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 sort of defenses should I expect him to try? Defenses sometimes asserted include Limitations, unclean hands, voluntary payment by Plaintiff, or pleading that the money is stolen money, even from a good-faith purchaser for value. Texas Bank v. Custom Leasing 498 SW2d 243 (Tyler 1973), and also ‘Unclean hands’, may include factors showing that Plaintiff’s conduct indicate a lack of good faith, or lack of ordinary care. Where Defendant shows that Plaintiff paid with full knowledge, with no acts of fraud or duress, ‘voluntary payment’ is a valid defense. Q- what damages can I recover? You can seek return of the property, plus actual damages. These actuals are the measure necessary to fully compensate Plaintiff for all injuries sustained, not merely the market value. Reuber Chevrolet v. Grady Chevrolet (Dallas 2009). Also recoverable are the ‘loss of value’ which includes fair market value plus interest at the highest [...]
A related cause of action is ‘conversion’, generally described as a Plaintiff who owned or possessed or had the right to immediate possession of personal property, with Defendant wrongfully exercising dominion over it, with Plaintiff suffering injury. Earlier, this theory was called suing “in detinue” or “in trover”, although we do not use these any longer, it merely being called ‘conversion’. Green International v. Solis 951 SW2d 384 (Tex. 1997). Ownership of property may be proved by evidence that Plaintiff purchased the property, or under the UCC, Plaintiff can have legal possession of property. Intern’l Freight v. American Flange (San Antonio 1999); Ward v. Shriro (Dallas 1978). Establishing that the property was personal property includes showing that it was money, being a specific chattel, or a specific deposit in a bank. This is opposed to a ‘general deposit’ in a bank, which is how funds are usually deposited, where a [...]
This cause of action, in Texas collections, used to be called ‘assumpsit’. It is an equitable claim that usually should be pleaded in the alternative to another claim such as ‘conversion’ which will be discussed later. This theory is usually applied to prevent unjust enrichment, and is based on a debt not evidenced by a writing, such as contract, promissory note, etc. So we’re talking here about an oral agreement. The theory asks whether Defendant is holding money that belongs to Plaintiff, and therefore, for Dallas collections lawyers, it is less restricted to technical rules and formalities. Staats v. Miller 243 SW2d 686 (Tex. 1951). If the money, in good conscience and equity belongs to Plaintiff, Plaintiff prevails in ‘money had and received’. Whether Defendant has obtained the money wrongfully is irrelevant to this inquiry, wrongfulness is not the premise, but instead, the question asks whether Defendant received money, and [...]