to a family member at the address supplied BY the Respondent. OP needs to pony up for counsel OR just pay off the claim...

You keep making assumptions about facts not in evidence. I will not be surprised to see that this was a case with duly authorized alternate service which is, in fact, service...perhaps even TIMELY service. Which means that an Order setting aside the original judgment, if that was even entertained brings things back to the beginning. But after eleven years, expect laches to apply to any Motion in the first place... There is a reason people try not to go off half-cocked when necessary pieces of the puzzle have not been advanced...

This must only be on the AU accounts with charges or else only some of the products. I've not seen an AU appear on my Juny accounts...but then again, I never let them have the actual card.

Only seems appropriate...that location will ALWAYS be Bill's Gamblin' Hall and Saloon to me anyhow, and kids shouldn't be in a saloon (and yes, I know it was the Barbary Coast before it was Bill's but I was never out that way prior to Bill's).

Prompt effort at service would shoot down your claim. I find it difficult to believe that New York, as screwed up as they are, is going to be substantially different than other jurisdictions. It would therefore be incumbent upon the Respondent to assert that due diligence did not exist in their receipt of service. I'm not going to waste my time briefing the matter. Not my circus and not my clowns. But you keep going with your non-practitioning self...consider yourself fortunate that you don't have the malpractice liabilities.

https://www2.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/opinions/51paxton/rq/2020/pdf/RQ0385KP.pdf Fresh off the press is the request for Opinion related to credit reporting on medical issues. Actual Opinion likely will not be out for a few months if recent history holds true.

Loans don't just go poof because a school went poof. In some instances, the feds have stepped in and directed some manner of relief. However, in this case, it appears to have been AFTER you were done there, so you have not been harmed. Your relief would not be the same as a student AT the school might expect had they been in attendance when the school ceased to operate (or was folded into some other entity). I will bow out of any discussion that surrounds simply walking away. I cannot concur with the ethics of such an action.

Who knew that Derrick had moved into buildings for salespeople don't sell so good...