Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Settling a debt

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Settling a debt


    Called an attorneys office to settle debt. Spoke to a paralegal. He
    advised that this call maybe recorded. I then advised him the same,
    that the call maybe recorded on my end. We went through the motions of
    settling the debt. I gave him my bank card # and he informed me the
    account would be settled. At the end he tells me he is not consenting
    to the recording of the call, and hangs up. I only recorded to protect
    myself. So if by not consenting at the end of our conversations. Could I
    still use the tape if this for whatever reason, this comes back and they
    atemp to recollect or collect more?


    --
    ZROD
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ZROD's Profile: http://www.slashlegal.com/member.php?userid=104
    View this thread: http://www.slashlegal.com/showthread.php?t=83722


  • #2
    Settling a debt

    >Called an attorneys office to settle debt. Spoke to a paralegal. He
    advised that this call maybe recorded. I then advised him the same,that the call maybe recorded on my end. We went through the motions ofsettling the debt. I gave him my bank card # and he informed me theaccount would be settled.
    Did you also agree that your credit record would be cleared? Or
    at least that they would report it as no longer outstanding, but
    settled or paid off? You should have dealt with this.
    At the end he tells me he is not consentingto the recording of the call, and hangs up. I only recorded to protectmyself. So if by not consenting at the end of our conversations. Could Istill use the tape if this for whatever reason, this comes back and theyatemp to recollect or collect more?
    It seems to me that anything he said between saying he is not
    consenting to the recording and the end of the conversation (that
    is, hanging up) is something you CAN'T use, and anything between
    you notifying him of the recording and when he notified you that
    he is not consenting (that is, almost all of the conversation) is
    something you CAN use.

    Gordon L. Burditt

    Comment


    • #3
      Settling a debt

      "ZROD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
      news:[email protected]
      Called an attorneys office to settle debt. Spoke to a paralegal. He advised that this call maybe recorded. I then advised him the same, that the call maybe recorded on my end. We went through the motions of settling the debt. I gave him my bank card # and he informed me the account would be settled. At the end he tells me he is not consenting to the recording of the call, and hangs up. I only recorded to protect myself. So if by not consenting at the end of our conversations. Could I still use the tape if this for whatever reason, this comes back and they atemp to recollect or collect more?
      I'm not an expert in this area, but here is my uninformed impression:

      If you are in a state which requires only that the other person be
      informed that the conversation may be recorded or in a state which has no
      prohibition against recording, then you have violated no law by recording
      the telephone conversation. If you are in a state which requires the other
      person's consent, then I agree with Burditt, that consent was implied by the
      other party's failure to object earlier and failure to terminate the
      conversation earlier. So you should find out which sort of rule your state
      has. That should be an easy internet search.

      Whether you can use the tape is a matter of evidence law. I'm not an expert
      on that even in my own state, much less yours.

      This answer must not be relied on as legal advice for the reasons posted
      here: http://www.msnusers.com/1LawChat/Doc...Disclaimer.doc



      McGyver


      Comment


      • #4
        Settling a debt

        "McGyver" <[email protected]> wrote in message
        news:[email protected]
        "ZROD" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
        Called an attorneys office to settle debt. Spoke to a paralegal. He advised that this call maybe recorded. I then advised him the same, that the call maybe recorded on my end. We went through the motions of settling the debt. I gave him my bank card # and he informed me the account would be settled. At the end he tells me he is not consenting to the recording of the call, and hangs up. I only recorded to protect myself. So if by not consenting at the end of our conversations. Could I still use the tape if this for whatever reason, this comes back and they atemp to recollect or collect more?
        I'm not an expert in this area, but here is my uninformed impression: If you are in a state which requires only that the other person be informed that the conversation may be recorded or in a state which has no prohibition against recording, then you have violated no law by recording the telephone conversation. If you are in a state which requires the other person's consent, then I agree with Burditt, that consent was implied by the other party's failure to object earlier and failure to terminate the conversation earlier. So you should find out which sort of rule your state has. That should be an easy internet search. Whether you can use the tape is a matter of evidence law. I'm not an expert on that even in my own state, much less yours.

