I have often wondered why many times a Plaintiff/attorney may handle the hearings telephonically but the same is not available to the Defendant/debtor. This does not appear just. I suggest that most Defendant's choose not to appear because of the loss of wages or choose not to show at at all because they are intimidated by counsel. If given the opportunity to appear telephonically I believe that more cases will be heard.
I think it would be better to focus on avoiding the law suits rather than avoiding defaults. The validation of debt process is unfair to the consumer. A debt collector should not be able to file a law suit prior to validating the debt. A proper validation should include the following:
A) A signed statement from the original creditor, on their letter head, establishing who is the assignee and what specific acts they have been authorized to perform on behalf of the creditor.******* Debtors are required to provide Letters of Representation or Specific POA to the creditor/debt collector. Why should the Creditor not have to perform in the same manner.
B) This validation letter should state the amount of the alleged debt, at the time it was assigned to the law office (collection office) or the amount of debt at the time it was "charged off" by the original creditor.
C) It should give a deadline to cure the alleged debt.
D) It should include several options to settle prior to the deadline.
E) It should include a “sample” debt validation notice for the debtor to mail in.
I do not believe that it is "just" to allow a third party to buy a past due debt and sue for the entire balance, plus attorney fees, court costs, and other fees associated with "mediators or arbitrators". I believe that a third party debt buyer should be limited as to how much they can sue for above their initial investment. Too many times the original creditor is a publically traded company and the loss has already been taken by the share holders. Then some debt buyer buys a portfolio of un-performing debt and pays a dime on a dollar for it. Sends all of it to a "law office" to collect 100% or more of the original alleged obligation. The debt buyer should not be able to sue for 900% of their investment. They should be limited to a percentage of true damage. I know of no other civil process where this would be considered ethical.
I believe that many default judgments are because the Defendant/debtor does not know what to do. They cannot afford to retain an attorney and they do not know how to answer a complaint. I believe that if every "debt collection law firm" is required by the CFPB to provide a answer form with check boxes. Example to include check box 1 if you admit to the allegations in paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s complaint. Check box 2 if you deny the allegations in paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s complaint. Check box 3 if after reasonable investigation the defendant does not have sufficient information to form a belief as to the allegations in paragraph 1 of plaintiff’s complaint. Something so that the least sophisticated consumer has a chance at avoiding a default. It should also delineate of any filing fees necessary to be paid (varies by state) in order for the Defendant’s Answer to be accepted by the court.
In most states all that a debt collection law office needs to provide is a complaint. The average consumer has no idea what the difference is between a balance and a sum. they do not know how to calculate the interest and certainly do not know what is "legal" pursuant to state or Federal Credit Card Act limitations. The name of the Plaintiff may not even be recognizable to them. They just know that they owed some money and fell behind on bills. More times than not, they do not respond at all.
Depends on the type of Bankruptcy. If it is a CH 13 many times the creditors receive more money than if they choose to forgive a portion of the debt and settle direct with the consumer. This is because of the strict "means test" for CH 7.
When you say that you have "exhausted all options", I am curious as to over how long of a period have you attempted to collect when you choose to file a suit? Hardships are not all the same and some hardships can last for a year or longer. As a consumer advocate I see very few creditors that are willing to do anything more than refer to CCC or reduce rates for a short period of time.
County in which it was opened or the county in which the debtor/Defendant resides. If filed in the imporper court a change of venue can be requested and in most cases granted by the court in which the suit was filed.
I believe that most Defendants are properly served. I review about 200-300 civil cases a month and very rarely is service done improperly. This does vary a bit from state to state but in my experience the majority of defendants have been properly served.
This is a violation of the FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act) and can be corrected quickly by the credit reporting agency. If the credit reporting agency refuses, there are many Consumer Protection Attorneys that would happily take this case on contingency. This type of violation normally never sees the inside of a court room. A letter from a well known CP Attorney will likely get awards and the prompt correction of the credit report.
Though I do not agree with "someone to rack up tens of thousands of dollars of debt and never pay it back". My current standing is that the laws of each and every state allow for higher interest rates to be charged for non-secured debt. This is because the lenders take more losses "the risk should be in alignment with the award".
In many cases the principal has been paid back in full or the majority of the debt has been paid back. To allow a "third party" to buy it at a significantly reduced price, after the debt has been charged off by the original “lender/creditor” AND allow the third party to collect the full alleged balance and interest is not just.
This is the way I am leaning at this time. Explain to me why you or I feel differently?
Your point about the overshadowing is well taken. My comments are based upon suggested changes to the debt collection process. You are correct, if the FDCPA remained the way it is currently it may be considered a violation. The FDCPA allegedly is geared to the "least sophisticated individual". However, I currently speak to many people that are not able to properly respond to a debt validation (even when they have a credible dispute). I am currently dealing with a 72-year old woman whose son "stole" her identity. He was convicted of fraud and deported for other credit cards that he took out in her name. She received a dunning notice and now is being sued on another card that she was not even aware of. Our experiences are just different. I once felt the same way as you when I was in commercial debt collection. I truly appreciate your response but you and I will have to disagree that "he or she should be able to articulate that dispute". I enjoyed reading your well thought out response and look forward to the continued debate.
U.S. Marine
1
I have often wondered why many times a Plaintiff/attorney may handle the hearings telephonically but the same is not available to the Defendant/debtor. This does not appear just. I suggest that most Defendant's choose not to appear because of the loss of wages or choose not to show at at all because they are intimidated by counsel. If given the opportunity to appear telephonically I believe that more cases will be heard.
