need help getting proof

While I was working at a small company (at the time 2 employees) we were having problems getting supplies that we needed to do our jobs. The boss (the president) would not ask the investors (Jef Fabian, Chap Dinkins & Eric Fabian) to help out in our needs for new a computer, printers and other office supplies. He also claimed that he could not get a credit card because of his own personal bad credit. I, having good credit and a dumb head, offered to get a company credit card in the company and my name. This worked well, we got the supplies that we needed, and even transferred from higher credit cards (Dell credit card) to this card with a lower APR. However, upon leaving the company, I asked the company to get their own card in their own name, they did not. The claim was that he could not get one still due to his bad credit.

They were paying the card just find month to month, and I was told not to worry about it. Then the boss (partner/ president) decided to leave the company as well. This caused a problem and I was contacted by the credit card company (October 2006) that they had not received payment in 3 months (the bills were still going to the company’s address and was currently at $6,046.84). I contacted my previous company, however was told that they are out of business, and they said they were not responsible for those charges. They informed me that the boss (Joseph Gould- president-partner) told them that he would take care of paying that particular credit card. I had no contact information with Mr. Gould, and was only told that he had moved out of town, they would not give me any other information. There was an online account that we both had access to, (that was set up by Mr. Gould) so I went online and paid the bill out of that account. Then I get a call from the St. Johns Sheriff’s Department that Mrs. Gould was there stating that I stole money from their account. I discussed my side of the story to the officer, stating that I had no way of getting into contact with them, that they had stopped paying & I was being contacted daily by the credit card company. And, to this police officer, she said that she just forgot to pay it because of recently moving. (Admitting that they were responsible for the charges on the card) I had transferred 1000 towards the account not knowing if I could ever get contact with them again. Of this $1000 I returned to them 650.00 by money order. I wrote them letters stating I wanted the card paid off as soon as possible, or the total amount transferred onto a card in their name and I would be out of their life. This did not happen.

I did not have a problem with them again until the April bill was not paid. I have made 3 phone calls, each time leaving a message that it was due, and needed to be paid immediately. The one time I actually got an answer on the phone, I was hung up on. The bill is currently $5,282.60 with a min. payment of 306.00.

No one will talk to me on this matter. They have told a minimum of 2 people that they were responsible for the charges- 1: the previous company (Fabian Construction, I was informed by Chap Dinkins) which will not talk to me on this matter. So, isnt that a verbal contract??? And 2- the Sheriff at St. Johns Sheriffs’ Department. There were no charges brought against me, so I don’t believe that there is a paper trail there. Another plus on my side is the fact that they have been paying the bill prior to the problems, so if they say that they are not responsible, then WHY have they been paying it.
Maybe it could be solved by some phone calls from a lawyer, or something like that. They KNOW they are responsible for the card, however they dont think that i will do anything about it.

Even if there was no arrest or charges filed, there should be a police report on file which details the incident you described. You're entitled to a copy of that report; you need to contact the office in question to get it. There should be enough detail in that report to verify what you've posted..at the very least there should be an admission of some sort that they either agreed to make the payment, again based on what you've posted. Because you can verify that you did NOT make certain payments and with a copy of the police report verifying the card was their responsibility, I'm of the opinion you have a valid outlet in a small claims court in your area. I would suggest you get a copy of the police report and a payment history directly from the credit card company nd schedule a consultation with an attorney in your area. Depending on what's contained in that report and the jurisdiction of your small claims court, you may be able to recover a significant portion of the amount still owed.
At any rate, I do believe it's worth a try, considering the dollar amount involved. Good luck.

A word of sound advice. NEVER use peoples real names on the Internet. What their real names are really is irrelevant to the posting, and you open yourself up to liability alleging wrong doing by them when you use their names. For example, with the names you have given, and the location ( you named the police department--GOOGLE IT and see how hard it is to find exactly what state and city you live in). Then, do a quick look up in the white pages for your city. Do you have any idea of the extent of personally identifying information you have given out? I would dare say what you have posted here, alleging serious wrongdoing by people by using their location and first AND last names is more "dumb head" ( your phrase ) than getting a credit card to help a struggling company.

Do as you wish regarding posting this type of identifying information, but be advised it could be actionable under the law as libelous.

Libelous if you cannot prove your comments.

.......which is PRECISELY why I said 'IT COULD" be considered libelous. I didn't say is WAS libelous---because saying that would mean I was making a judgment about the accuracy of the comments. Obviously, I have no knowledge regarding the integrity of the statements, which is why I said COULD BE. Not IS.

