Arizona Photo Radar HELP! | FerrariChat

Arizona Photo Radar HELP!

Discussion in 'Arizona & New Mexico' started by Baasha, Mar 28, 2009.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. Baasha

    Baasha Formula 3

    Jun 20, 2004
    1,186
    NorCal
    #1 Baasha, Mar 28, 2009
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2009
    I traveled to Arizona in January (from California) and received TWO photo radar 'speeding' tickets in the mail, both alleged violations within 4 minutes of each other. One is 79mph on Hwy.10 and the other is 80mph on the same highway.

    I did a little bit of research and came to the conclusion that ignoring these 'tickets by mail' was the best route to take. (look at this post: http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showpost.php?p=134687732&postcount=6)

    So the due date for the 'fine' passed and today I received another TWO notices about the same violations mentioned above. However, these two notices say the following:

    "You are summoned to appear on or before" blah blah blah and then there is a "Warning to Defendant" which states that "If you fail to appear as directed in this complaint on a criminal charge; In addition to the above, a warrant may be issued for your arrest and your license may be suspended (Rule3.1(a), ARCrP)."

    There is a name of a Judge on each notice with different dates for the "Date Issued/Mailed" and the names (different) of the "Complainant" along with their respective ID No.s

    In the section regarding the actual violation, the "Civil Traffic" box has been marked for both notices.

    The catch is this: the car is registered to a family member, a female, however I am male! ;) So I doubt they could 'positively ID' me since the photo in the notice is NOT that of the registered owner.

    So, I am a little concerned as to how I should proceed with this situation. The most important thing is, I CANNOT afford to have my family member (registered owner) get into any trouble. However, I do not want to just hand over the cash for the alleged violation.

    What is the best plan of action from this point? Should I ignore these recent notices that I received? If so, what might happen and if I do pay the fines, would my family member's driving record be affected? She has a perfect record.

    Please help and any advice on this matter is highly appreciated.

    Thanks.
     
  2. Pit_Stop

    Pit_Stop Arizona

    Dec 31, 2008
    203
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Full Name:
    Marcus
    would my family member's driving record be affected? She has a perfect record.

    Please help and any advice on this matter is highly appreciated.

    Thanks.[/QUOTE]

    The photo radar tickets DO NOT affect your driving record. Although the tickets will cost you dearly, it might be the best route to just pay them. Wished I knew a better loophole for you to take.

    best of luck,

    Marcus
     
  3. Testarossa13

    Testarossa13 Formula Junior

    Dec 4, 2007
    335
    Arizona
    Full Name:
    Tony Jr.
    I would go ahead and pay the summons.Then you will have peace of mind.Life is good,so take care of your health and move on...Ciao Tony
     
  4. d-kauf

    d-kauf Formula Junior

    Oct 11, 2006
    330
    Scottsdale, AZ
    Full Name:
    David
    The tickets were issued to your family member (registered owner), correct? When I got a photo radar ticket in the mail there was an option for me to select, "That is not me in the picture." Just have your family member state that she wasn't driving. She can't legally give you up either.
     
  5. Argento839

    Argento839 F1 Veteran

    Oct 21, 2005
    9,103
    #5 Argento839, Mar 29, 2009
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2009
    +1

    I have heard that they might try to block people from registering their cars if they ignore service and fail to pay a camera ticket. Knowing Sacramento, they would cooperate with Arizona to make your life difficult somehow. I am just not sure... I don't think they can publish service in Arizona (like in California) and get a default judgment but I would just pay these tickets and sleep well. BTW, I think they can say criminal because actually being served and then ignoring that notice is a crime (contempt) if I am not mistaken....even though the charge itself is civil. While highly doubtful, they could in theory use this thread against you to prove that you got the notices and ignored them.. I would just pay it. Good luck.
     
  6. Pass

    Pass F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Feb 29, 2008
    12,440
    Salida Colorado
    Full Name:
    Mark Passarelli
    As long as you have not contacted or answered anything concerning these tickets the court would have to actually send a process server which by the way is highly unlikely and after 180 days these are dismissed. Dont do anything. I have recieved many and just ignore them they have so many unanswered tickets they cant keep up with the service load and out of state or even out of the city are unlikely to send out a server.
     
