debtor/creditor poll

cameragirl21 wrote: I realize neither option is a good one but I'm curious which you see as being the worst offender--someone who owes and won't pay up or someone who purposely flouts the law in order to scare a debtor into paying up. An example of this would be telling someone s/he will go to jail or something to that effect if he doesn't pay up, when in fact the law does not allow for the jailing of a debtor in order to make him pay up or to engage in deception to make a debtor pay or to engage in any sort of harrassment that is illegal or to inflate what the person owes, like for example, adding on collection fees/attorneys' fees that are not allowed by law, for example, let's say a debtor owes 2k and the collector adds an additional 2k in collection fees that are not allowed by law and refuses to allow the debtor to only pay the 2k he owes, thereby obstructing any sort of settlement and keeping the debt unpaid and/or forcing the debtor to pay more than he owes in order to get the debt paid all the while harrassing the debtor and making his life a living h*ll until he pays more than what he owes. Sorry, that was a major run on sentence but I think I got my point across.
Your thoughts?

cameragirl21 replied: shoot, that second option is supposed to say--a debt collector who violates the law, not a creditor who violates the law. If a mod could fix that for me, it would be much appreciated.

PrairieMom replied: I choose the debtor. They are both wrong, but IMO the one in debt is there on their own accord, and wouldn't have to worry about the creditor at all had it not been for their bad choices.

cameragirl21 replied:
Not necessarily. Not trying to change your mind but just want to say that it should not be assumed that all debtors have credit card debt from buying more than they could afford or whatever. People go into debt for all kinds of reasons, some being totally out of their control.
For instance, my godson's mom has petit mal epilepsy. She passed out at work from what I understand was related to her condition and for some reason, her insurance did not pay for the ambulance ride to the er...she was passed out so no one asked her if she wanted to ride an ambulance or if she preferred an alternate ride to the er. Afterward, she got sued for not paying the ambulance bill because she posted a dispute with the insurance company because her ambulance ride was supposed to be covered. The debt collector, a lawyer, didn't care and sued her and added on a ridiculous amount of attorneys' fees that are NOT in her contract, which makes them illegal, debt collectors can NOT add on any fees that are not specifically stipulated in your contract. And she ended up with over a thousand dollars of debt she couldn't pay through no fault of her own.
If someone (God forbid) gets cancer and has no insurance or crappy insurance or is dropped by their insurance company (and those things do happen), they can end up with hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt, maybe even millions and I don't think anyone should be expected to sell their house and become homeless in order to pay off the debt just because they had the nerve to get cancer.
I remember seeing a story on Dateline or something to that effect about a woman whose Saudi ex-husband kidnapped their daughter and smuggled her into Saudi Arabia where she lived, against her will for years under threats her father would kill her if she disobeyed him in any way. The mother found a company who specialized in these sorts of international rescue missions, which are obviously very risky for both the rescuers and the child. Their price? 200k. So the mother got a second mortgage on her house just to pay them. And she did get her daughter back and suddenly acquired a tremendous amount of debt through no fault of her own. Idk if she ever had any problems paying but just using this as an example whereby if she defaulted on her payments because she couldn't pay, I'd not think she was an irresponsible debtor...she did what she had to do to get her child back.
Anyway, not saying you have to blame the debt collector, just want to point out that not all debtors bought what they knew they couldn't afford and are now crying foul, although I admit that there are plenty like that as well.

luvmykids replied: I voted the creditor....we all know there are plenty of people who ran up big bills with no intention of paying, but having been in the position of a responsible person who had circumstances beyond their control take over, I can say wholeheartedly those collectors are scum bags I already knew the laws though so when they'd try to threaten me I'd just laugh and tell them to go for it

boyohboyohboy replied: I voted debtor because for me I feel its a moral responsibility when you take spend the money you have to pay it back..
however, I was not sure about the second option because the wording was they break the law, I am not sure I am aware of how creditors break the law to get in the debtors face. I mean they are annoying but honestly there isnt any other way to get the money back..
not that intimidation works either.
cant get something when there is nothing left..

cameragirl21 replied:
What if you knew for sure that the debt collector violated the law and someone explained the law to you and explained exactly how the debt collector violated the law and let's say that the debt collector's violating the law led to horrible things happening to the debtor as a direct result...would you still say the debtor was worse?
Please be honest, I am not trying to convince, just curious how others see it.

