[pandmel]

I received a settlement check and release from American Coradius International's attorney yesterday. In short order they wanted me to release them of all claims and not provide the same. I will be posting sometime today a copy of their proposed agreement here and a run down why I did not sign it.

They even tried to stipulate any future claims. I wrote void across it and ripped their check(s) and sent it back in their FedEx Envelope. They would not provide me with a copy of the agreement prior to sending it to me. I knew what it would say prior to opening it, I have had prior dealings with their attorney and he has tried this crap before. I played fair with these fools and at every turn and they just keep trying to throw gas on the fire. I really don't understand their motives unless he is just trying to generate more fees for himself?

My instructions to them were to forward to me all monies due under the agreement. I was in the process of negotiating with Chase a settlement with them to accept an amount without all of the fees etc, but they sent two checks one for the settlement and one to pay their client for the full amount!! With instructions from their attorney on his letter head to forward payment to Chase, this attorney may not regularly attempt to collect debts but he does sue occasionally for collection agencies and defends them on FDCPA claims. I have alleged in an email to him this was an attempt to collect a debt and his actions were "flat-rating" and I know for a fact at the time he sent the letter he had no knowledge of this alleged debt other than it was disputed by me to their client.

On the flat rating issue can anybody point me to any case law in the 11th?

[centex]

Why did you not simply hold on to the check, make the necessary changes and return the unsigned agreement...the check could have been held in abeyance pending their agreement to the revised terms. That is what *most* people in the legal realm would have done, either by fax or phone.

The release of all claims language is generally couched in such a manner as to apply to the matter at hand, not other debts that they may seek to collect from you in the future. That is pretty much standard in ANY settlement, not just in the debt arena.

But, hey...you go on trying to play attorney and acting in a juvenile fashion.

[boyblue_77]

Originally Posted by centex

But, hey...you go on trying to play attorney and acting in a juvenile fashion.

No need to be rude and "high and mighty" with your answer.

[pandmel]

Originally Posted by centex

The release of all claims language is generally couched in such a manner as to apply to the matter at hand, not other debts that they may seek to collect from you in the future. That is pretty much standard in ANY settlement, not just in the debt arena.

That is correct but a one sided release does not accomplish much. It released me from future claims but did not release them. They did not even sign it. Also they were to forward to me a sum certain and instead they forwarded two checks on to me and one to me and Chase. That was not what we had agreed upon verbally or by email. It was to be a release of all claim by both side not just me releasing them.

So to maintain the checks was not appropriate when they were issued substantially different than what was agreed to.

My question proffered was on the flat rating issue, is there any known case law in the 11th that addresses it?

Thanks in advance,

Pandmel

[pandmel]

Originally Posted by boyblue_77

No need to be rude and "high and mighty" with your answer.

That is the standard, I have gotten used to it. Even from the old AOC days, any opinion that is contrary to the voices that prevail is infantile and wrong and not subject to debate.

Pandmel

[boyblue_77]

Originally Posted by pandmel

That is the standard, I have gotten used to it. Even from the old AOC days, any opinion that is contrary to the voices that prevail is infantile and wrong and not subject to debate.

Pandmel

Unfortunately, it is the standard especially online conversations, as people tend to hide behind their computer screens and would never say such things face-to-face. But it still irritates the hell out of me. It's like elementary school all over again.

[centex]

If you would step back and view the situation in the same detached manner as counsel, then you would understand the basis for the comment.

As to whether you believe I would not say the same thing face to face, then I can assure you, boyblue_77, that you are very much mistaken. Those that I have dealt with from here in other-than-online manners of communication can assure you that I am equally as blunt when not hacking away at a computer.

[spinn]

Originally Posted by centex

Why did you not simply hold on to the check, make the necessary changes and return the unsigned agreement...the check could have been held in abeyance pending their agreement to the revised terms. That is what *most* people in the legal realm would have done, either by fax or phone.

The release of all claims language is generally couched in such a manner as to apply to the matter at hand, not other debts that they may seek to collect from you in the future. That is pretty much standard in ANY settlement, not just in the debt arena.

But, hey...you go on trying to play attorney and acting in a juvenile fashion.

Why do only the attorneys....with all the advantages in the world, up to and including benefit of the doubt from judges, get to play petty little mind games?

