Under the Seventh amendment you have a right to a jury trial for cases involving “damages.”
Damages is a little bit of a term of art in this sense, but it basically means “money” for claims that were traditionally brought in courts of “law” (as opposed to courts of “equity”). As it happens, breach of contract, which is what most credit card cases are, is a legal claim subject to the 7th amendment. On the other hand, claims brought under, for example, the claim of “account stated,” are equitable claims that don’t give you a right to a jury trial by themselves.
That means that if the debt collector is suing for breach of contract or “open” or “closed” account, you have a right to a jury trial under the constitution. If they are suing you EXCLUSIVELY for account stated, on the other hand, you don’t.
When you have a right to a jury trial for one claim, you have a right to jury trial for all claims, so if they bring breach of contract AND account stated, you’ll have a right to jury trial for both. Most debt defendants, therefore, do have a right to trial by jury. Should you demand a trial by jury? I usually think so.
Trials by jury force the judge to take the law of evidence more seriously. In fact they take jury trials more seriously in a lot of ways. That benefits the debt defendant because our case is usually that the debt collector does not have any evidence that complies with the rules of evidence, and we need the court to take that seriously.
I also suggest demanding a jury trial because they are far more difficult for the debt collectors.
Understand what I’m saying, though. It isn’t that debt collectors don’t know how to do jury trials or even that they aren’t good at them – individual talent varies, of course. I’m only saying that debt cases tried to a judge can take twenty minutes. Picking a jury can take hours. And all the rules have to be carefully followed, and there are special rules and procedures, too. So demanding a jury might require 20 times as much attorney time. And time is money. Especially attorney time at $250/hour.
Debt plaintiffs don’t like cases that take a lot of time. It increases their costs, and they know you don’t have much money, so they worry about getting it back. Debt collector lawyers also worry about cases taking a long time because their performance affects their annual pay, and long debt cases hurt them.
In my opinion, those are strong reasons to seek a jury trial, and I might add that there will be times when a jury is also more sympathetic to the defendant than a judge would be. Judges haven’t faced debt trouble in a very long time, in general, by the time they’ve become judges. Most jurors, on the other hand, will have money worries. But I wouldn’t rely on this too much. Some judges are sympathetic, and some take their work seriously whether they’re sympathetic or not. And some juries can be pretty harsh.
But our goals in jury trials don’t depend on the jury that much. We want the judge to exclude evidence that shouldn’t be seen, and they take that more seriously when there’s a jury. Then it’s clear the debt collector didn’t make its case.
So why might you NOT want a jury? The only reason I’ve ever heard from debt defendants is that they’re scared of them. And I hear that a lot, but it’s not a good reason. Almost everybody I know who has ever had a jury trial has said it wasn’t scary. Not when you’re doing it. They are a little scary to think about and get ready for – pretrial jitters are normal, but once the trial starts, you’ll be too busy to be nervous. That’s as true of jury trials as it is of judge-tried cases.
You have a right to a trial by jury, but how and when you ask for it can make a difference. In some jurisdictions you just put it at the end of your Answer. In some jurisdictions you have to enter it as a separate request, separately. Which of these you’ll need to do is probably in your court’s local rules, but you might ask a court clerk about that. If you can’t get an answer from an authority, I’d suggest putting it both on your Answer and making a separate request which you submit at the same time as your Answer.
If you didn’t ask for a jury trial, is it too late?
The law favors jury trials, but individual judges often don’t, since they know as well as I do that jury trials take more time and attention. For that reason, if you haven’t already asked for a jury trial, I suggest you do it ASAP. The number of days could matter, since a court’s discretion to deny a request for jury is probably tied to how long the case has been going on. You should do a little research before filing your jury demand, though, because if you don’t do it right off the bat, you’ll need to file a motion that tells the judge why you should get one. That isn’t complicated, but you’ll want to know what the rules are that apply to it.
http://yourlegallegup.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/YLLU_Main_Logo.png00Ken Giberthttp://yourlegallegup.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/YLLU_Main_Logo.pngKen Gibert2023-01-27 03:06:192023-01-27 03:06:19Your Right to a Jury Trial in Debt Litigation
I have had my hands full lately with the National Banking Act (NBA). Specifically, the question is whether the NBA, which protects national banks from usury claims, applies to debt collectors which buy the debts. It turns out that question has several possible answers.
National Banking Act Allows Usury
Here’s the background: some states have laws limiting the amount of interest lenders can charge. Under the NBA, a bank can issue credit cards that charge high interest in states with usury laws. Yes, it’s a scam (they call it “exporting interest rates”), but they can. What happens if your debt gets sold to a debt collector? The NBA applies to national banks, not other businesses, so you might think a debt collector would be committing usury by trying to collect illegal rates. That would also violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
Under Madden, Debt Collectors Don’t Receive NBA License to Commit Usury, Regulation Changes That
The Second Federal Circuit of Appeals found that debt collectors collecting usurious rates was, in fact, illegal in a case called Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC 786 F.3d 246 (2015). Some other circuits, notably the 8th, have tended in the other direction. The Supreme Court denied certiorari (review) of Madden, so it remains in place as law of the 2nd Circuit. Unfortunately, the debt collectors managed to sneak a new regulation through that negates Madden. That regulation is at: 12 C.F.R. part 331, 84 Fed. Reg. 66845.
