[pc86]

I don't think anyone will argue that the US public education system is teaching its students what it should be about personal finances and money management. It's a disgrace, frankly.

> I was paying my debts monthly, barely, that wasn't good enough for one of the lenders and they sued me in small claims.

I'm sorry but there is definitely information missing here. If you were making the full minimum payment you wouldn't be sued, ever. If you were paying less than the minimum then you weren't actually "paying your debts monthly."

> I never got the summons (apparently quite common)

I can't speak to how common something like this is but you do typically need to be served with the summons, or the plaintiff needs to show some sort of proof that you received the notice (e.g. a certified mail receipt or statement from a process server that you were indeed served). But I can say it's not the first time I've heard of someone being unaware of a court date so who knows.

[ryanmercer]

>I can't speak to how common something like this is but you do typically need to be served with the summons, or the plaintiff needs to show some sort of proof that you received the notice (e.g. a certified mail receipt or statement from a process server that you were indeed served). But I can say it's not the first time I've heard of someone being unaware of a court date so who knows.

Here's just one site with many threads

https://www.google.com/search?q=sued+in+small+claims+court+n...

In my case I found out I'd been sued after the wage garnishment, oddly enough my check was 666$ that pay period which was considerably less than it should have been, I immediately told my manager, she told HR, HR pulled me into their office and informed me my wages were garnished. I then had to search the state court records to find that Capital One had sued me 3x via "bowman & heintz" and a quick google query shows it's quite common for people to have been sued, and never received a summons, by that shady 'law firm' with an alarming number of default judgements awarded because the person never knew.

If I pull up the court records for the cases they do not even state when I was served, or if I was served. Just that a hearing was scheduled, a bench trial was commenced and default judgement awarded as I failed to appear.

Welcome to life for many people.

[pc86]

I believe you, but I stand by my previous point that paying the amount due on or before the due date would have never resulted in a lawsuit, especially from a firm like Capital One. Assuming it's a credit card (ca. 2010-2012) there would have been a slew of internet notifications not to mention the mailings if you were past due. I charged off a Citi card in 2009/2010 and can say from experience I had ample opportunity to make it right, I just didn't have the funds and negotiating a charge off with Citi directly resulted in the quickest end at the cost of a big credit hit and being unlikely to ever get credit from Citi ever again.

Edit: And this is a point that you've ignored in this entire thread, which leads me to believe you were paying below the minimum payment on a credit card. This is an excellent way to get an account sent to collections and not have liquid cash available to actually pay it off. The worst of both worlds.

[phil21]

> I can't speak to how common something like this is but you do typically need to be served with the summons, or the plaintiff needs to show some sort of proof that you received the notice

I can, somewhat. I also had a similar situation (although much less serious) where I was supposedly "served" paperwork.

Basically process fraud is endemic in the debt collection "industry" - from the brief research I did years ago. I won my case mostly off this and the judge being sick of having to grant default judgement to these "pocket filers".

Some states are far worse than others due to laws such as pocket filing, etc.

The real problem is there is no real fear of punishment from a process server lying to the court. The worst I've seen happen is someone lose their job.