RE: In jail for being in debt (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

rulemylife -> RE: In jail for being in debt (6/9/2010 8:30:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

Depends on who we're talking about. If it's you, no - it's not OK. If it's  Servant, hell yeah - he's a Packer fan, for christ's sake.

Oh. Wait a minute. So am I.

OK, screw it. I'm changing my answer. No, I'm against it.



Wait, I thought you were from Minnesota.

And you're a Packers fan?

They need to deport you to the hell that is Wisconsin.









Vendaval -> RE: In jail for being in debt (6/9/2010 8:53:30 PM)

Are you worried about being sent to jail for debt? Or someone you know?



FirmhandKY -> RE: In jail for being in debt (6/9/2010 9:14:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

are all your bills current?

ALL of them?

Debt is slavery.

The only personal debt that someone should go into is on a house (and not over their head), and a car - but only if needed for work, and not a new one if they are tight financially.

My general view is if you can't pay for it right then, right now, you shouldn't buy it.

The only things that I owe, other than the electric bill and stuff like that, is an occasional credit card from when I take a trip, and don't want to carry a lot of cash, or when I need one to rent a car, or pay for a hotel.

Then they are paid off absolutely as soon as possible.

I've had two cards canceled because I "didn't keep enough on the balances".

Firm



popeye1250 -> RE: In jail for being in debt (6/9/2010 10:05:43 PM)

Hmm, I wonder if they go after you for medical debts?
Seeing as plenty of people that I know have medical debts. Funny though, if your last name is Lopez and you're in the U.S. illegally they don't seem to care.



Termyn8or -> RE: In jail for being in debt (6/10/2010 1:01:59 AM)

Jumped through again.

This is going to be a sticky legal issue. Now if in losing a court case, there are court costs usually assessed to the loser. Does this constitute a civil judgement or a court order ? Someone will no doubt research the law on this, but a civil judgement is of course prohibited from causing arrest. But do the court costs constitute part of that civil judgement or not ?

A court can order you to surrender property, such as a car or whatever, whether it is part of a settlement and make that stick. Like the Wife in a divorce case getting the house and one car and he can keep the pickup and the Harley. Each can be jailed for failing to surrender the property.

The way I see it, the silver lining is well hidden. Because even to blur those lines has created much precedent. It would seem to have been a common tenet of stat, comm and whatever law that money, whatever you choose to call it was to be exempt from these conditions that may be imposed on other property when it comes to distributing it.

However, even though ruling in the creditor's favor might reveal some things to alot of people, that's only if certain grounds are used. Because concievably the debtor could have simply returned whatever in some cases. If it was tools, sure, but if it was building materials they would have been used. So the inability exists to pay. To be in violation of a court order must, I believe include the element of intent. For example if you can prove that specific items, cars, collector's items and so forth, have been stolen, that is all out the window.

So what happens then, assuming that they were not insured in any way ? Was that taking due care ? So these issues come into a case so fundamental, because of the ramifications of what a court of equity can actually order. They can order you to yield a car, boat, house, even children, to another. Would this not include the power to do the same with any other asset ?Currency, no matter how fake, fiat or valueles you may consider it is still an asset.

I'm looking for someone to take this to the supreme court, but that will only happen after many people lose everything. And for this circumstance, Just think just who they lose it to, those who fucked our economy even worse then we could ever do.

Wonder why I get snarky sometimes.

T

Not proofing today, sorry for the typos. I am just so tired of this subject it is starting to bore me.



LadyEllen -> RE: In jail for being in debt (6/10/2010 1:42:56 AM)

Lets turn this around hunky;

Should people be allowed to walk away from their debts and ignore the Court?

I do commercial debt recovery. As such I have to "act reasonably" in order to comply with the rules - this means that the sort of actions taken to recover a debt have to be proportionate and fair as well as legal. The advantage of these limitations though is clear - nine out of ten who can pay will pay because theyre provided with options to do so and not harried silly - this costs much less for everyone and produces far less stress for all concerned. It is a pity that some collectors do not understand this basic principle and fail to keep in mind that it is the recovery of the debt that is the goal.

Still though some debtors refuse to engage. They are informed at least twice that Court action is planned, and this after at least two months of reminders and final notices, then they get a claim. They then have a month or so to negotiate something. Then they have an opportunity to come to Court and defend or admit the claim, and even immediately before the hearing there is opportunity to negotiate. They then get a default judgment against them and ignore that too. Tell me, what am I meant now to do except look to enforce the debt?

