Quote:
Originally Posted by BigV
Hmm. Reread this passage and substitute "mortgage company" for "dentist". Tell me if you get the same conclusion.
|
The secondary mortgage market is not without its legal quagmires but this is not one of them. When you sign the docs, you are giving your consent for the mortgagee to transfer/assign/sell its interests to third parties and agree not to distinguish the new mortgagee from the old so that is all cut and dried.
The government helped set up the secondary mortgage market because it is where all the cash comes from to loan all this money that is being lent out.
However, the dentist/doctor/etc. receivables market enjoys no such sponsorship and is very inefficient as a result. Something like this happened to me once - it was a legit bill and I paid it - but I told the "collection agency" (quotes because they aren't really working for the person you originally owed the money to" and I told them that I was still obligated to pay the dentist and not them. We argued about it but I cut a check to the dentist and told the agency to get it from him.
What proof do I have, for example, that if I pay the agency that the doctor/dentist/etc. isn't going to come after me at a later date saying 'you paid the wrong person - they didn't have the right to collect that debt' or 'yes, I authorized the agency to collect on my behalf but they never gave me the money you gave to them minus their fee (skipped town, etc.) so you still owe me.'
I would never pay an agency without a release from the original party indicating that payment to the agency is considered payment in full by the person originally owed.
If the agency howls that you owe
them and
not Dr. Smith, tell them that you were not a party to the arrangement between them and Dr. Smith and, consequently, you still owe Dr. Smith and any payments you make will be made to Dr. Smith. Since you (Mr. Collection agent) already have an agreement with Dr. Smith and no agreement with me, it is he who owes you. Not me.