Possible Outcomes
This leaves us in an odd place. If you are in the 2nd Circuit currently being sued by a debt collector on a card with interest higher than your state allows, you have a powerful defense and a counterclaim probably under the usury law and FDCPA. I think it is still good, though you can expect some fighting on the question of retroactivity of the regulation. What about claims arising in the future, though? What about claims outside of the 2nd Circuit?
Courts are supposed to give “great deference” to regulations duly issued by agencies charged with enforcing specific laws. Without going into details, this regulation would seem to fit that bill and should probably receive that deference. It is not unheard of for the courts to reject such a regulation, but it is rare, and, in my opinion, very unlikely in this situation – even in the Second Circuit. Thus I believe that in the future this defense will not be effective. I do believe it could be raised in good faith however, at present, and that may have some advantage for a pro se defendant. It will be a long shot even in the Second Circuit, however, and longer elsewhere.
What about claims existing now but outside the 2nd Circuit? Will the regulation affect the way the 8th Circuit, for example, reads Madden? It probably should not, but it probably will. The regulation is supposedly based on the FDIC’s reading of an existing statute rather than a new legislative enactment – it will probably be considered an authoritative interpretation of the statute even though, in practical effect it is a new legislative act. But this is not certain, and again, I think the issue may have advantages for pro se litigants to raise, and winning is not out of the question in my opinion.
What if you live in a state with a usury law and a debt collector is trying to collect higher rates – but is not suing you. Can you sue them? I believe the answer is yes – all the foregoing analysis applies to the attempt to collect the debt, not necessarily limited to litigation attempting to collect the debt.
Incidentally, the NBA explicitly extends to all FDIC-insured entities. This question came up in a teleconference relating to loans issued by WebBank, which apparently IS FDIC insured. Our consideration of whether WebBank itself can charge usurious rates, then, must conclude that it can indeed do so.
One might consider that enforcing an explicitly illegal contract (usury) would be void as against public policy under state law. And so it is. However, the federal preemption doctrine that the NBA invokes overrules that – states cannot claim a federal policy is against their public policy.
If you get a loan now and at some point in the future a debt collector tries to collect usurious rates that would have allowed to the original lender, I think you’re out of luck regarding the defenses and counterclaims we’ve discussed here. The new regulation permits it, as I read it. Of course you still have all the usual defenses and attacks we always use against debt collectors, so your chance of winning remains srong.
http://yourlegallegup.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/YLLU_Main_Logo.png00Ken Giberthttp://yourlegallegup.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/YLLU_Main_Logo.pngKen Gibert2020-09-26 21:02:592020-09-26 21:02:59Usury and Non-Bank Loans
You have to prove four things to block an eviction: 1) Income < 99,000/yr if single; (2) you have sought government assistance to pay; (3) you can’t pay because of “Covid-19 hardships” and (4) likely to become homeless if evicted. The courts supposedly determine whether the moratorium applies in specific instances. The fact that the moratorium is a *defense* to eviction rather than a ban on access to the courts for landlords seeking eviction suggests that some landlords will ignore the moratorium and press on with evictions. And it raises issues of proof as to what must be shown and how, so it is not an ideal solution even to the evictions.
On the other hand, if enough people assert the right, it may simply cause cost-conscious landlords not to bring eviction suits. The problem there is that landlords need and want their rent, and in most places the legal fees for asserting an eviction are not much of a deterrent to bringing an eviction action. Thus landlords have a large incentive to try to evict and small reason not to go for it even if they shouldn’t get it.
I encourage you to assert your rights if you need them – and be prepared for a fight.
Remember that this is an *eviction* moratorium and not a *rent* moratorium. That means the bill can – and legally should – come due when the moratorium ends. Whether it actually does, of course, remains to be seen, but you should not regard this as “free money.” use it as a last resort and do what you can to prepare for the bill later.
http://yourlegallegup.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/YLLU_Main_Logo.png00Ken Giberthttp://yourlegallegup.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/YLLU_Main_Logo.pngKen Gibert2020-09-02 17:45:082020-09-02 17:45:08Moratorium on Evictions
I have had my hands full lately with the National Banking Act (NBA). Specifically, the question is whether the NBA, which protects national banks from usury claims, applies to debt collectors which buy the debts. It turns out that question has several possible answers.
Some Background
Here’s the background: some states have laws limiting the amount of interest lenders can charge. Under the NBA, a bank can issue credit cards that charge high interest in states with usury laws. Yes, it’s a scam (they call it “exporting interest rates”), but they can. What happens if your debt gets sold to a debt collector? The NBA applies to national banks, not other businesses, so you might think a debt collector would be committing usury by trying to collect illegal rates. That would also violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
The Second Federal Circuit of Appeals found that debt collectors collecting usurious rates was, in fact, illegal in a case called Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC 786 F.3d 246 (2015). Some other circuits, notably the 8th, have tended in the other direction. The Supreme Court denied certiorari (review) of Madden, so it remains in place as law of the 2nd Circuit. Unfortunately, the debt collectors managed to sneak a new regulation through that negates Madden. That regulation is at: 12 C.F.R. part 331, 84 Fed. Reg. 66845.