  7. vintagemotorcars

    BANNED

    Apr 22, 2008
    152
    Mesa Az.
    Full Name:
    KP
    You were caught, why not take responsibility for your actions and pay the fine. If you had two tickets that close together it sounds like a lesson is in order.
     
  8. 410SA

    410SA F1 Veteran

    Nov 2, 2003
    8,511
    West Coast
    Full Name:
    A
    Photo radar is taxation, not traffic control. The "summons", to be perfected under the statutes, needs to be served in person by an officer of the court to the alleged driver. Mailed notices are not effective service of the summons. If you live out of state feel free to ignore the mailings. The program is privately run, with a cut going to the state. If you cannot be positively identified, with a match between the photo they took of you, the registered owners name and a drivers license photo it is cost prohibitive for the private company to send out a process server to another state, without an unequivocal identification corroboration.

    The statistics that are published routinely show that less than 30% of photo radar tickets pay up. The other 70% have figured out that it is an arbitrary and discriminatory tax.
     
  9. CornersWell

    CornersWell F1 Rookie

    Nov 24, 2004
    4,874
    From Friday's WSJ...

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123811365190053401.html

    Cameras to Catch Speeders and Scofflaws Are Spreading -- And Sparking Road Rage

    The village of Schaumburg, Ill., installed a camera at Woodfield Mall last November to film cars that were running red lights, then used the footage to issue citations. Results were astonishing. The town issued $1 million in fines in just three months.

    But drivers caught by the unforgiving enforcement -- which mainly snared those who didn't come to a full stop before turning right on red -- exploded in anger. Many vowed to stop shopping at the mall unless the camera was turned off. The village stopped monitoring right turns at the intersection in January.

    Once a rarity, traffic cameras are filming away across the country. And they're not just focusing their sights on red-light runners. The latest technology includes cameras that keep tabs on highways to catch speeders in the act and infrared license-plate readers that nab ticket and tax scofflaws.

    Drivers -- many accusing law enforcement of using spy tactics to trap unsuspecting citizens -- are fighting back with everything from pick axes to camera-blocking Santa Clauses. They're moving beyond radar detectors and CB radios to wage their own tech war against detection, using sprays that promise to blur license numbers and Web sites that plot the cameras' locations and offer tips to beat them.

    Cities and states say the devices can improve safety. They also have the added bonus of bringing in revenue in tight times. But critics point to research showing cameras can actually lead to more rear-end accidents because drivers often slam their brakes when they see signs warning them of cameras in the area. Others are angry that the cameras are operated by for-profit companies that typically make around $5,000 per camera each month.

    "We're putting law enforcement in the hands of third parties," says Ryan Denke, a Peoria, Ariz., electrical engineer who has started a Web site, Photoradarscam.com, to protest the state's speed cameras. Mr. Denke says he hasn't received a ticket via the cameras.

    Protests over the cameras aren't new, but they appear to be rising in tandem with the effort to install more. Suppliers estimate that there are now slightly over 3,000 red-light and speed cameras in operation in the U.S., up from about 2,500 a year ago. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety says that at the end of last year, 345 U.S. jurisdictions were using red-light cameras, up from 243 in 2007 and 155 in 2006.

    One traffic-cam seller, Arizona-based American Traffic Solutions Inc., recently reported it had installed its 1,000th camera, with 500 more under contract in 140 cities and towns. Rival Redflex Holdings Ltd. says it had 1,494 cameras in operation in 21 states at the end of 2008, and expects to top 1,700 by the end of this year.

    Municipalities are establishing ever-more-clever snares. Last month, in a push to collect overdue taxes, the City Council in New Britain, Conn., approved the purchase of a $17,000 infrared-camera called "Plate Hunter." Mounted on a police car, the device automatically reads the license plates of every passing car and alerts the officer if the owner has failed to pay traffic tickets or is delinquent on car taxes. Police can then pull the cars over and impound them.

    New Britain was inspired by nearby New Haven, where four of the cameras brought in $2.8 million in just three months last year. New Haven has also put license-plate readers on tow trucks. They now roam the streets searching for cars owned by people who haven't paid their parking tickets or car-property taxes. Last year 91% of the city's vehicle taxes were collected, up from "the upper 70s" before it acquired the technology, says city tax collector C.J. Cuticello.