        In addition, in the very few civil cases that I've been in as a witness,
        recordings were not permitted as evidence. However, a witness can be asked
        the contents of the recording (so it behooves the witness to repeatedly
        review the recording to memorize it). I don't know why but the recording
        was not allowed yet the witness was allowed to recite the recording or even
        allowed to read aloud a transcription of the recording. Go figure.
        Although the recording wasn't allowed, the witness was obviously allowed to
        recount the conversation, and noting that their statements were made from
        reviewing the tape gave more weight to that testimony. Noting that you are
        recounting a transcription or recording of the conversation helps eliminate
        suspicion of "drift" in your side of the story.

        "Some states have passed laws making it illegal to secretly record a phone
        conversation without both parties' permission. Twelve states have made it
        illegal to record a telephone conversation without all parties' consent:
        California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts, Maryland,
        Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington. It
        is legal to record a conversation in the other 38 states as long as one
        party to the conversation (you) gives consent. "
        (http://www.bcsalliance.com/y_debtcoll_recording.html)

        Also see http://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/telephone.htm.

        So if you're in one of those 38 other states, you can record your own
        conversations without permission from the other party. Of course, you will
        need to be cognizant in which state the case goes to court (yours or theirs
        depending on who files). From what I've read, the recording can only be
        used as rebuttal evidence and is considered hearsay as direct evidence.
        That is, you can't use a recording to prove what was said but you can use it
        to prove that the other person is lying about what they claim to have said
        (you get to use the recording to prove they are lying; if they agree, the
        recording is not submissible). That doesn't change the ability to note
        during your testimony that you used the recording or a transcription of it
        to refresh your memory when providing direct evidence (i.e., when YOU
        testify as to what you and the other party said).

        Just because you claimed to have made a recording doesn't disallow
        contesting its authenticity. If the other side lies, they will also try to
        discredit the recording. In one article, the guy says that after making the
        recording (which uses tape and not a chip which then he has to record using
        another device) he keeps the recording going after hanging up and dials (so
        the dial tones are recorded, too) the local time & temp number to put a
        datestamp into the recording (since the recording device could be tampered
        with to specify a bogus datestamp) or even calls long-distance to the
        National Observatory in DC to get the datestamp and show the charge on his
        phone bill. He wants an independent 3rd party to timestamp his recordings
        that may be needed for legal rebuttal evidence. You also cannot start the
        recording after the other party gives permission. The recording must
        actually contain the prelude of the conversation up to and including your
        request for permission and their acceptance of your terms.

        Regardless of the stupidity of the paralegal, the attorney for which the
        paralegal is representing will know better regarding permission and usage of
        the recording, a transcription of it, or your testimony based on reviewing
        the recording or transcription.

        --
        I am not a lawyer. Just offering opinions and experiences.
        __________________________________________________
        Post replies to the newsgroup. Share with others.
        For e-mail: Remove "NIX" and add "#VN" to Subject.
        __________________________________________________

        Comment


        • #5
          Settling a debt

          In article <[email protected]>,
          ZROD <[email protected]> wrote:
          Called an attorneys office to settle debt. Spoke to a paralegal. Headvised that this call maybe recorded.
          I always take the other party saying "This call may be recorded" as
          granting permission to record it.

          If they meant to inform me of the possibility that they would be
          recording, the correct word is "might".

          Seth

          Comment


          • #6
            Settling a debt

            "Seth Breidbart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
            news:[email protected]
            In article <[email protected]>, ZROD <[email protected]> wrote:
            Called an attorneys office to settle debt. Spoke to a paralegal. Headvised that this call maybe recorded.
            I always take the other party saying "This call may be recorded" as granting permission to record it. If they meant to inform me of the possibility that they would be recording, the correct word is "might". Seth
            Clever. What if the message is: "This call may be recorded for quality
            control purposes."? Does that mean the other party has permission to record
            but only for the limited purpose? What if you record for some other
            purpose?

            Great catch. I'm saving it.

            McGyver


            Comment

            Working...
            X