Creditwrench
You were a part of the conversation I spoke of in my last thread. In fact, you were about the only one who had anything useful in the way of replies to the original poster's plea for help. I never actually go to that web site nor ever get on that forum but I monitor it very closely without ever having to actually visit the site. I thought the original poster had two very interesting concepts even though he got shot down like a clay pigeon. He apparently went to the site and asked for help collecting a debt from a deadbeat doctor whom he thought was hiding behind several Delaware Corporations. That's an interesting concept indeed. For the purposes of conversation what would be the outcome if someone actually set up an anonymous Delaware Corporation then with the cooperation of it's customers sued them for some huge amount of money, say upwards of $50,000 for some intangible service they ostensibly contracted for but never paid. The client agrees to a stipulated judgment and the corporation garnishes all wages for the next few years, puts liens on his car(s), boat(s), airplane(s) and real estate. Then when the money starts rolling in from the garnishments the Delaware corporation deducts the expenses and remits the remainder (about 70 to 80 percent) back to the client using postal money orders. Seems to me that could be done with no real problem but how to do it is not the question I pose to you. The question I now pose is the same as the poster had on that other forum where you were so helpful. How could collection agencies or their attorneys prove the sham and how could they pierce the corporate veil and go after the debtor and his assets? Seems to me that would prove extremely difficult to do and could potentially lead to some serious legal consequences for those who tried it.
The concept of piercing the corporate veil usually refers to situations where it is already known that the debtor has his own corporation, has assets and is hiding them from creditors using his own corporation as a shield but that would not be true in the theoretical situation I just outlined. The debtor would not own the corporation and would not be a stockholder or have any financial interest in the corporation.
I'm quite certain that if such a sham operation as that were to be set up and put into operation they would have people willing to testify that the debtor owned no part of the corporation and is not an employee of any kind either. How would you proceed to collect if you ran into such a situation?
Then the poster's question about whether garnishment of a pensioner's pay check would be grounds for an FDCPA lawsuit. Most pensions cannot legally be garnished but I've never seen any law stating that which had any teeth in it. However, FDCPA states that it is illegal to take or threaten to take any action which they had no intention to take or which is illegal for them to take. Seems to me that ought to cover it and easily become the basis for a FDCPA case if garnishment of a pensioner's bank account is accomplished.
Yes, I understand that nobody can garnish the source of the pension but the argument that once the funds hit the pensioner's bank it is then fair game and can be garnished with impunity. Would you please give us your take on that?
Valued Member
Posts: 13
Posts: 13
 | « Reply #8 on: Today at 11:45:59 AM » | |
The concept of piercing the corporate veil usually refers to situations where it is already known that the debtor has his own corporation, has assets and is hiding them from creditors using his own corporation as a shield but that would not be true in the theoretical situation I just outlined. The debtor would not own the corporation and would not be a stockholder or have any financial interest in the corporation.
I'm quite certain that if such a sham operation as that were to be set up and put into operation they would have people willing to testify that the debtor owned no part of the corporation and is not an employee of any kind either. How would you proceed to collect if you ran into such a situation?
Then the poster's question about whether garnishment of a pensioner's pay check would be grounds for an FDCPA lawsuit. Most pensions cannot legally be garnished but I've never seen any law stating that which had any teeth in it. However, FDCPA states that it is illegal to take or threaten to take any action which they had no intention to take or which is illegal for them to take. Seems to me that ought to cover it and easily become the basis for a FDCPA case if garnishment of a pensioner's bank account is accomplished.
Yes, I understand that nobody can garnish the source of the pension but the argument that once the funds hit the pensioner's bank it is then fair game and can be garnished with impunity. Would you please give us your take on that?
posted by TAR at
4:37 PM
2 Comments