    Not that it's been smooth sailing. Mr. Cuticello recalls the time he tried to help tow the car of a woman who owed $536. She knocked him over, jumped in the car and drove away. She was later arrested for a hit-and-run.

    City leaders have generally maintained that while revenue is a welcome byproduct of traffic citations, the laws are in place to improve public safety or reduce accidents.

    But a study in last month's Journal of Law and Economics concluded that, as many motorists have long suspected, "governments use traffic tickets as a means of generating revenue." The authors, Thomas Garrett of the St. Louis Fed and Gary Wagner of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, studied 14 years of traffic-ticket data from 96 counties in North Carolina. They found that when local-government revenue declines, police issue more tickets in the following year. Officials at the North Carolina Association of Chiefs of Police didn't respond to requests for comment.

    George Dunham, a village trustee in Schaumburg, says installing the red-light camera at the mall "wasn't about the revenue -- no one will believe that, but it wasn't." On the other hand, he says, with fuel taxes and sales taxes falling, its retreat on the camera has had a "painful" impact on Schaumburg's $170 million budget.

    Cameras to catch speeders on highways, which are common in Europe, are just starting to spread in the U.S. Last June, Arizona added a provision for speed cams on highways to its budget bill, with an anticipated $90 million in fines expected to help balance the budget.

    State police started placing the cameras on highways around Phoenix in November. In December, a trooper arrested a man in Glendale while he was attacking a camera with a pick ax. In another incident, a troupe of men dressed as Santa Claus toured around the city of Tempe in December and placed gaily wrapped boxes over several traffic cameras, blocking their views. Their exploits have been viewed more than 222,000 times on YouTube.

    Republican state representative Sam Crump has introduced a bill in the legislature to remove the cameras, which he says were approved "in the dead of night...as a budget gimmick."

    In the meantime, the cameras are still being rolled out, and have already issued more than 200,000 violation notices since September. They are set to take a picture of cars going more than 11 miles over the speed limit, and they also photograph the driver.

    Some entrepreneurs are trying to help camera opponents fight back. Phantom Plate Inc., a Harrisburg, Pa., company, sells Photoblocker spray at $29.99 a can and Photoshield, a plastic skin for a license plate. Both promise to reflect a traffic-camera flash, making the license plate unreadable. California passed a law banning use of the spray and the plate covers, which became effective at the beginning of this year.

    A free iPhone application available on Trapster.com lets drivers use their cellphones to mark a traffic cam or speed trap on a Google map. The information on new locales is sent to Trapster's central computer, and then added to the map.

    Other anti-cam Web sites counsel people to examine the pictures that come in the mail with citations. If the facial image is too blurry, they say, drivers can often argue successfully in court that no positive identification has been made of them.

    Studies are mixed on whether traffic cameras improve safety. Some research indicates they may increase rear-end collisions as drivers slam on their brakes when they see posted camera notices. A 2005 Federal Highway Administration study of six cities' red-light cameras concluded there was a "modest" economic benefit because a reduction in side crashes due to less red-light running offset the higher costs of more rear-end crashes.

    A study of crash causes released by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration last July found about 5% of crashes were due to traveling too fast and 2% were from running red lights. Driving off the side of the road, falling asleep at the wheel and crossing the center lines were the biggest causes identified.
     
  10. Ingenere

    Ingenere F1 Veteran
    Owner Silver Subscribed

    Dec 11, 2001
    6,336
    On the Limit
    Full Name:
    Dino
    Ditto. But in the case of the OP, the registered owner of the car just needs to check the box that says it isn't them.
     
  11. CornersWell

    CornersWell F1 Rookie

    Nov 24, 2004
    4,874
    Also, photo tickets are technically, legally inadmissible due to the hearsay exception.

    CW
     
  12. Baasha

    Baasha Formula 3

    Jun 20, 2004
    1,186
    NorCal
    Guys,

    Thanks for the advice.

    There seem to be a few people who suggest I should just 'pay the fine' and others who say 'ignore it altogether'.

    The most recent notices state that "a warrant may be issued for your arrest and your license may be suspended" if I fail to respond to a "criminal charge" (this alleged violation is "Civil Traffic" --> 'speeding').