And isnt it the epitome of juvenile to promise one thing and send another hoping to trick your opponent because you lost?

[Qtip]

I think that centex provides, right down to the point advice. However, the forum is about helping people and I can only picture a new member reading the juvenile comment and not posting in fear that someone will rip them a new one.

I think the leas sophisticated consumer, should always come to mind. Unfortunatelly there are not enough consumer attorneys taking this type of cases and most of us have to play attorneys allot of the time. Either that or simply allow the CA's to run you over. No way around it!

Only with guidance and experience, we will not look foolish when representing ourselfs. Lets stay ontrack as we seem to be moving towards a flame and that will not help anyone.

[hannah]

Pandmel, you are right that they were playing games with you but Centex, does have a point. You could have held the check until you received a settlement agreement more to your liking. Their counsel was hoping that with check in hand you would be more inclined at this time of the year to cash it instead of ripping it up and a lot of people would have done so. Kudos for not backing down.

That said, write out an agreement you would be comfortable with and send it to them with a space for counsel's signature. Accompany that with a letter stating that upon their signing the agreement and with another check, you will consider the matter closed. If there is anything in your settlement agreement they don't like, I am sure you will hear about it. You would be in a better position had you kept the check without cashing it as you could have stated that upon their agreement to your terms you will cash the check and consider the matter closed. Don't be obnoxious or scathing in your letter to them, be direct, to the point, and as calm as bath water. You have done a great job to this point, don't napalm your end to this now.

And indeed, Centex is as blunt in person as she is in her answers on this and other forums...you always know what she is about which is a plus is this world IMHO.

[pandmel]

I just posted a sample of the calls I had with them on my blog. I really don't know why these people are screwing around. Any how, any information on "flat-rating" available? Case law in the 11th? I am coming up blank.

Pandmel

[hannah]

Originally Posted by pandmel

Any how, any information on "flat-rating" available? Case law in the 11th? I am coming up blank.

Pandmel

Nothing in Florida or 11th. Here is a document list of all federal cases that came up on LN under the search term "flat rating". If there are any there you'd like to take a gander at, let me know...

[pandmel]

Thanks,

Their attorney has replied now that he heard a snippet of the recording or them breaking the law. It may not be necessary at this point.

Thanks for your help. If I do need it I will send you a pm.

Looks like a very Merry Christmas around the pandmel residence.

Pandmel

[centex]

Originally Posted by pandmel

Case law in the 11th? I am coming up blank.

The reality is that there are lots of area of law that never make it to trial, and absent trial decisions, you will have no Opinions, and hence no caselaw on the subject.

Some arguments are made by the tried and true art of boot strapping from another Circuit or jurisditcion, while others depend on the use of oral argument or stunning written abilities to truly make a compelling presence in favor of whatever one wants the Court to agree with.

The ability to actually argue effectively a position requires that one be able to pick apart and respond to positions on both sides of the filing. You always need to be in a position to anticipate what your opponent is going to do next...and once that ability has been demonstrated, one will have become an effective litigator.

[roybean]

Yes, Panmel; and I especially know if you read my thread about Botch attorney; I have had to count, breath slowly, say a prayer, all of the above because I wanted to smack the hell out of him. No, no, I want to beat the crap out of his behind. Ok, Ok, I am kool now....

You should have jsut held the check and made the revisions, initialed your changes and faxed it back to them. When I have negotiated settlements we usually go back and forth with things they want or what I want or what we both will agree to.

You have to take the emotion out of this and you could have put the agreement here on the board so we could look at and help you make some adjustments before you fired it back to the attorney. Now it's no telling how long before you get another check and it is the holiday.

Would have been a nice little Xmas present.

[hannah]

Just one more thing, simply having the check in hand does not constitute a done deal...the check must be cashed and the funds clear before a contract is completed. You could have held the check forever and until you cashed it, your agreement is not legal and binding whether you signed the agreement or not. For a contract to be valid, there must be an agreement (an offer and an acceptance), consideration (value given in return for a promise), contractual capacity (standing and legality), and be formed for a legal purpose. Normally to finalize or discharge a contract, all parties must perform the acts promised in the contract. Performance is based on conditions and if the conditions are not fulfilled, the contract is not complete or valid. (Yes, I am learning stuff in school... )