Divorce Mediation
Mediation can be an affordable alternative to traditional divorce. The main difference between mediated and traditional divorce lies in the fact that, in mediation, one neutral mediator negotiates an agreement between the spouses. In traditional divorce, each spouse hires an attorney. The attorneys represent the interests of their own clients, often taking an adversarial approach to the division of marital resources. Both paths to divorce result in a legally enforceable agreement. Spouses must determine for themselves which approach is more appropriate for them, based on their relationship and circumstances.
If a separation is contentious, and the spouses have genuine disputes about the division of assets, the adversarial approach may be the only way finalize the divorce. But not all divorces need to be contentious. If spouses can remain civil with one another, mediation can provide a quicker, cheaper alternative to the traditional two-attorney adversarial process.
First, since in mediation the spouses split the cost of one professional, rather than each hiring their own, the cost of the divorce can be dramatically reduced. Legal fees can easily cost tens of thousands of dollars in a traditional divorce, and can increase if the divorce drags on over time. Mediators can typically offer a flat rate, comparable to what one attorney would charge for an average divorce.
Second, mediation can be much quicker than a traditional divorce. As soon as the mediator memorializes the parties’ agreement and files the necessary court papers, the divorce is essentially complete. The process, then, only needs to last as long as it takes the parties to come to an agreement. In traditional divorce, the process depends upon court appearances, adjournments, and other administrative delays. For couples that want finality quickly, mediation might be the way to go.
In addition to these advantages, mediated divorce can be much less stressful than a drawn out battle. This can be especially advantageous for families. Understandably, many couples are as concerned with the effect their divorce will have on their children as they are with the effect it will on themselves. For spouses that can work with each other, mediated divorce can avoid adding unnecessary stress to an already difficult time in a child’s life.
Mediation is not for everyone. Where real differences exists, mediation will not likely work. But where couples can put their differences aside for the sake of a speedy and peaceful resolution, mediation might be the best way to separate.
If you would like to explore the option of mediated divorce, call the Law Firm of Vaughn, Weber & Prakope, PLLC at 516-858-2620 today. We have experience in divorce and family law, and offer free consultations. We are located in the heart of Nassau County at 393 Jericho Turnpike, Suite 208, Mineola, NY 11501.
Debt Collector Lied to Courts
A New York Federal Court found that a certain debt collector has been lying to courts on a grand scale. The procedure is a little complicated, but an explanation will highlight some of the issues debt collection defendants frequently face. In this particular case, the debt collector essentially manipulated Courts into granting default judgements against defendants that never knew they were being sued, and without proper evidence of the debt that was owed.
The Court found that a Debt Collection agency engaged in what is known as “sewer service.” “Sewer service” occurs when defendants aren’t properly notified that they have to appear in court. After failing to properly notify the borrowers that they had to appear in court, the debt collector would seek a default judgement against the borrower. When the judgement was granted, the debt collector would then submit an affidavit of personal knowledge of the debt. With the affidavits, debt collector employees swear to the courts that they have personal knowledge of the debt owed. In this particular case, the affidavits were actually “robo signed” – that is, they were printed out in batches of fifty. The debt collector employees were only checking one out of each batch.
So, basically, the debt collector sued borrowers without telling them to come to court, then asked the court to sanction the borrowers for failing to appear by entering a default judgement against them. Then, when it came time to prove that the borrower owed money in the first place, the debt collector forged the evidence.
This particular debt collector did this to more than 100,000 borrowers. That’s a big number. It would be comforting to think that this decision would dissuade other debt collectors from taking similar actions, but when so many borrowers don’t even challenge the debt collectors’ tactics, they have every incentive to continue violating the law.
Read more about the case here.
Long Island Litigation Attorneys
If you have questions about your rights against debt collectors, call The Law Firm of Vaughn, Weber & Prakope, PLLC at 516-858-2620 today to schedule a free consultation.
District Attorney’s Offices Allow Debt Collectors to Use Federal Prosecutors’ Letterhead
The New York Times recently ran a story about a disturbing new debt collection practice. Federal Prosecutors are now allowing debt collectors to write collection letters on official Federal Prosecutor letterhead. Underhanded debt collection tactics are nothing new, but this seems particularly problematic.
Debt collection letters are issued before any legal proceeding or investigation has begun. As we have noted, debt collectors often lack the evidence needed to win at trial. Additionally, sometimes borrowers are victims of accounting mistakes, in which case the borrowers don’t owe the debt the collectors are claiming. If debt collectors use Federal Prosecutors’ letterhead, the borrowers may get the impression that their case has already been decided – especially if the letter claims that the borrower must either pay the debt or face jail time. Borrowers may feel that they have no choice but to pay, even though no court proceeding has been filed against them, and even if the debt collector lacks the evidence needed to sustain the case. At the very least, since the letters arrive on Official Federal Prosecutor letterhead, borrowers may believe that Federal Prosecutors have made some minimal investigation into their case, and have decided that the case has merit, when the reality is that the debt collectors have simply been allowed to use official letterhead to scare borrowers.
The important thing to remember is that debt collectors cannot collect debts without a judge’s order. If debt collectors can’t present evidence, provide the borrower with certain information, follow court procedures, and comply with debt collection laws, then they cannot require a borrower to pay a debt, and certainly can’t sent a borrower to jail – no matter what letterhead they use.
If you are being sued by a debt collector, the Law Firm of Vaughn, Weber & Prakope, PLLC may be able to help. If you have questions, call 516-858-2620 today to schedule a free consultation.
Filing Error Prevents Bank from Collecting Debt
Filing Error Prevents Bank From Collecting Debt
Recently, a trial court decided that Citibank could not recover a credit card debt, because its attorney forgot to attach an affidavit to a court filing. The affidavit should have provided the amount of debt the defendant was alleged to have owed. Without an affidavit stating the amount of the debt, the court set the damages at zero.
This case occurred in Arizona. But it highlights the kinds of errors that debt collectors often make when pursuing debts in court. Similar mistakes can prevent collection in New York Courts as well.
Consumer credit defendants are entitled to certain information; and plaintiffs must submit certain documents to the court. These matters can seem very technical, and at times superficial. But the slightest mistake can mean a huge difference for a consumer credit defendant. This is why it is always best to speak with an attorney before settling a credit card debt, either in or out of court.
Litigation Attorneys in Mineola
If you would like to speak to an attorney at The Law Firm of Vaughn, Weber & Prakope, PLLC, call 516-858-2620 for a free consultation.
Keep in Touch