tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI | reply to tc1uscg
Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice
agreed. Might as well keep one person righteous in the family and keep property in "their" name..  |
|
Midak
Doctors suck
Premium
join:2002-02-26
Yonkers, NY
| reply to tc1uscg
If it's not in your name, it's not your property. Also, some states will not allow taking of property if the property is in an additional persons name, not party to the suit. Now, if you think you can do this after you get sued (change title on property) think again. Most states will recognize what's known as fraudulent conveyance, which basically states you changed title on property to avoid paying the judgment. If the judge believes the plaintiff, the property may then be executed upon. As mentioned, check your state laws for specifics.
One example would be CT. Even though there may be a second owner on the property, not party to the suit, a judgment lien could be used to sell 50% of the property, that which is owned by the defendant. This leaves the other party (usually a spouse) now partnered with an unknown third party who just happened to be the highest bidder. Now, if you added your spouse during the suit, fraudulent conveyance could be affirmed by the plaintiff giving them the possibility of selling the home outright.
None of the above can happen without a judgment and that is why you need to fight it. This is why I suggest counter suing no matter what. Make them provide all evidence, including the person they claim downloaded from you, along with the computer that person used. Make them spend the money to go to court against you. Just because the have deep pockets, does not mean they are looking to empty them. |
|
tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI
| reply to Midak
It doesn't get them over. But it does send a statement and if anything, provides a little enjoyment to the payer, not the payee. Now, if most people keep up on the laws in the state which they reside, they may find some states do not allow taking ones property which is not in said person name who is listed in the lawsuit. |
|
hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium
join:2005-06-29
clubs: | reply to Midak
With the way our uneployment is here its not too hard..lol |
|
Midak
Doctors suck
Premium
join:2002-02-26
Yonkers, NY
| reply to hayabusa3303
Ok, now I understand. There is a big difference though between not accepting a payment and not considering a certain amount to be enough to satisfy the terms of repayment. That said, no, you can not just pay $1 a month and consider yourself safe. Yes, they do have to take the $1 and put it toward your balance but they can still do any other post judgment remedies they see fit to collect the full balance up to and including seizure of property (state laws allowing.) SC is one of those states where you would have to bribe a judge to get anything more than voluntary arrangements. |
|
hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium
join:2005-06-29
clubs: | reply to Midak
Say you owe XXX amount to a bill. If they refuse a payment you can take them to court and the judgement will be in your favor(they didnt take the money). For the back that is OWED you dont pay it and its there LOSS. |
|
Midak
Doctors suck
Premium
join:2002-02-26
Yonkers, NY
| reply to hayabusa3303
said by hayabusa3303  :In some states like this one if they refuse a payment you can take them to court and have the bill dropped. Could you clarify this statement? I know for a fact that SC is a consumer/debtor friendly state, difficult to collect on post judgment but getting a judgment was not such an issue. |
|
hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium
join:2005-06-29
clubs: | reply to Midak
In some states like this one if they refuse a payment you can take them to court and have the bill dropped. |
|
Midak
Doctors suck
Premium
join:2002-02-26
Yonkers, NY
| reply to tc1uscg
Not sure why but too many people think this will get them over. Just because you pay them something, does not mean they will consider it acceptable and it most certainly does not mean your wages, bank and real estate can not be hit. Either both parties agree to a payment plan or the judge, in some cases, will set one. |
|
tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI
| reply to hayabusa3303
said by hayabusa3303 :Better yet give them just a dollar a month.  In pennies |
|
Midak
Doctors suck
Premium
join:2002-02-26
Yonkers, NY
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy :Wow! Are you an attorney? Giving advice? with out a disclaimer? Either you are not an attorney, or you need to know better.... Please stop spewing bad advice and providing misinformation. I know better from experience, while your claims are based on who you say you know. Have a nice day.  |
|
Midak
Doctors suck
Premium
join:2002-02-26
Yonkers, NY | reply to Jason Levine
Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice
Agreed. In my business, this is what we hope for. Judgments mean nothing without the cash being paid. Any plaintiff that does this often enough knows it's a gamble going to court, regardless of how strong you feel your case is. |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to Midak
said by Midak :Yes I would. I have been to court more times that I can count and nothing sucks more than to go to court against a pro-se defendant that has a clue what he/she is doing because the judge is always biased in favor of the pro-se defendant who sounds even somewhat credible vs. the big corp with too much money to throw around. I would applaud you then for going to court to fight to clear your good name. Unfortunately, you are in the minority. Most people wouldn't know what they are doing if they went to court.
To the average Joe, a multimillion dollar lawsuit against them coming out of the blue is a very scary thing. They don't know which way to turn or what to do. Their whole life could be ruined. And then the offer comes in from the RIAA's Settlement Center to forget the whole thing for a "mere" $3,000. Sure, it's still a lot of money, but it is less than the millions they could wind up owing and it saves them the time, expense, and stress of an actual lawsuit. So they take the settlement. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to Midak
Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice
Wow! Are you an attorney? Giving advice? with out a disclaimer?
Either you are not an attorney, or you need to know better....
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. |
|
Midak
Doctors suck
Premium
join:2002-02-26
Yonkers, NY
| reply to Jason Levine
said by Jason Levine :They (the RIAA) might not fight the case and just drop it. Or they might decide to make an example of you. Would you be willing to risk the time, energy, and money to fight the case (even if you were innocent)? Yes I would. I have been to court more times that I can count and nothing sucks more than to go to court against a pro-se defendant that has a clue what he/she is doing because the judge is always biased in favor of the pro-se defendant who sounds even somewhat credible vs. the big corp with too much money to throw around. |
|
Kilroy
Premium,MVM
join:2002-11-21
Ann Arbor, MI
 ·WOW Internet and C..
| reply to Nightfall
said by Nightfall :said by PolarBear :ALL of the **AA lawsuits are simply scare tactics. Like a mean dog or a school bully; show them you aren't scared, and they start backing down really quick! I don't mean to laugh at your statement, but I have to. How many lawsuits have the **IA won? NONE. Do you know why none of these cases have been resolved in court? Because if the **IA loses, even one, a precedent is set and this tactic will no longer work.
--
I'm for freedom - go ahead and call me a terrorist. I won't give up my freedom for you to feel safe. |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to Midak
They (the RIAA) might not fight the case and just drop it. Or they might decide to make an example of you. Would you be willing to risk the time, energy, and money to fight the case (even if you were innocent)? I'm not too sure I would. The $3,000 settlement would be a lot of money, but it would mean that it would all go away quickly rather than dragging on. It's sad, but true. And that's the main reason why I think that the penalties need to be changed.
If the fines faced were only $3,000 or so, then I'd bet that the RIAA would be suing a lot less people (based on better information) and the innocent people would be more likely to fight the charges. |
|
