Lawsuit Cash Advances

Hey there, speaking to those that may have some sort of personal experience with any of the many "companies" out there that deal with "Lawsuit Cash Advances"? 

So far it sounds legit except for those high interest rates (dunno exactly how much though)

I'm expecting some "chump change" from this settlement i'm currently in atm (had been in a nasty car wreck last year) but don't know how much longer it's going to be and i'd like to go a few weeks without "eating dirt" and have the ability to pay off some extra expenses that have accrued recently :-[


Cheers,

I would avoid any of those quick cash loan companies.. probably lousy interest rates and shady folk.

If you have a local bank branch where you have been a customer for some time, and documentation proving that you will get a settlement of X amount, you can take this documentation and talk to the local bank manager or another bank officer about a personal loan.

The primary concern of any banker when making a loan is how are they going to get paid back. If you have a verifiable payment expected at some later date they should be glad to lend you money using that as collateral.

Depending on how much you plan to change your lifestyle, a simple credit card would allow you to spend money you don't have.

JR

JohnRoberts said:

I would avoid any of those quick cash loan companies.. probably lousy interest rates and shady folk.

If you have a local bank branch where you have been a customer for some time, and documentation proving that you will get a settlement of X amount, you can take this documentation and talk to the local bank manager or another bank officer about a personal loan.

The primary concern of any banker when making a loan is how are they going to get paid back. If you have a verifiable payment expected at some later date they should be glad to lend you money using that as collateral.

Depending on how much you plan to change your lifestyle, a simple credit card would allow you to spend money you don't have.

JR

Click to expand...

Too bad for me that I am a "fiscal conservative" so I no longer carry credit cards or anything such as that, but the "bank idea" is something to consider and also would it be better to go to a credit union as opposed to a bank??

My humble opinion.

If all you  need is to be able to go for few weeks, then sell few things that can be replacable and finance yourself. I can assure you in the long run it may cost you more in interest. When you have the money you replace the stuff you sold.

but the whole point is to turn a long, slow trickle into a wad.

Being off the financial grid, i guess you do not own a house on which you could write a 2nd or HE mortgage paid by the trickle?

There is a price to be paid when living off the grid- you go high on the risk-reward curve.

Shop around with the sheisters, and see if a CU will work with you.

Mike

were you talking about the laywers and their tv ads
for settlements ?
You know it's gotta be good for them , but how much ?

I believe that the typical "trickle-to-wad" conversion (of those which I've heard of) is in the 33%-50% region.

-In other words, they get between 50% and 66% of the sum.

Not sure who handles collection or responsibility in the event of a collapse of the originating company, -In other words 'XYZ insurance' offers me a payout of $100,000 over 20 years, 'Sheister, Scoundrel & Cutthroat LLC' offer me $45,000 as a lump sum if I sign the payout to them. -In two years, if XYZ insurance goes belly-up and can no longer meet its obligations, I'd want it spelled out VERY clearly that I'm not responsible for making up XYZ's shortfall...

These sort of offers are generally aimed at people in some sort of financial stricture. it's essentially a 'predator/prey' mentality on their part. For as long as anyone can avoid having to get involved in these decisions, they're better off. Once you're forced to take their (basically ripoff) terms, you already KNOW you're getting shafted, but you have no choice.

-But you ARE getting shafted...

Keith

sodderboy said:

but the whole point is to turn a long, slow trickle into a wad.

Being off the financial grid, i guess you do not own a house on which you could write a 2nd or HE mortgage paid by the trickle?

There is a price to be paid when living off the grid- you go high on the risk-reward curve.

Shop around with the sheisters, and see if a CU will work with you.

Mike

Click to expand...

Well you see I was HORRIBLE with finances until I started getting advice from Dave Ramsey, even though I dont agree with everything he has to say (paying back collections when a person can just "wait out" their SOL state laws)his rule is simple, eat dirt and pay for everything in cash. 

This conservative philosophy of money management is the only thing that has even today kept me out of debt, besides I'm still under 30 and plan on doing much traveling and touring/recording as a session drummer in the near future (oops too much information that nobody would care to know )

SSLtech said:

I believe that the typical "trickle-to-wad" conversion (of those which I've heard of) is in the 33%-50% region.

-In other words, they get between 50% and 66% of the sum.

Not sure who handles collection or responsibility in the event of a collapse of the originating company, -In other words 'XYZ insurance' offers me a payout of $100,000 over 20 years, 'Sheister, Scoundrel & Cutthroat LLC' offer me $45,000 as a lump sum if I sign the payout to them. -In two years, if XYZ insurance goes belly-up and can no longer meet its obligations, I'd want it spelled out VERY clearly that I'm not responsible for making up XYZ's shortfall...