Whilst often I will have information on their bank accounts or other assets to get enforcement, just as often I wont - in that case I apply for an order to require the debtor to attend Court for questioning so that the information needed to start enforcement can be acquired. This order has to be served personally in England, unlike many other Court documents where service can be by carrier pigeon in theory. The reason for the different service requirement is this - that if the debtor refuses to attend or declines to do so, a warrant will be issued for his arrest. Even then, he is provided another opportunity to comply and attend for questioning - if he still refuses or declines to do so then the arrest warrant is issued and he is brought to the Court for questioning. Even then, as long as he now complies and answers the questions, he wont go to prison.

Typically by this stage I have spent anything from £500-00 upwards on Court fees of one sort or another, and for those creditors who use a lawyer (not needed here) the costs to them would be around triple that. For these reasons its best not to start any action unless youve got some information in the first place about the debtor to suggest that he can pay - another failing of many collectors, who leave their clients with a bad debt twice as large as it started. Do I want that money back too? Damn right I do.

In summary, any decent debt recovery operation will have given this woman every chance possible to resolve her situation before she wound up in prison. If the system in the US, or the debt collector in this case, has acted wrongly, stupidly or unreasonably then I would expect her lawyer to be dealing with the matter on that basis, but it seems to me otherwise that the system worked and she didnt want to engage so she got what she got.

E



WyldHrt -> RE: In jail for being in debt (6/10/2010 1:56:56 AM)

I've been battling AT&T's collection company for over a year now over a debt that I do not owe.
Where I live, cell service is spotty. I signed up for AT&T only after I was assured that I had 30 days to cancel the contract for any reason. I did so in less than 7 days, as I couldn't get reception at all, returning the phone and porting my number to Verizon. All cool, right?

Wrong. 2 months later I received a bill for nearly $300, stating that I had terminated my service prematurely. I called, and was told that I was being charged because I hadn't returned the phone. I explained that I had, and promptly faxed a receipt that clearly showed that the phone had been returned. I was told that it was all good, and I would receive a bill for the 7 days of service and one attempt that I had made to connect to the internet with my phone. All cool with me.

The bill never arrived. Instead, some collection company started calling me at work 2-5 times per day, demanding over $350 and making threats. I explained that I had taken care of this with AT&T, and they asked for a copy of the receipt proving that the phone was returned, and the letter I had sent with the receipt. I faxed it, and didn't hear from them again for about 6 months. Then it started all over again; phone calls at work, threats if I didn't pay, getting really nasty. I went through the same again, sent the receipt, told all was cool. Now they are calling again, every day, despite the fact that I've told them multiple times that I am not allowed to receive personal calls at work. A bit of internet research on the number these calls come from turned up some really nasty stuff, like calls at 3AM, 25 calls per day, and over the top threats. Lovely.

It will be the icing on the cake if some cop drags me off to jail on a bench warrant for a court appearance I'm not even notified of, but I won't be surprised. [8|]








LadyEllen -> RE: In jail for being in debt (6/10/2010 2:10:23 AM)

Write to AT&T - the CEO, informing him/her that you consider the actions of their debt collector to be harassment and that you will be considering suing AT&T if it doesnt stop immediately or is recommenced at any time in the future.

Even if this doesnt stop it, and I'd be surprised if it didnt, you will have this to show in your counterclaim (along with your contemporaneous notes of the unwarranted contacts from the debt collector) if it ever gets that far.

I would also write to the debt collection agency to tell them the same thing. Hopefully its just an error, but there is more than a suggestion that some of these agencies are less than scrupulous and will try to frighten people into paying even when they do not owe. Thats called something - "demanding money with menaces" perhaps or "fraud". If just a few out of every thousand pay up in this way, its worth it for them.

I had a similar case with British Gas a while back when I moved house, whereby they insisted I pay someone else's gas bill (presumably because they had my name and I would do). They set their debt collection agency on me. Put them right in very short order with two letters as above.

