BUSINESS DEBT COLLECTION – EXPERIENCE THAT MATTERS! CALL US TODAY: 214-752-8800
DALLAS COMMERCIAL COLLECTION ATTORNEY – Law Offices of Sam Emerick,P.C.
YOU EARNED IT, SO LET US HELP YOU COLLECT IT!
We let you focus on running your business; let us handle your debt collection.
Mr. Emerick, a seasoned collection lawyer in Dallas, and President of the Law Offices of Sam Emerick, P.C. helps creditors obtain payment on debts. Mr. Emerick delivers efficient and tangible results to creditors.
The Law Offices of Sam Emerick help creditors who are frustrated attempting to collect debt. Many times, creditors believe that they will be able to resolve the problem on their own; a letter requesting payment, a phone call asking for an explanation, or a proposed meeting regarding delinquent accounts receivable. Unfortunately, these measures rarely produce any tangible results.
I turn receivables into cash. With thirty-five years of legal knowledge and experience representing and advocating for my clients, I have the knowledge and experience in collection matters to help make the best decisions about your collection problems.
Creditors often seek the help of collection agencies. This won’t help. Collection agencies aim to collect debt while receiving a percentage from creditors on the amount collected. Collection agencies are rarely successful in securing payments from debtors. Collection agencies lack the legal muscle and ability required to obtain judgments and enforce payments through post-judgment collection through the courts in Dallas. Typical tactics of collection agencies involve contacting debtors by phone and mail. The aggressive and unprofessional approach of many collection agencies has led to statutory restrictions embodied in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
As a licensed attorney and Dallas debt collector, Mr. Emerick understands that filing suit against the debtor is your only realistic way to recover your money. Before filing a lawsuit, Mr. Emerick’s law office may negotiate with a debtor, but normally, Mr. Emerick will file a lawsuit seeking a judgment on the amount owed.
From there, Mr. Emerick uses his 35 year legal experience and all available legal remedies to secure payments from debtors. Some solutions may involve skip-trace and asset-search, then after judgement, garnishments of bank accounts, and turnover of the debtor’s assets. If you are frustrated by unsuccessful attempts to recover debts and monies owed, contact a seasoned collection lawyer in Dallas, Sam Emerick at the Law Offices of Sam Emerick, P.C.
Established in Dallas Texas in 1982 our law firm has been representing clients in commercial collections for more than 35 years. At the Law Offices of Sam Emerick, P.C., we are focused on providing excellent services to our clients.
Our firm works one-on-one with you in order to provide personalized legal solutions. I personally take the time to analyze and understand your business and research a solution. By getting to know you and becoming thoroughly acquainted with the circumstances of your case, I am able to provide the best advice and guidance when you need it most. I do not assign your case to an associate.
We offer very competitive pricing, with hourly charges less than $175 per hour, and specialize in working your case quickly, efficiently, and with a view toward sending you a check. We are able to answer questions and provide status reports to keep our clients informed. In addition, we do not drag matters out unnecessarily.
We are located convenient to the courthouses in Dallas, McKinney, and Denton Texas. We are open from 9-6 and offer a free initial consultation. Contact us today to schedule your appointment.
Call 214-752-8800 to speak with Sam Emerick, Dallas debt collection attorney.
Primary Media Outdoor; Marlin Countertops; Capital Electric Motor Service; National Storefront Glass; Cordeck Roofing Supplies; Twin City Security; Southwestern Regional Medical; Lenco Credit Union.
LATEST FROM THE BLOG
Q—What is the ‘discharge’ defense? Another sticky area of contract defenses is the area of discharge, on account of plaintiff’s repudiation of the contract or plaintiff’s own material breach of the contract. If plaintiff repudiates a dependent promise or materially breaches the contract itself, then the defendant will allege that it has been discharged from performing the contract, due to plaintiff’s repudiation of the contract. Long Trusts v. Griffen 222 SW3d 412 (Tex. 2006). Stated another way, a party that does not perform its own obligations cannot enforce the remaining terms of the contract against the defendant. Interestingly, of course, from defendant’s point of view, if the plaintiff repudiates the contract, or if plaintiff materially breaches the contract, this will also support defendants own breach of contract claim against the plaintiff, through a counter-claim by the defendant against the plaintiff. Q—What about the ‘venue’ for breach of contract lawsuits? [...]
Q-- What can be done if my contract is unconscionable? If a portion of the contract, or the entire contract, is found to be unconscionable, the court has several choices: Refuse to enforce the entire contract Sever out the unconscionable portion from the contract Limit the application of the unconscionable provision Q—Is a Waiver a defense available to the Defendant? What is it? Another contract defense often seen by Texas Collection attorneys is the contractual defense of waiver. Waiver is usually defined as an intentional relinquishment of a known right and is either made expressly or indicated by conduct, that is inconsistent with an intent to claim such right. Ulico Cas v. Allied Pilots 262 SW3d 773 (Tex. 2008). For instance, conduct such as prolonged silence or inaction may amount to a waiver. Waiver may be implied only to prevent fraud or inequitable consequences as plaintiff’s intent is the primary [...]
Q--‘Unconscionability’ sounds like fraud; what is it? Texas Collection attorneys will sometimes see the defense called ‘unconscionability’. Generally either in collection or factoring litigation, a contract can be deemed unconscionable if it is unfair because of the overall or gross one-sidedness of the contract terms. There are two main issues associated with unconscionability, being first, how the parties arrived at the contract terms, and whether there is some legitimate commercial reason justifying the terms of the contract. The discussion about how the parties arrived at the contract terms addresses the “procedural aspect” of unconscionability, whereas the discussion about the “legitimate commercial reasons”, is a substantive aspect. A defendant will bear the burden of proving either a procedural aspect or substantive aspect of unconscionability, and of course this defense must be pleaded under Rule 194. Q—where does ‘fairness’ come into play? Regarding whether there is a legitimate commercial reason justifying the contract [...]