"Debt Collector"

[boswd]

What is the name of your state? MA

I didn't want to hijack that person's thread. But this I don't understand, if you know the Statute of Limitations is up and you know the debtor knows and will use this as the defense in their case,
How can you get a default Judgement if this person answers the court order and you know this person has their stuff together and can prove it. Why would you waste the time and money since if you don't get the judgement you will have to cover your own Attorney Costs.
Why would you go through with it?

[Kanchazi]

Because they spend a few hundred dollars to possibly get back thousands.

[boswd]

Originally Posted by Kanchazi

Because they spend a few hundred dollars to possibly get back thousands.

That part I understand but I have a friend who worked in a Collection Agency while he was in college, ARS and we were talking about this last night.
He said basically what they did was when they have an old debt or purchased an old debt they would first look at the date of last activity then find out what state this occured in and what their SOL is. They would still send a couple of notices because for most states there is no SOL on billing. And if they did not hear back from them they would go ahead and file court claim against them banking on the odds that the debtor has no idea there is such a thing as an SOL on old debt. He said if the debtor contacted the CA, usually by certified mail with a cease and desist and had their records proving the SOL, they knew they didn't have a case and that this debtor could prove it in court, they would go ahead and cancel the court proceedings and put that debt out to hopefully be bought up by someone else, like another CA. He said what they were orignally banking on with the debtor not having any knowledge of their state SOL was proving wrong.
So this what I don't understand from the other thread and what Debt Collector was talking about. The collection agency is very well aware of the date of last activity and of the states SOL and now that the debtor can prove it, he basically said they would still take you to court, even though they know they won't get a judgment. Make no sense to me.

[fatlard]

Originally Posted by boswd

What is the name of your state? MA

I didn't want to hijack that person's thread. But this I don't understand, if you know the Statute of Limitations is up and you know the debtor knows and will use this as the defense in their case,
How can you get a default Judgement if this person answers the court order and you know this person has their stuff together and can prove it. Why would you waste the time and money since if you don't get the judgement you will have to cover your own Attorney Costs.
Why would you go through with it?

It is the shotgun approach. It will hit something.. that is why they keep shooting. Furthermore, there is a good chance some people will not show up so they get a default judgement.

[debtcollector`]

Originally Posted by boswd

What is the name of your state? MA

I didn't want to hijack that person's thread. But this I don't understand, if you know the Statute of Limitations is up and you know the debtor knows and will use this as the defense in their case,
How can you get a default Judgement if this person answers the court order and you know this person has their stuff together and can prove it. Why would you waste the time and money since if you don't get the judgement you will have to cover your own Attorney Costs.
Why would you go through with it?

1. It isn't a waste of time or money. Once the case has been filed -- the attorney has already been paid. It doesn't hurt to roll the dice.
2. Most debtors think they have their facts together -- they don't. They answer a summons with a validation, like you advised, and they lose. Frankly I have no mercy for slugs pleading SOL if they can't do it themselves and aren't smart enough to hire an attorney. If they want to hide behind the law -- it is up to them to know how to use it.
3. I may think the debtor was getting a raw deal and this is the easy way to help them take care of it permantly -- and on the company's dime. -- never actrually happened, but it could.
4. More than 90 percent of judgments are default. Collections is a game of statistics. If we sue 100,000 people this year, we are going get judgments against 95%. I really don't care about the 5 percent we don't. Those people are, quite literally, just a number. And not a large one.
5. Most likely the CAs attorney will be in court handling 10 to 100 cases at a time for us. One more doesn't matter. It isn't going to cost us any more. And frankly if it did, we'd simply reduce the portion for that case to the bare minimum and tax the others to cover it.
6. Judgments sell for more than bad debts.

DC

[StephenH]

If I were a congressman, I would amend the FDCPA as follows to protect people of their rights"

1) I would require that all judges check the SOL for the debt, regardless if the person comes to court.

2) If the SOL is expired, instead of a default judgement, I would require that the court dismiss the case with prejudice, and not award the collectors attorney fees. This would apply even if the defendant does not show up in court or answer correctly.


I would also ban the following practices:

1) Serving the person at an old address in order to get a default judgement. I would make the penalty for this as follows:

First Time Violation) Penalties and Interest Stopped from the time the person was improperly served to the time they are served correctly. Any default judgement in terms of improper service is also vacated during this time. SOL on the other hand does NOT stop or reset. Debtor not liable for the attorney fees of an improper service.

Second Time Violation) All of Attempt #1 above, plus the judgement collection enforcement potential of the original debt reduced 25%, with penalties and interest reduced accordingly.

Third Time Violation) Case against defendant dismissed with prejudice. If sold, additional collectors cannot sue. Additionally, debtor is not liable for any attorneys fees due to improper service.

[debtcollector`]

[quote=StephenH;1603010]If I were a congressman, I would amend the FDCPA as follows to protect people of their rights"[quote]

I'd bring back debtors' prisons. Possibly a term of involuntary servitude to pay off your debts. We'll see just how many people have to have a new car or $200,000 house then.

DC

I would assume a debt collector would advocate debtor's prison. It takes a cold-hearted view on life to believe such, and it speaks volumes of the person in general.

There are many circumstances to consider as to why someone falls on hardtimes. What about the sick or elderly. Do we throw them into a prison? Generalizing is easy, and it does not take much brain power to make this claim, as you demonstrated.

However, there is partial truth in your last sentence. People need to stop buying houses, cars and other luxury items that are 4 or 5 times the amount and/or size they need. Stop trying to live better than your neighbor and filling that delusional fantasy of the "American Dream."

[garrula lingua]

Off-track: I've always thought that debtor's prisons were a benign idea which would solve a lot of problems - welfare fraud, job training, health care, child care, SS fraud, etc. :

If we had a central housing unit for people who couldn't financially support themselves, instead of giving them food stamps (tradable) or welfare checks or subsidized housing (ll makes gov $):
People would work and could be assigned the various jobs in the unit and learn marketable job skills (cooking, cleaning, mechanics, electrician apprentence, plumbing, etc)
(which would build pride), school degrees (AA, BA), and
the children would be better cared for - health facilities available, schools, FOOD, baby-sitting, people who care, and
it would motivate people to better their lives, to aspire to own their own homes, their own big screen TVs, cars, etc.

Walk down one of the streets of the South Bronx and you could be in a 3rd world country.
The kids ARE hungry, uncared for and uneducated, as will their children be --- although, for most, the rent is paid by gov., the families get welfare, food stamps, ssi, etc. -- it just doesn't go to the kids and there is very little emphasis on education or self-improvement.

What motivation is there, to work and earn money, and pay bills, if I can have the house, the TV, the car, the inflated cost to gov, -- all for free and without any indication that my kids will do any better than I, at work skills and use of gov. resources ?

For many people who had cancer and were at City of Hope when I was, bankruptcy was inevitable. But, what then ? All generations can benefit from a 'poor house'.

We need to start teaching people to learn to fish, instead of constantly giving them free fish. And, it's not demeaning to have a 'poor house' - it would be a sanctuary for many, especially our elderly (don't lock them away in nursing homes (worse than poorhouses) - let them live in an inter-generational group) and our youth (we must educate them, and give them resources to build skills and pride).

Also, I believe some people just CAN'T handle money - they need the items, themselves, provided, not cash.
If there wasn't such a stigma re 'poorhouses' maybe we wouldn't have as many homeless people.
That's it. I need coffee. Sorry to barge in.