E




WyldHrt -> RE: In jail for being in debt (6/10/2010 3:02:39 AM)

Thankies for the advice LadyE, I'm on it! [:)]

I could go for an error once or twice, but I'm in this for the third round in over a year, and it pisses me off. AT&T is one of the top communications networks in the US, and the fact that they use a shady company that skirts if not breaks the law for their collections is kind of sickening to me.



Level -> RE: In jail for being in debt (6/10/2010 3:56:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: laurell3

Level I would guess you have some sort of debtor's examination or compulsory disclosure of your assets, accounts, jobs etc.


Could be [:D] we're doing some learning on the job as we speak, an attorney has requested a turnover hearing, first time we've had that situation. From what I gather so far, we'll order the defendant (if he can be found) to supply a list of items that can be used to help resolve his debt.



servantforuse -> RE: In jail for being in debt (6/10/2010 4:39:50 AM)

Sue AT&T ? I hope she has a lot of money because AT&T has a lot of attornies. Pay whatever she owes, chalk it up to a life experience and move on.



LadyEllen -> RE: In jail for being in debt (6/10/2010 6:15:46 AM)

If you dont owe the money then you can not be called upon to pay it - its that simple.

Also there is no need to actually sue anyone here either; merely mentioning the possibility and the grounds to do so gives you the option to later on if you wish or need to, and in the meantime may wake them up to calling off their debt collector and his unwarranted contacts. It also puts them on notice of the counterclaim that will be forthcoming if they dont call off their debt collector - this is a preferable way of suing them if possible, given that you dont need to initiate anything as such.

Lastly, this is a simple contract case from the looks of it, where they believe erroneously there has been breach of contract apparently, by way of non payment of the agreed consideration. As such, assuming one may represent oneself in California, there is no need of an attorney to defend such a claim, or to make a counterclaim given a little research.

E



pahunkboy -> RE: In jail for being in debt (6/10/2010 6:17:48 AM)

what about gotcha business practices?



LadyEllen -> RE: In jail for being in debt (6/10/2010 6:35:03 AM)

"Gotcha business practices"? please explain - but if it amounts to people agreeing contracts without bothering to read or understand them properly and then complaining its unfair later, dont bother.

E



pahunkboy -> RE: In jail for being in debt (6/10/2010 6:38:36 AM)

See the post $350 cancel fee.    THINK dude-  gotchas are the business model.



FirmhandKY -> RE: In jail for being in debt (6/10/2010 6:40:55 AM)


Debt Collection FAQs: A Guide for Consumers



LadyEllen -> RE: In jail for being in debt (6/10/2010 6:49:15 AM)

Sorry Hunky, but unless there was misrepresentation it is down to the customer to ensure he understands what it is he is agreeing to. If he doesnt understand then he ought not to agree until he has received an adequate explanation and is agreeable or has obtained a variation that is more suited to his circumstances.

The lesson is to take care when making contracts, not that (absent misrepresentation) businesses are out to trick you.

E



ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: In jail for being in debt (6/10/2010 6:51:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Sue AT&T ? I hope she has a lot of money because AT&T has a lot of attornies. Pay whatever she owes, chalk it up to a life experience and move on.


I think you missed the part where she said she doesn't owe anything.



pahunkboy -> RE: In jail for being in debt (6/10/2010 6:54:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Sorry Hunky, but unless there was misrepresentation it is down to the customer to ensure he understands what it is he is agreeing to. If he doesnt understand then he ought not to agree until he has received an adequate explanation and is agreeable or has obtained a variation that is more suited to his circumstances.

The lesson is to take care when making contracts, not that (absent misrepresentation) businesses are out to trick you.

E



You have no clue on how things are in America is now.

No clue.

Every thing is a package deal.  Everything is a contract- full of escape clauses.

Cable, internet, cell, credit cards, checking, insurance, warranties, phone plans- you have no idea.

Study America and you will see.

I cant beleive you think this.  Run a household and see.



LadyEllen -> RE: In jail for being in debt (6/10/2010 8:04:53 AM)

You think it is somehow different here? Remember, we're the 51st state - semi-detached only and everything new over there, especially in business, gets here within weeks. Not to mention that so many of these US corporations are over here anyway, in their own names or otherwise, that we're quite aware of such practices thanks. The only difference is stronger consumer protection law (aka "red tape that costs jobs") deriving from thr EU (aka "foreigners interfering with business"). But a contract is still a contract and caveat emptor applies.

E



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875