    My biggest concern is that if I do ignore these notices, could the situation end up where an arrest warrant is issued for my family member (registered owner) or her license gets suspended?

    What is the WORST CASE SCENARIO if I ignore these recent notices ("second notice")?

    I totally agree with Alex (410SA) regarding this type of ticketing is for taxation purposes. Given the fact that these 'photo radar' tickets would not affect my family member's driving record, I am more inclined to just pay them and have peace of mind but if I have a good chance of getting these photo radar tickets dismissed, I definitely want to take that route.

    So please tell me the following:

    1.) WORST case scenario if I ignore these notices
    2.) Would my family member be in danger of being arrested or getting her license suspended if I ignore these notices?

    Thanks again.
     
  13. Testarossa13

    Testarossa13 Formula Junior

    Dec 4, 2007
    335
    Arizona
    Full Name:
    Tony Jr.
    #13 Testarossa13, Mar 29, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
    HEY...I'm back again ,you can read my previous comment ,I don't understand why your trying to circumvent the scenerio of the photo radar.You were speeding not once but twice.Why should you not have to pay the summons.You were not in compliance with the law.Step up to the plate and pay the F*****G summons.Your guility take responsibility.Just look at the message that your sending out to everyone.I'm really surprised that your a Fchat member.Doesn't your conscience bother you,now tell the truth.Sit down and get your check book out and write the check out for the summons.Your are going to feel a whole lot better.This will be an expensive learning experience for you but in the long run you will come out a "winner". How do you like my F430 and my 328 GTS?Now you know I'm serious in what I mentioned to you above.Just do it and move forward...............................Ciao Tony
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
     
  14. 410SA

    410SA F1 Veteran

    Nov 2, 2003
    8,511
    West Coast
    Full Name:
    A
    Despite what anyone else says, and there are some vociferously vocal people who want you to pay, perhaps to lower the state debt, a ticket delivered through the mail is completely unofficial.
    You CANNOT be arrested, cited for contempt of court, or face any other legal consequences UNLESS you are physically served by an officer of the court, or a police officer who actually stops you, verifies your identity and cites you for speeding. At this point, the private company running this program for profit have a photo of a male driver and a car registered to a female. It's a non starter right out of the gate, so they send you vaguely threatening mail, which is completely without merit, as you personally have never been identified as the driver. The registered owner can clearly prove she was not driving the car, therefore she is absolutely conviction proof.
    Unless you are physically served with a speeding citation, and that is impossible at this point as an officer never identified you by verifying your driver's license, you are absolutely free to go.
     
  15. Argento839

    Argento839 F1 Veteran

    Oct 21, 2005
    9,103
    Despite what any vociferously vocal people say, you can indeed be served. Chances of it happening especially out of state are very slim as it is just not cost effective. The said people are right that nothing will happen to you without official service (even though in theory they could indeed prosecute you for contempt for ignoring the mailed notice hence their ability to threaten you with criminal action – yes they can but won’t). Personally, I would just pay and avoid any unforeseen headaches (no matter how remote) but if you want to take advice from people suggesting that you ignore the law that's your choice. Good luck.
     
  16. 410SA

    410SA F1 Veteran

    Nov 2, 2003
    8,511
    West Coast
    Full Name:
    A
    I don't believe that anyone has advised the OP to ignore the law. The "law" in this case, relating to speeding, requires that the allegation be made by a police officer or an officer of the court by physical service of the citation or the summons. Since this has not happened the law is not being ignored. If the OP is served with a citation pursuant to the statutes, then he should govern his conduct accordingly. Absent an officer citation or a legally served summons, he has not broken any law.
    Also you simply cannot be held in contempt of any court pursuant to ignoring a mailed notice that isn't certified and requires, once again, a verified signature.
    The regular mailings set out by the speed device operators do not create any legal obligation on the part of the addressee in any form whatsoever.