boyohboyohboy replied: boy that is hard! I mean if the creditor caused harm by doing something against the law that is bad..
but I still do feel a debtor has a responsibility to not get themselves in this situation.
I guess in this situation though I think the creditor is worse.

luvmykids replied:
Interesting you bring that up, DH's poor 83 year old grandmother had a complete breakdown when creditors started calling her looking for my BIL who had lived with her for a time. They told her they knew she knew where he was and since one of the payments on his account had been made by her, they could "prove" that she took responsibility for the account and that she could expect to be served with an arrest warrant the next morning. She literally fainted and was very ill, to the point an ambulance had to be called

Totally, absolutely, 10000% illegal and not true, and did they reimburse her for her medical expenses because of it? Nope.

I know it's a little different because she wasn't the actual debtor, but even if she had been, what good exactly does that do? Nobody can crap money just because they're threatened enough

cameragirl21 replied: OMG, Monica, how long ago was that? She can totally sue them for that and win, but there is a 1 year statute of limitations so if it happened within the past year she can sue and it's a sure thing she'll win.
I've also heard some awful stories and it's only getting worse, too few people know there are laws that protect consumers from unscrupulous debt collectors.

luvmykids replied: It's well over the statute, about two years ago. But BIL is still trying to deal with those same creditors, and they have also threatened him with jail....he has filed a complaint with the attorney general.

I love it though, when he told them he'd started a new job and would be able to catch up they said "No you won't, because you'll be in jail" and he said "Ok, you got me, you need a payment by Friday? Hold on a sec...." and then sat on a whoopee cushion and said "Ok, I just pooped half of it, let me work on the rest and get back to you"

cameragirl21 replied:
He can sue them and get money, if you want details, PM me. Filing with AG isn't enough.

DVFlyer replied: The first choice to me is a person who is not paying their bills- they are past due but they are simply not paying.

A debt collector who is violating the law is, of course, illegal, but someone who takes out a loan knows they have to pay it back.

DVFlyer replied:
Then you need to change your poll to reflect "a debtor who isn't paying for 'X' reasons".

As the poll stands, one person is "refusing" to pay their debt.

The other person is violating the law to get money that is (seemingly) rightfully owed to them.

PrairieMom replied: I still maintain that if one borrows $, they are obligated to pay it back. Even with fees and what not that may be attached. it is all part of borrowing. Not paying debts is stealing. Plain and simple.
I am talking of coarse of general circumstances, not crazy scenarios that do happen, but rarely.

This is what saving accounts are for. We are all supposed to be saving 10% of our paychecks so when things come up we have the $ to take care of it

Our Lil' Family replied:
This is the attitude that makes me so mad! Filing suit against every Tom Dick and Harry is NOT the answer to every problem in life! More than once in this thread you have said, oh just sue them, get money out of it...is that the only way you know to resolve issues?

ETA: And if anywhere in your friends contract it states that she would be responsible for "reasonable attorneys fees" should legal action be needed, then it's in the contract. The only thing she might be able to get is a nice judge to reduce the %....we always sued for 25% attorney fees when I worked for a debt collector attorney.

cameragirl21 replied:
SO not true, that is a major FDCPA violation and more people should be suing debt collectors over this.
ETA--see Stolicker v Muller and see how a major debt collection law firm was brought to its knees for that very reason. Can't happen often enough if you ask me.

Our Lil' Family replied: Wow, I briefly scanned the facts of that case and I think that's so ridiculous. At what point are you supposed to put a firm figure to "reasonable attorneys fees"? You have to put some figure or percent that you are requesting when filing suit and it's up to the judge to agree or disagree and sign or reject the judgment.

cameragirl21 replied: You can't ask for a sum certain or a sum certain by computation unless your contract specifically says so.
As for being against law suits, don't you think that a debt collector who threatens someone with arrest when it is not lawful and leads the debtor to have a nervous breakdown should be sued and punished? That would hardly be frivolous.

Our Lil' Family replied:
So the term "reasonable attorneys fees" is just to look pretty?

