Can a company sue me simply to recoup the cost of suing me?

[Akicita]

First of all, yes they can. Second:
Reading is FUNdamental.

Reading IS fundamental. Read on, and you'd see that suing me after two months of non-payment is the crux of my question, since I *had* made every payment. They were claiming to the court they had not been paid, when they had.

 

[justalayman]

was the payment arrangement in writing? If not and you cannot support an agreement for the payment arrangement, I think you might lose.



If there is no accepted payment agreement, they can sue you at anytime prior to the account being paid in full regardless what payments you have been making. Since they did file prior to the account was paid off, those fees would be valid.


If you can support you complied with an acknowledged arrangement, I suspect you will win.

 

[Dave1952]

We've not read what the other side alleges in their complaint but you have. What's their underlying complaint.
What you posted sounds like you were supposed to repay the entire loan in 30 days but instead you took months. That would certainly explain why they got a lawyer a month after you did not finish repayment. I'm left wondering how you could think that you had months to pay off when they expected payment in a month.
Who wrote the loan contract? Was there a monthly payment amount specified in the contract. How long were you supposed to make payments according to the contract?

Good luck

 

[TigerD]

They filed the suit paperwork during the first two months, based on a preemptive assumption they would not be paid. As a matter of pure serendipity, I wasn't ever served any notice about it until, as I mentioned, the final month of my payment. (To me, that makes it even stranger: they allowed their file to persist even though they continued to receive my monthly payments before I was ever served notice of their intent to sue! So in other words, they knew full well they were being paid; they couldn't have been mistaken about that, nor believed they needed to sue to motivate me to pay).

No they filed suit when you ceasing paying and you dodged service for seven months.

The firm disputes this. They agree that I've made payments equal to the amount of the entire original bill plus interest, but they say that since it cost a few hundred dollars to file a suit I should still pay them for that. They continue to send me invoices on the amount I owe them for suing me for the debt I've 100% paid.

They are right and you owe the money. What I think happened is you didn't feel motivate to pay until you found out a process server was looking for you and you made payments. Then you slipped up and he got you before you evaded.

DC

 

[Country Living]

Reading IS fundamental. Read on, and you'd see that suing me after two months of non-payment is the crux of my question, since I *had* made every payment. They were claiming to the court they had not been paid, when they had.

I hate to split the proverbial hairs on this... did you make the required amount of payment on or prior to the payment date. No late payments? Anything paid in a grace period is considered late.

 

[CameronNewport]

if the balance is not paid in full in the first 30 days

This seems to imply that the entire $6000 was supposed to be paid within the first 30 days. Is that true, or were you expressly granted the option to pay down the balance on a monthly basis?

 

[justalayman]

This seems to imply that the entire $6000 was supposed to be paid within the first 30 days. Is that true, or were you expressly granted the option to pay down the balance on a monthly basis?

I read that as the original contract between the OP and whoever they owed money to. What it appears to me is there was a subsequent payment arrangement between the OP and the CA once it went to collections. If I'm wrong and there was no subsequent arrangement, then OP loses.

If there was such an arrangement, if OP can prove it and prove they complied with the agreement, OP would likely win. Op isn't very forthcoming with info though so I don't know which it actually is.

 

[Akicita]

No they filed suit when you ceasing paying and you dodged service for seven months.


They are right and you owe the money. What I think happened is you didn't feel motivate to pay until you found out a process server was looking for you and you made payments. Then you slipped up and he got you before you evaded.

DC

I don't think you've read a single word I've written have you? At ANY point, have I given the impression that I "dodged service for seven months"? Because I felt I'd been quite clear that I paid EVERY month--a point I make repeatedly, and which you'd have to TRY to miss in this thread. (And if that wasn't true, I wouldn't claim it here because then none of the advice form the forum would be helpful in the first place, so what'd be the point?)

I also made it clear that they had received every payment except the last one (which I then paid, also on time), BEFORE they served a lawsuit. In fact, I made painstaking points to demonstrate that this is most certainly NOT a case of them lighting a fire under me with a suit to make me pay, and that's what's so bizarre: they'd received every payment, every month, for seven months before I was served at the FINAL month with a suit for not having paid them.

Is this why debt collectors are they way they are--because they don't read a single word of a case before assuming they have facts that are contradicted by every available data? See, that is EXACTLY what I'm dealing with in this suit.

Their complaint on the suit is only a line or two, and it's merely "non-payment of debt." Which they placed before the court after receiving every payment, every month.

 

[TigerD]

I don't think you've read a single word I've written have you? At ANY point, have I given the impression that I "dodged service for seven months"? Because I felt I'd been quite clear that I paid EVERY month--a point I make repeatedly, and which you'd have to TRY to miss in this thread. (And if that wasn't true, I wouldn't claim it here because then none of the advice form the forum would be helpful in the first place, so what'd be the point?)

I also made it clear that they had received every payment except the last one (which I then paid, also on time), BEFORE they served a lawsuit. In fact, I made painstaking points to demonstrate that this is most certainly NOT a case of them lighting a fire under me with a suit to make me pay, and that's what's so bizarre: they'd received every payment, every month, for seven months before I was served at the FINAL month with a suit for not having paid them.

Is this why debt collectors are they way they are--because they don't read a single word of a case before assuming they have facts that are contradicted by every available data? See, that is EXACTLY what I'm dealing with in this suit.

Their complaint on the suit is only a line or two, and it's merely "non-payment of debt." Which they placed before the court after receiving every payment, every month.

1. All debtors lie.
2. You are a debtor.
3. See sentence No. 1.

While I think you have provided the facts that put you in the best light, it is painfully obvious that you have not provided enough information to get an accurate honest response. If you are not doing that intentionally, then you are doing that ignorantly and your problem lies in the fact that you really understand what is happening.

DC

 

[xylene]

They filed the suit paperwork during the first two months, based on a preemptive assumption they would not be paid.

This is the key part of this entire narrative that makes no sense.

Please explain what you mean.

 

[tranquility]

I just re-read the entire thread and I still don't know what the OP is trying to say about what happened. Odd phraseology, lack of time-lines and a certain inability to state things clearly run rampant through the narrative.

If things were as simple as the OP is trying to imply, I would agree the company could not sue him to recoup the cost of suing him. For that to be the case, there would have to be some factors to be true.

1. The OP had accrued a debt for some reason.
2. The OP had paid in a timely manner on all principal and interest and fee amounts owed on that debt.
3. The OP did this since the debt was accrued and based on the original agreement.

Yet, with all the posts seemingly implying exactly that, I'm thinking those things did not occur. If not, then the answer changes.

Of course, it seems as though they not only "can" sue, but "are" suing. The OP will have to be prepared to give his defense or he will lose.

Possible defenses:
1. There is no contractual provision for paying for legal services to collect the debt.
2. The OP never breached the contract which created the debt.
3. Other things such as Statute of Limitations (if applicable).