does the creditor has the right to posses or seized consigned goods even though he had actual knowledge?
824665
If you are talking about during a bankruptcy proceeding, the answer is no.  Only the BK trustee can seize property.  If you are talking about something else, it would require a court order to seize any property.
621242
The question is puzzling.  A defendant does have the right to know what they state presumes his actions were and what they state alleges are the consequences of those acts.  In simple terms, you have a right to know everything the state may have against you.\n\nIt is hard to imagine a law that is corrupt, without any more information.  Law changes, evolves over time, as law is applied to new circumstances and conditions.\n\nThis idea of conditions of release really has more to do after the judgment, verdict and sentencing.  If a person is released, it may be conditonally.
558407
only if you have a contract and if he did what was specified in the conract
451112
once you have the judgment get a certified copy and record it in the county where he lives, you can file for a writ of execution to seize property but you will need an attorney for that, also send a copy to credit reporting agencies if you cant get your money at least you can F**k with his credit
149322
Take it to court, show that the cousin had paid for the items that he had in his posession, via a receipt if he still has it, in the police record.
370355
It requires somewhat more than just taking care of the property. What you are referring to is called adverse possession, which by Texas law, must be "an actual and visible appropriation of real property, commenced and continued under a claim of right that is inconsistent with and is hostile to the claim of another person." Further, the true owner of the land has a period of time from the commencement of that possession to file a claim, though the time period depends on the circumstances. I would contact a lawyer and see what your options are. If you built a fence around the land and kept it for long enough, it would be yours.
267443
That depends.\n\nWas this the original creditor who talked to your boss, or was it a collection agency, attorney, or third party collector?\n\nThe Fair Debt Collections Act only covers when the debt is sent to another party, like a collection agency.  Other then that it gets difficult.  \n\nThe FDCA link is below.  Pay attention to section 804 and 805.  \n\nYes, you can sue, section 811 gives you details.\n\nNow, if this was caused by the original creditor, this act may not apply.  However, depending on what information was given, you can sue for liable.  If the information that was given was intended to damage you (even true information), you may also have a case.  Either way, you need to consult an attorney for advice.  Liable laws are a pain to prove.
1125822
Yes - on a pro-rata basis,  but they will normally want evidence that someone has taken responsibility for the licence in the property first.
607084
I don't understand the sheriff in this. If they told you this then it is probably not true. Just another scare tactic. Get the amount in writing first, on their letter head and signed by someone there. Then and only then give them any money to settle. Get a cashiers check for that amount. Make a copy of that and the letter. Send the Cashiers check to them over night. Then once posted to your account then have your loan officer obtain an update on the account from the credit company they pulled from. This will take about 5 days total to complete. He or she can then re-pull an updated credit report to report the settlement was accepted on this account. Retain all information in a file for any further discussions with the collection company.
757332
If they take the debt to court and get a judgment they can get a marshall to collect against his assets, possibly including the car.  (In some states an only car has some protection.)  However, it isn't like his old car where the seller had (presumably) retained a security interest (and title) and so didn't have to jump through as many hoops to get that asset.
597520
Yes, any company that collects debts is subject to the FDCPA. It states that a debt collector may not make "The representation or implication that nonpayment of any debt will result in the arrest or imprisonment of any person or the seizure, garnishment, attachment, or sale of any property or wages of any person unless such action is lawful and the debt collector or creditor intends to take such action." It sounds like it is entirely possible that they do intend to seek a warrant for your friend's arrest, so I don't see how it would be illegal.
810197
You don't say who made this request to the Coucil and in what circumstances.  It sounds as though the Council is being gently prodded to think things through and perhaps withdraw an action to recover what is owed on the grounds that the person is somewhat deranged or mentally handicapped.  Those hearing the case can't say such a thing outright, but they can drop loud hints to the effect that if a person isn't in a fit mental state to deal with his financial affairs, it is perhaps not a good thing to bring him to court, especially if he is arguing with deep conviction that he doesn't understand why he is being prosecuted and doesn't feel he owes anything.  Maybe now that we are not allowed to use Latin in court, "moral culpability" is the new "mens rea".
738127
They don't.\n\nSee 11 U.S.C. (the bankruptcy code) Section 523(a), which prohibits the discharge of debt fraudulently obtained.   When one purchases on credit with the knowledge or belief that they will not repay their creditors, that person is committing fraud and is subject to both criminal and civil sanction. Simply put, when one charges a debt, one promises to pay the debt back.  If that person is not planning on paying the debt back at the time of the promise, that person is guilty of fraud.\n\nIn any event, non-dischargable debt must be repaid, regardless of whether your friend files for bankruptcy.  Furthermore, dischargable or not (that is, even if not fraudulent), depending on the level of your friend's debt and the amount of assets available to satisfy her creditors, the bankruptcy trustee might very well be entitled to sell all or part of your friend's non-exempt assets (including what she purchased during her mad spending spree) in order to pay off her creditors.\n\nHow will anyone know what your friend was up to? The appointed bankruptcy trustee and any interested creditor will learn of the "mad spending spree" just by examining your friend's financial statements - which they will be entitled to examine - and may even undergo further discovery.  They will most certainly argue that the spending spree, on its face, demonstrates an attempt to defraud creditors and it does not sound like your friend will have an adequate defense.  And if she lies about it under oath, she would be guilty of perjury too.  They also might very well refer the matter to the district or U.S. attorney's office, to further investigate the fraud allegations.
381146
sounds sticky, I would say no but could be wrong.  there is no stipulation on robbery as long as there is some one willing to prosecute.
584058
Not nearly enough facts. If your vehicle was executed against to satisfy a personal judgment against the other party, you could have filed to intervene in your friend's action and quash the execution on grounds that your property interests were being damaged. You could also have offerred to pay the reasonable value for your friend's interest in the vehicle in return for his/her relinquishing title. Then your payment could have been used to satisfy his/her debt to the creditor, and you would have clear sole title to the vehicle. \n\nGenerally, a creditor who executes against a vehicle held in joint title must post a bond in case the execution turns out to damage someone else's interests. So, you should still be able to sue the creditor and recover either directly or against the bond.\n\nYou'll need an attorney for this one. It's way too complicated for a layperson.
864327
The abstract is the collection of copies of the recorded instruments relative to the property in question. If you've collected that, you can have it entered into evidence in a court, but they'll probably want the testimony of whoever did the search so they can judge whether or not they are reliable. \n\nNow,  if I understand you correctly, A, B, C, and D owned the property, and sold it to B.  What happens next depends on the documentation. \n\nIf A, C, and D received a mortgage which was recorded, A can foreclose and if C and D join as plaintiffs, they will own. \n\nIf there is no mortgage, but there is documentation to prove the debt connected to the land, it would be a strong "maybe". \n\nIf the only recorded document is the deed to B, A probably isn't going to make it very far. \n\nLife is rough when you try to do legal things on the cheap without a lawyer.
139394
this is under the law of bailment. when you are borrowing something from someone you generally owe duty of reasonable care as to that which you are borrowing.