As for a threatening debt collector...no, I don't think that deserves a suit, doing everything I can to get that person fired, reporting him for breaking FDCPA regulations, yes....law suit...no.

cameragirl21 replied:
the premise of "reasonable attorneys fees" is to be decided upon by a judge, not predetermined by the attorney himself, unless the contract specifies as much. If a judge awards 25%, then it's legal but if the debtor tries to settle beforehand and the attorney adds his fees into the amount owed before the judge has awarded any fees then it's an FDCPA violation.
As for the second thing you said, I've done a great deal of research on this matter and many debt collection firms are training their employees to threaten debtors with arrest and other unlawful things. The only way to stop this is to file suits and bring the pain onto the debt collectors. In order to preserve a capitalist society, we must, first and foremost, protect the consumer and that is what FDCPA is all about.
Btw, one thing appeals courts have said is that FDCPA is not only to serve the purpose of protecting the debtor but also to even the playing field so that debt collectors who do follow the law are able to compete with those who don't--obviously if you threaten debtors you'll be more likely to get them to pay up than if you don't and that puts agencies who do follow FDCPA and refrain from threatening debtors at a disadvantage in comparison to those who collect more money because they violate the law by engaging in threats. That said, the only way to ensure this sense of fairness for everyone and even the playing field is to file suit wherever there is a violation.
In all fairness, I'm sure your former employer, a debt collection attorney, saw nothing wrong in filing suits all over the place and probably didn't find them frivolous because people owed money and the law could compel them to pay up. Conversely, if that debt collection attorney violated FDCPA then s/he too was in violation of the law and deserved to be sued and the suit would not be any more frivolous than the countless suits he filed against debtors.
Obviously we can agree to disagree on this but my point is solely that when you make a living suing people then you'd better follow the law to the letter or you too should expect to get sued...it's not only the law but it's also simple karma.

Calimama replied: Hmmm I'm kind of torn. I'm taking the first option to mean, that he/she refuses to pay his debt AND has the money to do so? If that's the case then I think he/she is more in the wrong.

Our Lil' Family replied:
Yes, that's right, it is determined by a judge but you'd be hard pressed to find a judge that'll come up with his own amount. The atty must figure out an amount and the judge will agree or disagree and change it to what he/she sees fair. I've had plenty of judges change my judgment to what they think is fair but they won't just pull a number out of thin air, you HAVE to have something on the judgment, then they'll rule, it cannot be left blank. I'll even go as far as saying that we charged 25% of principal AND interest...now I thought that was a little much but we got hundreds of judgments signed with that being allowed.

As for a settlement, if the debtor wanted to settle, they signed a consent judgment, and the attorneys fees were always listed and RARELY did we ever go below 25%. If they didn't like that then we'd just go for a default judgment and take our chances at getting that, to which we usually got it. Once the debtor signs the consent judgment, you probably won't find a judge to say that the listed atty fees are unfair, since the debtor obviously agreed.

cameragirl21 replied: If you prepare the default with the atty fees then you are in violation of FDCPA. If you try to charge the debtor those fees before the judge awards them then you're in violation of FDCPA. If the debtor doesn't respond to the summons and you get a default for everything but atty fees and then ask the judge in an additional affidavit or hearing for atty fees and the judge grants them then you are not in violation.
Most state judges have little knowledge of FDCPA and when these judgments are challenged in federal court the debt collector usually loses, just about always, not usually.
Atty fees and/or collection costs MUST be stipulated as to the exact amount in the original contract or you can't get them till a judge gives them to you.
Like I said, most debt collectors are in violation and since so few people know about FDCPA, they are not challenged. I'm hoping more people learn about FDCPA so that that quickly changes. There is no excuse for FDCPA violations for any reason, ever and tbh, I think the statutory damages awardable under FDCPA are WAY too low, they should be raised to at least 10k per violation in order to make each lawsuit count.

Our Lil' Family replied: But the judgment is just a request for what the judge will award, he can remove or reduce them which changes the judgment! The debtor is not charged the fees UNTIL the judgment is signed/awarded. It's like typing up a contract for services, nothing is final until both parties sign it, in this case the judge.

I see we'll have to agree to disagree because I find it hard to believe that the man I worked for has been in deliberate violation of FDCPA for over 30 years and has yet to be challenged and defeated. Especially knowing how strict he was on us to follow the regulations. Sorry but his clients, including Capital One which was mentioned in the suit you cited, would never go for that, that would just cost them more money. We NEVER once were granted a judgment THEN asked for attorneys fees, NEVER.