• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About VeraCaUSA

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1,508 profile views
  1. So does New Jersey require a person to file an answer to a foreclosure complaint before it is has even been filed with the Court? The Plaintiff attorney certifies in Complaint of Foreclosure dated September 16th that service of summons was made on Defendant prior to September 16th, which service appears to be certified on October 1st , yet the Complaint of Foreclosure isn't filed with the Court until October 3rd. But in all fairness to the Plaintiff, they did serve notice on the Defendant three years earlier that they considered the loan to be in default even thought the US District Judge which dismissed the consumer's complaint in Federal Court found as the trier of fact that the consumer was current at the time of the default notice. So if a summons isn't issued after the complaint is filed then wouldn't the Plaintiff would be perpetrating a fraud against the consumer in order to unlawfully obtain possession of property to which they had no lawful right to? (Due Process requires a complaint to be filed prior to a summons being issued : TITLE II. COMMENCING AN ACTION; SERVICE OF PROCESS, PLEADINGS, MOTIONS, AND ORDERS) FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Rule 4(b) ISSUANCE. On or after filing the complaint, the plaintiff may present a summons to the clerk for signature and seal. If the summons is properly completed, the clerk must sign, seal, and issue it to the plaintiff for service on the defendant.
  2. I agree. Actually, being an in-network provider contracted by my insurer, the agreement for payment of services is between my insurer and the provider. My only legal obligation is to pay the Doctor the amount that my insurer determines according to the negotiated rate which the doctor is contractually obligated to accept. The claims for services the Doctor provided were paid by the insurer. The last date of service by the Doctor was on 9/13 and the claim was paid by the carrier on 9/27. All claims for services performed prior to that date had been paid in accordance to the contracted rate. I never received any notification from the insurer that they had requested a refund from the Doctor for services he provided me or that I would be responsible for paying any additional amounts. Well, the Doctor represented that he had obtained 'SB 418 verification' from the insurer which was the only way I would have agreed to the services due to the expense involved. The account notes of the Doctor office reflects that verification was received on 8/10, and that on 10/13 the insurer had requested the return of the claim payments made on the account. The Doctors' office notes also reflect that they appealed the insurers request for reimbursement on 10/13 and submitted supporting documentation The account notes of the Doctors' office also reflect that on 12/1 they also received 2nd refund request at which time they contacted collection agency of the insurer regarding their appeal. They were informed that they hadn't received it and it wouldn't do any good since their records reflect my coverage had been terminated on 6/30. So either one of two things occurred, the doctor misrepresented the 'verification' of the services in order to mislead me so that he could perform the services or the insured secured the refund pursuant to SB 418 verification rules which states in part: if a insurer provides a verification to a physician or provider for proposed services, the carrier may not deny or reduce payment for those services if provided on or before the 30th day after the verification was provided unless the physician or provider has materially misrepresented or substantially failed to perform the proposed health services.
  3. Several plus a couple of years back I was being treated by a neurologist when I was advised by the Doctor that my insurer had notified him that they had terminated my coverage and backed dated the termination date several months which just so happened to be prior to the date I begin treatment. In such, the Doctor advised me that the insurer had requested recoupment for the claims paid to date and basically recanted what had previously been represented to me that they had obtained 'verification' from the insurer for his services. In brief, the Doctor reimbursed the insurer all paid claims and proceeded to turn my account over to collections agency which begin to report the account as delinquent. I disputed the collection with the Credit Bureaus and the reports were removed from my record. Here just recently my primary care doctor had submitted a referral to my insurer to schedule an appointment with a neurologist, so I get a call from that same neurologist's office to schedule an appointment when the office mgr? notices that i have an outstanding bill and basically says that they would be more than happy to schedule an appointment when I pay the bill. After informing her it was paid and she didn't need to worry about holding a appt time open since I would getting another referral to another provider, So within a day or two of that conversation, I get a debt collectors letter for that old alleged debt and this time they got notes attached from the Doctors office that reflect that I am a deadbeat yet they obviously overlooked that they noted that obtained "verification' prior to the services. So here is my question, if the provider represents that they obtained the 'Verification' from the insurer for the agreed upon treatment then would they be violating the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act for if in fact they do not obtain the 'Verification" for the treatment? FYI: Texas SB 418; "if a carrier provides a verification to a physician or provider for proposed services, the carrier may not deny or reduce payment for those services if provided on or before the 30th day after the verification was provided unless the physician or provider has materially misrepresented or substantially failed to perform the proposed health services. " Sec. 17.46. DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES UNLAWFUL. (a) False, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful and are subject to action by the consumer protection division under Sections 17.47, 17.58, 17.60, and 17.61 of this code. (b) Except as provided in Subsection (d) of this section, the term "false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices" includes, but is not limited to, the following acts: (2) causing confusion or misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services;
  4. What difference would that make since the financial institution was required to obtain a signed opt-in form with an effective date on or after August 15, 2010 for consumer accounts opened before July 1, 2010.
