So you *are* actually here for sympathy, not advice. What difference does "how the debt came about" make? If it's a charge you didn't make, you should have contested it ages ago. If it's a charge you *did* make, what's your beef? Either way, it's not your creditor's fault.

There's a charge on your credit card, and you're not making the payments. There's not much room for you to not be "in the wrong" here.

Yeah, this *is* starting to look like The People's Court in HTML. :-) Except that there the pointless dispute is paid for by selling the trashy spectacle to the media...here at the end of the day Brianna still owes money.

:lol: maggie, your reaction to my trivial problem is quite fascinating. Relax, relax! Don't give it so much psychic energy! My, my...telling.

Keep on trying for that Red Herring effect. It's obviously worked so well for you in the past...although Judge Judy certainly seems to have seen a lot of it.

Surely nobody will ask again how many $30 payments you ignored hoping the problem would go away, or why being divorced means you should be excused from paying your debts, if you can just manage to engage them on how nasty, mean and bitter they must be to not see things your way.

As it happens, I'm sitting at my desk trying to recieve signals from Suitsat, so I'm somewhat tied to the desk until this orbit is over.

So you need not be concerned about me; on this grey Saturday morning, your quest for a free ride happened to be one of the most interesting things going on on my computer while coffee brews...it really doesn't take much energy.

After a few mgs of caffiene I'll be engaging more substantive issues. Like doing the dishes, the laundry, and paying my bills. But at the moment, if I was any more relaxed, I'd still be in bed.

Yeah, that's just nuts. I've never understood the rationale of having piles of plastic; It's just trouble waiting to happen. If you can't manage with one card (OK, maybe a second you never use, for emergencies only), how will you be better off with four? Much less eight. It certainly doesn't make your personal finances easier to understand; it's just a temptation to play a mental shell game.

I have *one* credit card, and (given the five-figure credit limit on it) if it was maxed out I'd be in very, very deep kimchi indeed. As it is there's a somewhat serious balance on it that represents job-hunting and living expenses in between getting laid off on Christmas Eve and my first paycheck from my new job that showed up last Tuesday, Paying that balance down is financial Job One after the mortgage and other truly non-postponable bills are covered.

The debt was my ex-husbands. In the divorce, he was responsible for so many debts and I was responsible for so many. He defaulted on this one. That's what I mean by a divorce debt. The legal papers came out of the blue as he was the one getting the notices, not me.

you're a very angry person, Maggie. That's probably why you keep getting fired from jobs.

With your name on the account, obviously it's *your* debt and you're responsible for making sure it's paid. Your beef is with your ex, not Capital One; it's not their job to collect on your divorce settlement. You may have a cause of action against the ex to recover your damages arising from his breach, but that's not worth much. It's frustrating to deal with a deadbeat, isn't it? Could almost make somebody...well...angry.

But of course, it's all about *me* and *my* obvious anger. I was so unbearable that when the client terminated all the consulting engagements early at the end of the year (there were six of us in that batch as I recall, hotheads every one), the guy I'd been working for there hooked me up with a close friend he'd worked with at several other companies, who was very happy to hire me on the strength of his personal recommendation as to the quality of my work.

Clearly I have personality problems that make me impossible to work with, which is why I've just blown right through eight whole jobs in 35 years. Just can't seem to hold it together for more than four or five years at a stretch...unless you count that one place I was at for 13 years, and the other for seven, but obviously those were anomalies.

Yeah, pretty much. You have added nothing to this thread, your point simply being to berate me--someone you don't even know. And, you've indicated that for you, this is just what you do to pass the time. Screams personality problems to me. I'm through with you and won't waste any more time on reading your shite. I will continue to pray for you though. The Goddess who likes you just the way you are--that would be Kali, right?

As much as I like a good cat fight, this one saddens me. Both of you have been very good to me. While I don't expect you to kiss and makeup, I just hope you can ignore each other. :(

RS, you get your wish~!

If by "nothing" you mean "nothing Brianna wanted to hear", you're right. My last post actually explained your legal situation vis a vis your ex, but of course it wasn't what you wanted to hear either. That's not exactly Kali, but it might be the crone of the triple aspect.

Perhaps somebody else will supply sympathy or a quick, inexpensive way to evade your obligation.

Check the original letter from Capitol One.....hold it up to the light....if an image of the Virgin Mary appears, you have a best seller on e-bay!!!

I'm being sued...
 

I knew this dyslexic chick who was dating a lawyer; she broke up with him because she thought he used people...

Chortle chortle :lol: nyuck nyuck!

Last time I checked, divorce papers are a legally binding document. Assets and liabilities are divided accordlingly.

One worry that comes to mind: if the ex-husband has defaulted on his legal obligation with this debt, what other debts have gone unpaid that Brianna will have to pay? Was her name really on any of this debt? If it was, then perhaps it would have been far better to have all the debt with her name attached to it assigned to her. Of course, that would also mean that a good lawyer would have gotten her an increased portion of assets (assuming there were any.)

And there wouldn't be this 'out of the blue' suit. I can sympathize that once something has been signed, sealed and committed, that one could very logically think that it's over, an agreement has been met and will be adhered to (legal documents are strange that way.)