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 handle your business debt collection so you can focus on running your business.
Mr. Emerick, a seasoned business debt 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 and businesses who are looking to collect a debt.
The Law Offices of Sam Emerick help business 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 have helped many businesses 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 business debt 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 businesses’ 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 judgment, 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 debt collection for more than 35 years. At the Law Offices of Sam Emerick, P.C., we are focused on providing excellent services to our commercial clients.
Our firm works one-on-one with your business 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 your company 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 conveniently 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
This week we're finishing up a subject relating to different ‘defenses’ available to Defendants in Texas collection cases, and specifically, doctrines known as “estoppel by misrepresentation”, also known as equitable estoppel, and on the other hand, the claim of quasi-estoppel, also known as “estoppel by conduct”. Another equitable theory not often used, but which will accomplish justice in many cases, are cases in which a third -party beneficiary breach of contract action is brought, for a party’s refusal to pay under a contract. The issue is whether the third-party is an intended third party beneficiary under the agreement. The leading case is Stine v. Stewart 80 S.W.3d 586 (2002 Tex). Stine is a Texas Supreme Court case in which the Trial Court originally concluded that Stine was an intended third party beneficiary under a contract. The Court of Appeals differed, however, ruling that Stine was only an incidental beneficiary, but [...]
Today’s subject relates to different ‘defenses’ available to Defendants in Texas collection cases, and specifically, doctrines known as “estoppel by misrepresentation”, also known as equitable estoppel, and on the other hand, the claim of quasi-estoppel, also known as “estoppel by conduct”. First, equitable estoppel, contains the following elements: Defendant made a false representation to, or concealed material facts from Defendant; intending that the representation or concealment be acted on; Plaintiff actually knew the real facts but Defendant did not know or have any way of knowing the real facts; Defendant relied on the representation or concealment, to its damage and detriment. Maguire Oil v. City of Houston 69 SW3d 350 (Texarkana 2002). Equitable estoppel is usually raised as a defense, but also, may be raised by Plaintiff, to nullify one of Defendant’s defenses. Cook v. Smith 673 SW2d 232 (Dallas 1984). The theories of ‘fraud’, and equitable estoppel, are different: [...]
Today’s Blog addresses the Texas debt collections issue of QUANTUM MERUIT—an equitable theory of recovery, intended to prevent unjust enrichment, when there is AN IMPLIED AGREEMENT TO PAY FOR SERVICES RECEIVED. In re Kellogg Brown 166 SW3d 732 (Tex. 2005), also Barnett v. Coppell 123 SW3d 804 (Dallas, 2003). If an express written agreement covers the transaction in dispute, quantum meruit cannot be brought or used by the Texas collections attorney, because QM is an independent theory that does not arise from a contract. The elements of QM are as follows: 1- Plaintiff provided valuable services or materials; 2- the services or materials were provided for Defendant; 3- Defendant accepted the services or materials; 4- Defendant had reasonable notice that Plaintiff expected compensation for the services or materials furnished Excess Underwriters v. Frank’s casing Crew 246 SW3d 42 (Tex. 2008). Upon a jury trial concerning QM, the Texas Pattern Jury [...]