  5. No I am saying that the CU l Really?
  6. It was for an overdraft service which I did not opt-in for. I had opened my deposit account with the Credit Union prior to July 1, 2010. In November 2008, the Credit Union automatically enrolled my account in the their Courtesy Pay service. As of August 15, 2010, the Credit Union required members who wanted overdraft protection to opt-in using their designated opt-in form which required the customer to sign and return to the Credit Union in order for the institution to pay ATM and one time debit card transactions when the customers did not have sufficient or available funds in their account to cover the transaction. Courtesy Pay I did not want overdraft protection for ATM and one time debit card transactions so I did not opt-in. From 2005 until the Nov 2012 I hadn't overdrawn my account at anytime. The overdraft fees ($240) resulted one time debit card transactions when the Credit Union put a hold on check deposit in a night drop.
  7. Weeks after initially contacting the local branch manager, I was finally informed by the local branch manager that the corporate office had advised him that the Credit Union was allowed to pay ATM and one time debit card transactions without the consent of the consumer, even if it resulted in the consumer's account being overdrawn. The branch manager further explained that since the Act left it to the discretion of the financial institution on whether or not it paid the ATM or one time debit card overdrafts, due to the number of overdrafts that had occurred the corporate office couldn't justify waiving the fees for that many overdrafts for just one customer. What I am hearing from some sources is that the financial institution does not have to prove that a customer had completed and signed an opt-in form, which this Credit Union requires in order to opt-in for their overdraft services. This Credit Union also retains the signed opt-in form in the customers account records, however they have do not have any record in my file.
  8. Since the EFT Act requires a financial institution to obtain the affirmative consent of the consumer before they can charge a fee for paying ATM and one time debit card overdrafts, what options tdoes a consumer have get the money refunded when they did not to opt-in for that ATM and one time debit card overdraft service and was charged overdraft fees by the financial institution anyway?.
  9. Here's a legal theory? The depreciation guide suggests a dishwasher's useful years is 8 years @ 12.5% per year. SOURCE Average cost for 2 repairs $300 - $400 in your area. SOURCE Prices for new dishwasher $ 249 - $ 899 Sears. SOURCE Theory: Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice
  10. While I doubt he will see this post, he had a legitimate question in my opinion and here is a link to help him if he does check back.
  11. wreckless driving?
  12. The key to reading the code is that unless it specifically states that you can do something then you must get permission from the designated authority before you can do it. Stand in wrong place and gator will get your legal foot, plant your right foot too deep and you might be standing in the ocean.
  13. I guess I conclude with the quote of Thomas Paine.
  14. Was hoping to hear Tax_Counsel response to the above question(s), being the weekend maybe he doesn't want to be pestered and I don't blame him, hope you have a good weekend T_C but I expect you back to work on Monday
  15. Thank you for your reply. I figured that the contract requirement was a stretch, which probably means that it would be of no value either if a homeowner asks someone to sign an agreement in which the guest agrees to vacate the premises upon request of the homeowner since the question of enforcement of such agreement would be a question of law that only the judge can decide. There is guy in town who tried moving the squatter into the garage, this girl had just taken another guy for a ride when she refused to leave from his place. When he locked the door entering into residence she called the cops and they said that he had no right to deny her access to the house since it wasn't a detached garage. Reminds me of the old movie with Charlon Heston, The Omega Man