These sort of offers are generally aimed at people in some sort of financial stricture. it's essentially a 'predator/prey' mentality on their part. For as long as anyone can avoid having to get involved in these decisions, they're better off. Once you're forced to take their (basically ripoff) terms, you already KNOW you're getting shafted, but you have no choice.

-But you ARE getting shafted...

Keith

Click to expand...

The Lawfirm handing my lawsuit is only taking 30% out of a xxx amount "Uninsured Motorist Policy" and being that I was involved in a "Hit n Run" and having that Uninsured Motorist Policy means that I'm going to get a certian portion of the money FROM that policy.

The "Lawsuit Settlement Cash Advance" Firm isnt in the scenario as of yet and so it doesnt seem as if I am going to be getting screwed as of yet, the Insurance Company has already offered xxx amount in which I refused for the possiblity of being able to get more in return.

Why would the lawfirm be so persistant if I wasnt going to get any money back? ???

ENS Audio said:

The Lawfirm handing my lawsuit is only taking 30% out of a xxx amount "Uninsured Motorist Policy" and being that I was involved in a "Hit n Run" and having that Uninsured Motorist Policy means that I'm going to get a certian portion of the money FROM that policy.

The "Lawsuit Settlement Cash Advance" Firm isnt in the scenario as of yet and so it doesnt seem as if I am going to be getting screwed as of yet, the Insurance Company has already offered xxx amount in which I refused for the possiblity of being able to get more in return.

Why would the lawfirm be so persistant if I wasnt going to get any money back? ???

Click to expand...

30% is typical for contingency lawsuits. While typical 30% is high, but that is to make up for all the failures they also experience. If these guys are getting 30% of your insurance policy payment, they have 30% of a sure thing, with an option to get 30% on anything more they shake loose. This sounds like an unusually good deal for them, but lawyers are clever about such matters.

I have always hired lawyers paying them straight time, and preferably as preventative to avoid problems.

Good luck, surely you can find a cash advance deal of similar dimensions.. I hope you don't end up with less than the settlement offered.

JR

Ramsey is OK, but he is way too tight.  Most of his "weeeeeeer debt freeeee!" people already have their first house. 
We discussed this before, the whole debt thang.  You should have a CC for purchase protection (see Marty's thread), rental cars, plane tickets, anything online, and most important for making friends with Isaac.
If Ramsey has brought you in line, you can handle your same purchases but with plastic paid-off every month.  The cost of processing credit cards is already added to the price of everything in the store.

I think a 50% fee for a bulk payment on a 20 year trickle is not so bad when you consider the present value (PV) of the payments into the future.  At 3% inflation the $1 loses roughly 25% of value every 10 years.
Bowie did this with the Bowie Bonds.  A bank wrote bonds backed by 20 years of David's royalty payments.  He got his royalties up-front, the bank got the underwriting fee, and the holders get their payments.  PS: the bonds are one grade above junk these days.
Maybe a loan from a flush friend or relation, backed by the monthly payments?
ENS bonds?  Maybe direct-deposit and forget it? 
Mike

sodderboy said:

Ramsey is OK, but he is way too tight.  Most of his "weeeeeeer debt freeeee!" people already have their first house. 

Click to expand...

My problem with him is how he tells people they're "obligated" to pay back their debt, if its in collections as if they're bad christians if they don't pay a company that bought their debt from a prior company that in which doesnt improve their credit score.

ENS Audio said:

My problem with him is how he tells people they're "obligated" to pay back their debt, if its in collections as if they're bad christians if they don't pay a company that bought their debt from a prior company that in which doesnt improve their credit score.

Click to expand...

People are obligated to pay back their debts...  If you don't respect other peoples property rights you shouldn't expect any respect for yours.  This is fundamental stuff, rule of law, et al.

Ramsey's show is like "personal finance for dummies", but he enjoys an audience because so many people don't even understand the simple math and fundamental relationships. Even though the vast majority understand that over eating causes obesity, that wisdom doesn't keep them slender, so a little repetition is also useful.

JR

Well, if you follow the Good Book to the absolute letter, you will have more challenges in your modern life than no debts or outstanding loans :nudge-nudge:
And of course, you are obligated to pay back your contracted debts, unless you are a certain car company being carved-up by the current administration.
Mike

I was very disappointed that the Supreme's didn't take the Chrysler case, but it probably would have interfered with their summer break.  I don't believe in "to big to fail" for individual companies. If the bankruptcy law needs to be tweaked for mega companies, than fix the law, don't just ignore it.

There is a false premise surrounding all these interventions that they (the government) can ignore market realities. If there is too much capacity, too many dealers, too many workers, etc. No amount of arm waving will save those jobs. They can only have their thumb on the scale so friends of the administration come out better than they would in a fair reorganization.  Long term this too will reach a new equilibrium for better and worse, probably worse.