In any regard, using people's names on the Internet does not add anything to the content of the posting. And, doing so DOES offer an opportunity for a nasty lawsuit, should the named parties choose to object. And hearsay statements such as "They informed me that the boss (Joseph Gould- president-partner) told them that he would take care of paying that particular credit card", would be well nigh impossible to prove. Opinion, conjecture and hearsay doesn't hold up well in any court of law, but in particular, a civil court where the standard of proof is a mere preponderance of the evidence.


I suspect the original poster doesn't want to add the possibility of more trouble to an already-full agenda.

Discretion is, most of the time, worth every effort it takes to dispense it.

Don't be so paranoid. I've agreed with you at times... and said so. But the posting party needed to know WHEN is was libelous because the deed was already done. You tend to leave threatening responses and fail to explain why you left such a response... Especially when you don't even approach a reasonable answer to the problem presented. So calm yourself down and stop being so snippy with posting folks. Nes pas?

Your example doesn't hold water. The fact that the poster provided a credit card just to make his job easier when the owner was having a rough time gives credence to the idea that he probably ALSO made an agreement with the owner that he would repay the credit card. So in CIVIL COURT, he would stand a pretty good chance... even in small claims court... a pretty good chance... of getting his card paid. It simply wouldn't make much sense any other way. Oral agreements are valid and enforceable... and in this case it would be unconscionable to have the employee footing the bill for the employer with no recourse. It isn't something I would have done, but then it might have been a friendship or simply an employment at risk issue... Civil court is also called EQUITY COURT... it is reasonable that they make decisions on what is fair.

Let me preface my comments by saying that your idea of an 'equity court' is not entirely accurate ( big surprise). A civil court in this country is NOT exclusively called Equity Court. Equity Court is distinctly British. The judge of the court of chancery, often called a court of equity, bears the title of chancellor. The equity jurisdiction in England is vested, principally, in the high court of chancery. This court is distinct from courts of law. American courts of equity are, in some instances, distinct from those of law; in others, the same tribunals exercise the jurisdiction both of courts of law and equity though their forms of proceeding are different in their two capacities.

If your inquiring mind wants to know more, start here: "Chancery, Court Of Equity" Defined

First, the irony of taking LEGAL advice from some who admits their only legal experience is being MORAL SUPPORT in someone else's hearing is nothing short of humorous, thanks.

Secondly, you stated previously I ask too many questions and go into depth too much. NOW you state I didn't provide ENOUGH information. Allrighty, then.

Thirdly, read YOUR own sentence. You state the poster "probably" made an agreement with the owner to repay the card. Again, verbal contracts are usually binding, BUT you must prove one existed--and obviously, it is word against word.

And, for the record, (AND THIS IS IMPORTANT--PAY ATTENTION) his comments about the president of the company would not be admissible in court because they are HEARSAY. (HERE IS THE 'CATCH'--) He did not state that the president told HIM, he states, They informed me that the boss told them that he would take care of paying that particular credit card", As you can see ( I hope) the original poster could not testify to the terms of the "make sense to exist" verbal contract you are defending, because HE was not PRIVY to those terms. The "agreement", as he posted it here, was told to someone ELSE--NOT to him. Understand?

Also, a little tutorial on the standard of proof..... Civil court deals with equitable matters ( as opposed to CRIMINAL matters). Criminal cases must be decided beyond a reasonable doubt--99.9%, while civil claims PREVAIL by the preponderance of the evidence (51%). Also, a lot of times, what you or I think is equitable ( fair ) cannot be proven in court---and often times those who we feel should win, financially, morally, etc. do not because of a technicality ( such as a verbal contract that makes SENSE exists, that would be unconscionable NOT to exist, but there is no proof, just word against word, and THIRD PARTY word at that). Therefore, what 'makes sense', or what would be 'unconscionable' otherwise isn't necessarily the standard to win a civil case.

In fact, I have never yet read in a single law book stating either of those grounds are sufficient for winning a civil case. Perhaps you could cite some examples where 'common sense' (subjectivity) prevailed over the law? I would be very much interested in reading just such an example (since you mentioned it).

It is offensive when someone who isn't in the legal field takes such a disrespectful view of what some of us spent and are spending YEARS and thousands of dollars to learn, study, understand, and know. You waltz in, claiming what 'makes sense' prevails in a court room when you, admittedly, have only been in court once in your entire life.

That, in and of itself, is a travesty.

Stick to what you are good at. The nasty name calling is very unbecoming and it is a shame someone with your obvious intelligence cannot defend their position without it.