Legal Question in Credit and Debt Law in Virginia

Re: Warrent in Debt from Capitol One

First I can think of no excuse for Capitol One or any other bank (other than bungling) to not produce the information that you need to understand the charges on your account, and the payments you have made.

You CAN issue a "subpoena duces tecum" (ask the Clerk for the Court) requiring them to produce any documents you need or think you might need, which must be produced to you in anticipation of the next court date (trial date). Obviously, you would like to have a copy in advance of the court date to figure out what they mean, and hopefully work out a final settlement with their lawyer.

I would also send a letter to the Lawyer. I cannot imagine any lawyer I have known who would not send you this information (IF they can pry it out of the file room of their client). Even though the Lawyer wants the money, and MIGHT be able to fight you on it, they know that it will look bad to the judge if they don't provide this information.

(I would do BOTH -- not just send a letter to the lawyer. BOTH.)

Second, the question of what you can afford is different from whether the charge against you is accurate or not. I know it factors into settlement discussions, particularly if a client or lawyer offers a reduced amount if you pay up front.

But you should be aware that technically a judgment against you does NOT mean you have to pay right away. It is better not to have a court judgment on your credit report and it is often better to work something out as a voluntary plan in settlement.

But you CAN have a court judgement entered against you and then PAY NOTHING at that point in time. It is then the creditor's job to try to collect from you by garnishing your wages or bank account or (rarely, because it is more work) seizing other property.

On the one hand, if you wait for the creditor to try to collect from you, the creditor can only take "what you can afford." IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT, YOU DON'T HAVE IT. They cannot get what you don't have. So in effect you end up paying over time.

ON THE OTHER HAND, you lose a measure of control if you don't enter into a settlement.

When they garnish your wages there are strict rules so that they can only take a part of your pay check, and leave you with the rest.

THERE IS A PROBLEM, as a Prince William GDC judge has explained, when you put your paycheck into your bank account, and then they can take ALL of what is in your bank account.

So I don't want to mislead you, but technically speaking you do NOT have to be able to pay all the money right now. The Court is only interested in whether you AGREE or DISAGREE with the total amount they are claiming. Whether you are able to pay right now is IRRELEVANT to the Court. The Court doesn't care if you pay 5 years from now. They only want to know "Do you agree or disagree with the amount they are claiming?"