JR

sodderboy said:

And of course, you are obligated to pay back your contracted debts, unless you are a certain car company being carved-up by the current administration.
Mike

Click to expand...

"Contracted Debts"? By state law (FL in particular) you are NOT legally obligated to pay back a debt(s) to a collections/creditor IF that is the collections/creditor DID NOT obtain the money within the Statute of Limitations.

The only exception to that rule is the debt is a "Federal / Student Loan".....

Another scenario is of course you owe a substantial amount or are making car payments (which then they'll repo the vehicle) the end result will be that they will file judement/wage garnishment....BUT IF,

they fail to collect within X Amnt of years stated within the SOL (statute of limitations) then all they really can do is harrass you.

I must be coming off as a total deadbeat with no honor of upholding my words and maybe I am ignorant in my views but unless they're evidence that counters the even bigger question AND that is.....

"Would there be a credit card industry or any kind of Consumer / Bank loan made IF 90% of the general population was fiscally responsible?"

I am not defending the fiscal irresponsiblity of the general population, obviously thats mainly how IMO we got in this financial mess, but I mean has anyone else made the observation that in if people DID NOT get late fees and penalties as a result of paying off their balances at the end of the month...How then would the CC companies make a profit??  Just off of the interest alone?? 

How much do these companies benefit off of the ignorance and fiscal irresonsiblity of people??

I'm a seeker of truth and so would be humbled with having obtained ANY evidence that disproves what I currently believe is to be correct, call me a "Maverick" if you will

BTW how much $$$ does the "Debt Consolidation" industry bring in each fiscal year?? 

I an not a student of FL state law, but contracted debt should depend on the contract or the deal made between the lender and borrower.

I have loaned money to individuals before and I made a point of getting a signed contract to define when I would be paid back, and what would happen in default. I don't think I would loan money to anybody in FL if my ability to collect has an expiration date.

If state law is inserting themselves between two parties in a contract, hopefully they have some good reason. There are already laws preventing usurious lending rates. I find the concept of debt having an expiration date (statute of limitations) an odd concept. Every loan I've made as a lender or borrower had penalties and balance due that increased if slow or late.

Forgiveness if you don't pay/collect in a timely fashion is a contrary incentive.

As an individual I don't borrow money that I don't plan to pay back. I suspect this fundamental behavior has been eroded somewhat by so many people who gambled on too easy to get home loans, betting that prices would appreciate and bail them out. This is not unlike all the people who bought stocks with borrowed money in the late 1920s while the stock market looked like it would go up forever.

IMO this comes down to individual responsibility. Personal bankruptcy law is liberal enough with people getting free resets, this doesn't need to be institutionalized into all lending. Doing the math on this, the unintended consequence of expanded loan forgiveness is to raise the rates that everybody else must pay to make up for the free riders.  Another sea anchor to slow economic growth.

JR


PS: This is meant as a general statement of my philosophy and not a criticism of others.

Hey John,

How're you fixed for a few bucks right now...?



-Juss' kidding! ;D

I'm with Dave R. and John R. here... If people can't expect a reasonable chance of repayment, they'll stop lending. -And then you end up in the sort of mess that- ...well... -The sort of mess the economy's in right NOW, come to think of it!

Anyhow, 'neither a borrower nor a lender be' is my personal maxim, and -apart from a modest mortgage, that's how I live, though not everyone has the same fortune as I.

JohnRoberts said:

I was very disappointed that the Supreme's didn't take the Chrysler case...

Click to expand...

I think Diana Ross warned them off... ;D
Keith

SSLtech said:

Hey John,

How're you fixed for a few bucks right now...?



-Juss' kidding! ;D
Keith

Click to expand...

There is another saying about never lending to friends (sorry Keith) or relatives. I have done both and it can be awkward to say the least. I repeat my advice about always documenting loans with written contracts. It came in handy when one friend literally forgot he owed me thousands of dollars...  Sending him a copy of the loan agreement with his signature did wonders to refresh his memory, and avoid a very unpleasant discussion. He's younger then I am, too.

I have another ex-friend living somewhere in Ca who owes me enough that we don't exchange christmas cards. I guess he implemented his own "statue of limitations" since I haven't received a payment, or any evidence he is alive for maybe 15 years. 

JR

I'm currently still the lienholder on a vehicle for which I handed over the keys a year ago. -The initial plan was for it to have been fully paid off last year, but one thing has led to another...

Yes, I don't think I'll ever do it again only because I really don't ever want my associations/acquaintances/relationships 'modified' by what frequently happens, despite people's best-laid plans.

-And when it's a friend, I really feel conflicted about calling in my two 'business acquaintances' "crusher" and "Lo-blo"... There's always such a lot of cleaning-up to do afterwards... (sigh).

Keith