View this comment in the discussion thread
U.S. Marine
2
I think it would be better to focus on avoiding the law suits rather than avoiding defaults. The validation of debt process is unfair to the consumer. A debt collector should not be able to file a law suit prior to validating the debt. A proper validation should include the following: A) A signed statement from the original creditor, on their letter head, establishing who is the assignee and what specific acts they have been authorized to perform on behalf of the creditor.******* Debtors are required to provide Letters of Representation or Specific POA to the creditor/debt collector. Why should the Creditor not have to perform in the same manner. B) This validation letter should state the amount of the alleged debt, at the time it was assigned to the law office (collection office) or the amount of debt at the time it was "charged off" by the original creditor. C) It should give a deadline to cure the alleged debt. D) It should include several options to settle prior to the deadline. E) It should include a “sample” debt validation notice for the debtor to mail in.
View this comment in the discussion thread
U.S. Marine
3
I do not believe that it is "just" to allow a third party to buy a past due debt and sue for the entire balance, plus attorney fees, court costs, and other fees associated with "mediators or arbitrators". I believe that a third party debt buyer should be limited as to how much they can sue for above their initial investment. Too many times the original creditor is a publically traded company and the loss has already been taken by the share holders. Then some debt buyer buys a portfolio of un-performing debt and pays a dime on a dollar for it. Sends all of it to a "law office" to collect 100% or more of the original alleged obligation. The debt buyer should not be able to sue for 900% of their investment. They should be limited to a percentage of true damage. I know of no other civil process where this would be considered ethical.
View this comment in the discussion thread
U.S. Marine
4
I believe that many default judgments are because the Defendant/debtor does not know what to do. They cannot afford to retain an attorney and they do not know how to answer a complaint. I believe that if every "debt collection law firm" is required by the CFPB to provide a answer form with check boxes. Example to include check box 1 if you admit to the allegations in paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s complaint. Check box 2 if you deny the allegations in paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s complaint. Check box 3 if after reasonable investigation the defendant does not have sufficient information to form a belief as to the allegations in paragraph 1 of plaintiff’s complaint. Something so that the least sophisticated consumer has a chance at avoiding a default. It should also delineate of any filing fees necessary to be paid (varies by state) in order for the Defendant’s Answer to be accepted by the court.
View this comment in the discussion thread
U.S. Marine
5
In most states all that a debt collection law office needs to provide is a complaint. The average consumer has no idea what the difference is between a balance and a sum. they do not know how to calculate the interest and certainly do not know what is "legal" pursuant to state or Federal Credit Card Act limitations. The name of the Plaintiff may not even be recognizable to them. They just know that they owed some money and fell behind on bills. More times than not, they do not respond at all.
View this comment in the discussion thread
U.S. Marine
6
Depends on the type of Bankruptcy. If it is a CH 13 many times the creditors receive more money than if they choose to forgive a portion of the debt and settle direct with the consumer. This is because of the strict "means test" for CH 7.
View this comment in the discussion thread
U.S. Marine
7
When you say that you have "exhausted all options", I am curious as to over how long of a period have you attempted to collect when you choose to file a suit? Hardships are not all the same and some hardships can last for a year or longer. As a consumer advocate I see very few creditors that are willing to do anything more than refer to CCC or reduce rates for a short period of time.
View this comment in the discussion thread
U.S. Marine
8
View this comment in the discussion thread
U.S. Marine
9
County in which it was opened or the county in which the debtor/Defendant resides. If filed in the imporper court a change of venue can be requested and in most cases granted by the court in which the suit was filed.
View this comment in the discussion thread
U.S. Marine
10I believe that most Defendants are properly served. I review about 200-300 civil cases a month and very rarely is service done improperly. This does vary a bit from state to state but in my experience the majority of defendants have been properly served.
View this comment in the discussion thread
U.S. Marine
11
This is a violation of the FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act) and can be corrected quickly by the credit reporting agency. If the credit reporting agency refuses, there are many Consumer Protection Attorneys that would happily take this case on contingency. This type of violation normally never sees the inside of a court room. A letter from a well known CP Attorney will likely get awards and the prompt correction of the credit report.
View this comment in the discussion thread
U.S. Marine
12
Unless the debt has been "re-aged" by a payment having been made or it is a judgment, it is certainly time Barred from collection.
View this comment in the discussion thread
U.S. Marine
13
Though I do not agree with "someone to rack up tens of thousands of dollars of debt and never pay it back". My current standing is that the laws of each and every state allow for higher interest rates to be charged for non-secured debt. This is because the lenders take more losses "the risk should be in alignment with the award". In many cases the principal has been paid back in full or the majority of the debt has been paid back. To allow a "third party" to buy it at a significantly reduced price, after the debt has been charged off by the original “lender/creditor” AND allow the third party to collect the full alleged balance and interest is not just. This is the way I am leaning at this time. Explain to me why you or I feel differently?
View this comment in the discussion thread
U.S. Marine
14
Your point about the overshadowing is well taken. My comments are based upon suggested changes to the debt collection process. You are correct, if the FDCPA remained the way it is currently it may be considered a violation. The FDCPA allegedly is geared to the "least sophisticated individual". However, I currently speak to many people that are not able to properly respond to a debt validation (even when they have a credible dispute). I am currently dealing with a 72-year old woman whose son "stole" her identity. He was convicted of fraud and deported for other credit cards that he took out in her name. She received a dunning notice and now is being sued on another card that she was not even aware of. Our experiences are just different. I once felt the same way as you when I was in commercial debt collection. I truly appreciate your response but you and I will have to disagree that "he or she should be able to articulate that dispute". I enjoyed reading your well thought out response and look forward to the continued debate.
View this comment in the discussion thread