The court isn't going to throw out anything it isn't asked to throw out. And people don't ask to throw out something they think are valid. And people don't know the difference between creditors and debt collectors, and they don't know that debt verification involves the display of original debt documents that verify a creditor, and not merely the fact that the "rights" to collect collect a debt were purchased from an actual creditor. And if they do demand such things, why would a court force you to pay something that federal law describes as actionable debt collector fraud? It wouldn't.
And as for promising to pay it back, Rhett creditor also promised to accept payment from the debtor - not accept a lower payment from a third party. The moment they do that, there is no debt for the original debtor to pay back, because the debt instrument was used to receive payment from the debt collector. No one is running out on the debt - there IS NO debt once it has been "sold." And that is proven by the impossibility of the debt collector to verify the debt, and therefore verify their status as creditors, one the law.
These are facts.
Rhett? I HATE autocorrect!
So if you sell a note to someone they have no right to collect?
No, there is always the Promissory Note where you promised to repay the amount. The original can sell that note to anyone. The promise still exists.
Accounting 101.
The idea that someone’s wages were garnished “because they didn’t say not to do it” is pretty funny.