jidteach said:codename47 said:[Lemme guess, small claims court?Worse than that: Landlord/Tenant court in Manhattan.

Those judges are idiots. I used to have contact with some of them. A lot of them are elected, and most of them are not particularly good lawyers.

codename47 said:Crazytree, what scoreboard. Can you produce one case that you have won regarding consumer law?

couple million dollars over the last two years... all through settlements, with one appealed to the CA Supreme Court which is now the controlling case in the state relating to that particular area of consumer law.

Confused. Did the OP say why he didnt charge the dental bill to his AMEX or VISA preventing it from going to collection?

Once upon a time...there was the thought to just pay your bill to protect ones credit and if there was a dispute to later try and get it back. But with the thieves of late...once they get the money this is a very difficult task. But in the days of integrity and honesty many, many years ago the correct way was to pay and to litigate it back later.

I do believe in the future no one will be able to buy or sell without a number....but this is for another thread not even appropriate for the Fatwallet Forum.

ES

codename if you are an attorney (not an armchair advokat) then you would know that is not even admissable as an argument...

as far as the state of the mentality that has degraded from "back in the day"....I disagree with you about the effect that ethics and honesty have upon todays justifications for holding a creditor hostage with non payment of an entire debt because of an alledged dispute.

Yes...I am lover not a fighter...and I personally know through thousands of cases that this is the best policy for me and I have received more enrichment with this policy.

ES

codename47 said:Once upon a time...there was the thought to just pay your bill to protect ones credit and if there was a dispute to later try and get it back. But with the thieves of late...once they get the money this is a very difficult task. But in the days of integrity and honesty many, many years ago the correct way was to pay and to litigate it back later.
Yes, there was that theory. It was dumb then and it is dumb now. The first thing they will say when you dispute is "if you didn't owe it, then why did you pay it?" which suggests the better theory of "Don't pay things that you don't owe" might work better in the long run.

Integrity and honesty have nothing to do with it. It is just plain common sense injected with a little testosterone that unfortunately most people don't have today. People don't like to fight anymore.

Folks,

Sometimes, it is the best to just pay the entire amount and get a refund later...this way no one can hold you hostage first and you have less longer lasting skin in the game...(take the monkey off of your back, while you continue to "fight" as codename puts it)

ES

codename if you are an attorney (not an armchair advokat) then you would know that is not even admissable as an argument...
I am not an atty, I just sue people. If you are an atty, surely you've heard of the terms account stated and the doctrine of Estoppel. It IS an admissable argument, under the doctrine of estoppel by silence/deed.

Debt collectors have codified this under the theory of an "account stated." Collectors use it all the time. "We sent him a stack of bills and he never objected, he even paid some of them!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Account_stated

Often the account stated is a bill, invoice or a summary of invoices, signed by the customer or sent to the customer who pays part or all of it without protest.[1]An account stated may also be established when the debtor retains the statement of account (for example the bill or invoice) without objecting, for an unreasonable length of time.

Paying things you don't owe puts you at an incredibly weak position and casts doubt on your argument that you didn't owe it. That's like pleading guilty to shenanigans in an airport men's room and then denying it later. It doesn't make sense. Again, I recognize that innocent people may plead guilty and people may pay things that they don't owe out of fear/not knowing what to do, but advocating such a risky approach is foolishness. Don't plead guilty to crimes you didn't commit, and don't pay debts you don't owe.

Sometimes, it is the best to just pay the entire amount and get a refund later...this way no one can hold you hostage first and you have less longer lasting skin in the game...
You won't be getting a refund later. Just man up, hoist the black flag and get down to business at the first call or letter. They don't need to hold you hostage, they already got the money and you won't be getting it back without a lawsuit. Just sue them after you get a few violations and you don't have to worry about it or get the amount that you are harmed in actual damages. Juries HATE debt collectors and the CRA's.


If you dispute a debt send a certified letter together with what you believe that you owe. You can withold what is in dispute, but be prepared to suffer the consequences if you are proven incorrect.
What consequences? More calls and letters? Come on. I would argue that if they got part of the debt wrong, they may have gotten the whole thing wrong and I need to see a complete account of the debt from 0 to the present amount including all debits, credits, charges, offsets, etc...

many attorneys can capilalize on this sort of emotion and can "collect" a lot of fee's.
Oh, I have seen that before. That is why most smart collectors settle VERY early and don't put up a fight. It isn't worth it. Makes a compelling argument to sue pro-se

codename47 said:Did the OP say why he didnt charge the dental bill to his AMEX or VISA preventing it from going to collection?
Maybe because he didn't think he owed it?

He never paid fully the original $1000 despite signing the "receipt." Some portion of his bad debt is valid. He now most likely has a lower FICO score. He mentioned trying to obtain a loan for a condo. Therefore, his credit score was currently very important. It would have been wise to protect it until the loan was completed. It appears the OP had the means to satisfy the dentist's bill. The extra dental work was unexpected and, yes, unfortunate but it evidently was deemed necessary by two dentists. The work would have to be done eventually. Again, he could have used the AMEX and made payments and earned the Cash Back reward.

I know it's too late for this but it's worth bringing out.

Edit- I am surprised the dentist wouldnt accept monthly payments especially when considering the final bill was more than expected.

codename47 said:Why when he may be able to pay cash for the condo when it is all said and done. If you consider protection paying extortion or amounts that you don't owe, that can get expensive.I see we've gone lightyears beyond the $10k guarantee.

codename47 said: What the collector reported was not accurate,

Which at this point is unproven.