    Photo traffic enforcement, especially freeway speed devices, are simply a mechanism to arbitrarily collect taxes from motorists. 70% of motorist who have received invitations in the mail to contribute to the private company's coffers have declined to do so. There must be something there, where a majority of otherwise law abiding citizens are ignoring their notices that they should pay some private company because they allegedly went faster than the speed that is advisable on a particular piece of roadway.
    Arizona does not have de facto, concrete speed limits. It has a "reasonable and prudent speed for the prevailing conditions" policy which makes camera enforcement even more ludicrous. There is no human test of "reasonable and prudent" being applied by a camera, and if someone was so inclined to test the system in a court it is likely that they would be acquitted unless it could be proven that their actions were reckless and imprudent, and a still camera cannot do that.
    When society starts giving in to implied threats without any basis then we are headed on a slippery downhill to authoritarianism where the state and not individuals are in control of our lives.
     
  17. Argento839

    Argento839 F1 Veteran

    Oct 21, 2005
    9,103
    #17 Argento839, Mar 30, 2009
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2009
    The law is undoubtedly being ignored if the notice is ignored (regardless of whether it is a third party actually doing the mailing). Also, nobody can say categorically that there will not be official service (probably not though). All I have said about the mailing is that in theory by actually (and verifiably by your acknowledgment) being in receipt of that notice and ignoring it, the law could (but won't) prosecute you for ignoring it and that is why they threaten you with criminal action. We could argue whether it would ultimately be a successful criminal prosecution but the notice is not incorrect (albeit a stretch). Other than that, I am not in disagreement except that I would personally pay if I was sent a ticket as I am constantly amazed by the ability of government to be a pain in the neck. I should also take this opportunity to mention again that it is my understanding that a few states have passed laws preventing one from registering a vehicle for ignoring photo tickets so this may become a more difficult situation in the future. Best of luck.
     
  18. wingfeather

    wingfeather F1 Rookie

    Feb 1, 2007
    3,653
    rock bottom
    #18 wingfeather, Mar 30, 2009
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2009
    That pretty much sums it up!!! These devices that "make our lives safer" only account for 7% of crashes... it's all about the revenue! Now, pay up like a good zombie!

    BINGO!!!
     
  19. CornersWell

    CornersWell F1 Rookie

    Nov 24, 2004
    4,874
    As a lawyer, while I'm not admitted to AZ, I would not ever recommend NOT responding. A bench warrant can be issued for your arrest. And, if you're ever stopped for anything by any LEO, you will be taken into custody on the spot. The fact that the warrant is based on a "bogus" ticket is, unfortunately, irrelevant. As far as the Court is concerned, it's not "bogus" until you prove it's "bogus" to the Court's satisfaction. So, you would have one outstanding ticket without response and a bench warrant hanging over your head.

    That said, any AZ lawyers should chime in. It does seem silly that AZ has the power to arrest the registered owner of the vehicle if they can't prove it was them driving.

    CW
     
  20. 410SA

    410SA F1 Veteran

    Nov 2, 2003
    8,511
    West Coast
    Full Name:
    A
    These are all civil misdemeanors and AZ doesn't even report them to insurers, in order to try and get the money easily. I don't think there has been a single reported arrest on a photo radar ticket that was issued for a speed less than 20MPH over the limit.
    I agree that if you ignore a properly served citation you are in contravention of the law, but a mailed notice of a civil complaint against the registered owner in another state is literally never ever going to be enforced.
     
  21. 512bbnevada

    512bbnevada Formula Junior
    BANNED

    Aug 22, 2007
    422
    las vegas
    Full Name:
    Biff
    #21 512bbnevada, Mar 30, 2009
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2009
    Good info here I side with 410SA. Went to phx on business in Dec twice and got flashed by the cameras on vans , the hwy I was just going along with traffic maybe 70mph it was raining so never received anything in the mail as I am sure the 1st pic didn't indentify me well and within a mile got flashed by another camera this time I ducked so it didn't get a clear pic I am sure, maybe Nevada doesn't share lic plate info with pvt companies don't know.


    I think these cameras are unconstitutional and can or will cause accidents wait till some mom crashes into one of these parked on the shoulder and the family sues the hell out of these private companies. Screw them I mean it ,unfair taxaition without representaton!
     
  22. Challenge64

    Challenge64 F1 Veteran
    Owner Rossa Subscribed

    Jul 28, 2004
    6,299
    Full Name:
    Ron
    most issues have already been addressed..but my experiences with photo radar is this.

