Sentences with phrase «accepting any settlement offer made»

Not exact matches

So you'll probably have to fall behind on your payments by at least 90 days before you can make a settlement offer that would be accepted by the creditor.

Now that your settlement offers have been accepted, you need to make your payments as agreed.

If contacted by any third party, including credit - reporting agencies, [XYZ] Collection Agency will not acknowledge that any settlement offer was made, accepted or executed and will, in fact, deny knowledge of any such account.

They are not bound to accept it, but if you can gather some funds to make a lump - sum settlement offer, it is worth trying.

More often though, you need to be at least between 120 and 150 days late to make a settlement offer that the creditors will accept.

The idea is to make creditors think they'll wind up with nothing, so that when the debt settlement firm offers them something, they're more likely to accept it.

(Name of Creditor) will not acknowledge that any settlement offer was made, accepted or executed to any party, including credit reporting bureaus.

The question presented is whether a collection letter sent to collect a time - barred debt that makes a «settlement offer» to accept payment «in settlement of» the debt could violate the Act's general prohibition against «any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.»

While they may look like an offer of debt relief, sometimes offers to accept a small payment as a deposit toward settlement are designed much more to extend the statute of lititations more than make in dent in your cardit card debt.

So right from the start, you've got the deal and you've got the protection which contrasts against debt settlement where it's all done based on faith that at the end when you've got this money, we're going to make the offers and the offers are going to be accepted.

Insurers are in the business of making money, so they will offer you a small settlement that doesn't cover all of your losses, hoping you will accept it without having a Caldwell car accident lawyer review it.

Most people who get injured in motor vehicle accidents have no idea what claims they can make, so they happily accept whatever settlement they are offered by the wrongdoing party's insurance company.

Ultimately, the decision is yours regarding whether to accept any settlement offer if one is made.

A lawyer can make a recommendation about when to accept a settlement offer and when to take a case to trial, depending upon the nature of the case, your injuries, permanency, etc., and also the jurisdiction where the case is pending.

ICBC made a more generous settlement offer prior to trial which the Plaintiff did not accept (about 30 % higher than the jury award).

Authorities under the formal Rule 37B held that when a formal settlement offer dealing with costs consequences was accepted the BC Supreme Court had no discretion to make a different order with respect to costs.

Before accepting an insurance settlement offer, make an appointment today with Beau Layfield of The Layfield Law Firm, a Baton Rouge injury lawyer.

This is a settlement - negotiation tool: If the other party responds positively and is willing to make a fair settlement offer, we will recommend that you accept the offer instead of going to court.

It's a common practice to make a lowball settlement offer, but you don't want to accept it without having an attorney look over it first.

You should never speak with the insurance company without counsel present, sign any documents, or accept a quickly made settlement offer.

Often the judge or dispute resolution officer presiding over the court conferences encourages parties to find agreement, make reasonable settlement offers, and to accept reasonable settlement offers.

Your lawyer will advise you on making and accepting settlement offers.

Even if the at - fault party or their insurance company make you a settlement offer immediately after the accident, you shouldn't accept it until a Phoenix taxi accident lawyer has reviewed it and advised you accordingly.

Litigants are to be reminded that costs rules are in place «to encourage the early settlement of disputes by rewarding the party who makes a reasonable settlement offer and penalizing the party who declines to accept such an offer.

While 66 per cent of the lawyers who received the simple version would have advised their client to accept the offered settlement, only 44 per cent who received the complex version made the same recommendation.

Failure to keep up with the timetable will result in the claim exiting from the fixed - cost process; Both parties will have to be transparent about valuations for each loss claimed as well as the pain, suffering and loss of amenity award; The claimant will be required to make the first settlement offer; An offer must be made by the defendant within a prescribed timescale if they do not accept the claimant's offer.

[41] The plaintiff, in reply, submits that he understood that any settlement offers made by the defendant were full settlements of both the tort claim and Part 7 claims against ICBC, and that at no time did defence counsel convey that Part 7 benefits would still be available in the event that the Defendant's Offer was accepted.

But, because Rappaport was not given any reasonable estimate of further litigation costs, which eventually included another $ 400,000 in fees, he was unable to make an educated cost / benefit risk analysis of whether to accept or deny the settlement offer on the table.

While it can be tempting to accept an insurance company's initial settlement offer, we can make sure you get the full amount you deserve and not just the bare minimum.

[8] The rules on costs are intended to encourage the early settlement of disputes by rewarding the party who makes a reasonable settlement offer and penalizing the party who declines to accept such an offer.

If you make the wrong statement to them or decide to accept their settlement offer, you could be causing yourself significant future harm.

[29] The Court of Appeal, in discussing Rule 9 - 1 (5) in Evans v. Jensen, 2011 BCCA 279, articulated at para. 35 that «the most obvious and accepted intent of this Rule, namely to promote settlement by providing certainty to the parties as to what to expect if they make, or refuse to accept, an offer to settle».

The Participation Rule set forth in the 2008 settlement agreement permits MLSs to limit access to only those brokers engaged in real estate brokerage; that is, those actively endeavoring to list real property or to accept offers of cooperation and compensation made by listing brokers or agents in the MLS.