    - If you receive a ticket in the mail, that isnt proof of anything. If you ignore it you will probably receive a certified letter or 2.
    - These letters all say "may"...not "will" have a warrant issued
    - Once you respond in any way shape or form, you have now "received" the tickets and must now be accountable for them.
    - If you ignore both the reg mail and the certified letter requests..there is a chance...however remote that you could be served
    - The city/state has 180 days to do all this
    - The owner of the car is the "responsible" party. Now what that means is up to you to figure out
    - Friends who have had tickets have all either totally ignored them or responded by stating it wasnt him (same case of friend driving another friends car)
    - my wife did get served when she ignored a ticket. she took drivers school

    GL and btw I personally wonder how well all this camera stuff actually works. Last month I was on I-10 and got flashed going the speed limit. Never got anything in the mail but was enough to skip a few heart beats.
     
  23. AronAZ

    AronAZ Karting

    Jul 13, 2004
    227
    Tucson, AZ
    Agree with Challenge & 410.

    After installing its first cameras, the City of Tucson acknowledged that tickets by mail have no legal binding for the receiver - only a convenience (i.e. "yep, that's me and I did it. Let me write a check and be done."). Arizona State law requires the notice to be served. Locally, they charge a $25 process fee on top of the ticket to pay for the server for people who fail to respond to mailed threats. Once served, the receiver is obligated to respond accordingly.

    They also acknowledged that the registered owner of an offending vehicle will receive the citation. If the owner was not driving at the time, the owner cannot be compelled by law to report the identity of the offender. (Will spare the legal mumbo jumbo, they just can't.)

    In your case, if served the vehicle owner checks the box for "not me" and sends it back. Done.

    Out of state serving can be done, but I agree unlikely. If you are served you must respond just as though you'd been pulled over and handed a ticket by a friendly patrolman. Failure to respond to a civil traffic citation can lead to the suspension of your license by request of the state in which the offense occurred. (This happend to me many years ago.)
     
  24. Challenge64

    Challenge64 F1 Veteran
    Owner Rossa Subscribed

    Jul 28, 2004
    6,299
    Full Name:
    Ron
    Just like I said and just like Aron said, once you acknowledge these tickets in any way shape or form, it's just like you've been handed them by a police officer. Dont under estimate that.

    btw a friend told me that he drives a car registered in his wife's name and she drives a car registered in his name. Said something about spouses not being legally forced to rat on one another. But this scenario can open up all sorts of other issues :)
     
  25. Baasha

    Baasha Formula 3

    Jun 20, 2004
    1,186
    NorCal
    #25 Baasha, Mar 31, 2009
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2009
    Guys,

    Thank you very much for the advice.

    Since it definitely was NOT my family member driving (female and registered owner of the car), if "she" fills in the "it wasn't me" box and mails it in is that the end of the case? On the notice it says that "IF YOU WERE NOT THE DRIVER at the time of the violation, you may identify the driver in the space provided below. etc. etc."

    Since it says "MAY IDENTIFY" does that mean she "has" to? This option ('B') seems the best to me because even though she will 'respond' to the notice, it is clearly TRUE that she WAS NOT the driver so she can never be found guilty!

    So, if she was to choose this option, what does she exactly have to do? Meaning, it says on the back that, "YOU MUST INCLUDE AN ENLARGED, CLEAR COPY OF YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE TO REQUEST TO EXCLUDE YOURSELF AS THE DRIVER." So I suppose she can send in a copy of her DL and that would completely PROVE that she wasn't the driver! Would that be the end of it?

    I feel a little hesitant to wait for 180 days to hope and see if she gets 'served'. My biggest concern is (Challenge's post regarding) if she gets pulled over for anything else in CA and "she" ignored these notices, is there a remote chance of her being arrested even though she hasn't been technically 'served' yet? I don't want to even go that route so to avoid that, I think the option 'B' is the best route, since it is indeed true that she, the registered owner of the car, was NOT driving the car at the time of the violation.

    So YAY or NAY on Option B (SHE WAS NOT THE DRIVER)?

    What about the option to COMPLETELY IGNORE THE MAILED NOTICES? That seems a little too risky to me even though legally it may make sense.

    Btw, I have not replied, called, or done anything in response to these notices yet. I want to first see what my options are.
     

Share This Page