Do you Have a Usury Defense or Attack?
This leaves us in an odd place. If you are in the 2nd Circuit being sued by a debt collector on a card with interest higher than your state allows, you have a powerful defense. I think it is still good, though you can expect some fighting on the question of retroactivity of the regulation. What about claims arising in the future, though? What about claims outside of the 2nd Circuit?
Courts are supposed to give “great deference” to regulations duly issued by agencies charged with enforcing specific laws. Without going into details, this regulation would seem to fit that bill and should probably receive that deference. It is not unheard of for the courts to reject such a regulation, but it is rare, and, in my opinion, very unlikely in this situation – even in the Second Circuit. Thus I believe that in the future this defense will not be effective. I do believe it could be raised in good faith however, at present, and that may have some advantage for a pro se defendant. It will be a long shot even in the Second Circuit, however, and longer elsewhere.
What about claims existing now but outside the 2nd Circuit? Will the regulation affect the way the 8th Circuit, for example, reads Madden? It probably should not, but it probably will. The regulation is supposedly the FDIC’s reading of an existing statute rather than a new legislative enactment – it will probably be considered an authoritative interpretation of the statute even though, in practical effect it is a new legislative act. But this is not certain, and again, I think the issue may have advantages for pro se litigants to raise, and winning is not out of the question in my opinion.
What if you live in a state with a usury law and a debt collector is trying to collect higher rates – but is not suing you. Can you sue them? I believe the answer is yes – all the foregoing analysis applies to the attempt to collect the debt, not necessarily litigation attempting to collect the debt.
Application to WebBank
Incidentally, the NBA explicitly extends to all FDIC-insured entities. This question came up in a teleconference relating to loans issued by WebBank, which apparently IS FDIC insured. Our consideration of whether WebBank can charge usurious rates, then, must conclude that it can indeed do so.
Public Policy
One might consider that enforcing an explicitly illegal contract (usury) would be void as against public policy under state law. And so it is. However, the federal preemption doctrine that the NBA invokes overrules that – states cannot claim a federal policy is against their public policy. In a very real sense, it is to exploit this facet of the law that the NBA exists in the first place
http://yourlegallegup.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/YLLU_Main_Logo.png00Ken Giberthttp://yourlegallegup.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/YLLU_Main_Logo.pngKen Gibert2020-09-02 17:27:182020-09-02 17:27:18Usury and Non-Bank Loans
You have learned, one way or another, that you are being sued for a debt. If so, you are in a club containing many millions of people, but you probably feel all alone. What do you do? And how do you do it? Where do you turn, and who can help?
Since you’re here, you know that WE can help. We help people beat the debt collectors and protect what’s theirs.
Fight
We don’t make any bones about it – we think that if you’re sued by a debt collector you have a great chance of winning. And if you lose, it hardly ever costs you anything more than not fighting would have done. If you want to settle, you always start by fighting because debt collectors never settle to make YOUR life easier, they only settle make themselves more profit, and if you fight you instantly drive the value of the suit down in their eyes. Thus you have everything to gain and little to lose in most situations. You should fight.
Lawyer or Not?
We’ve addressed this question many times in various posts, and we do in our First Response Kit, too. But for this article we’re just going to talk about the cost of a lawyer. For most of our members, the cost of a lawyer is the most important thing, and they are expensive.
The average lawyer in a city tries to make $200 per hour these days. They’re running a business, have a staff, and need to make a profit. In debt defense, they also know that not everyone is able to pay. Thus, those who do pay, have to pay more.
With $200 per hour as a target, the lawyer either has to charge you that as an hourly rate or create a flat fee that will, she hopes, bring that average return. Through it all, most people discussing legal fees with us say that lawyers are trying to get them to pay at least $2,500 for their cases. For most people, this is simply too much, and the lawyer will want much of that up-front. So lawyers are simply out of reach for most people in debt trouble.
But here’s the thing: debt law, unlike most kinds of law, is well-suited to pro se (self-representation) defense. And with a little help from us, you’ll know more than most lawyers you talk to will know about this kind of law anyway.
Debt Law is Good for Pro Se Defense
There are a few reasons debt law is good for pro se defense. First, debt law is mostly about rules of evidence. They’re going to want to get some records into evidence, and you’re going to want to stop them from doing that. If you can keep those records out and avoid a few basic mistakes, you should win. This is not the kind of law that involves extensive testimony or cross-examination – you won’t need to be brilliant. You will need to do basic things that you can learn – we can teach you.
The other main reason debt law is good for self-representation is economic. They want to make $200 per hour, but you don’t have to get that much. And the debt collector/lawyer is trying to get that from half of what he can collect from you (the debt buyer gets the other half), while you’re saving 100 percent of what you can save. Thus you can spend more time on the case. It’s your life, and it matters more to you than anyone else. Every time you do something to defend yourself the lawyer on the other side will be worried about whether she’ll get paid for working on your case – this is a big, big advantage.
What to Do?
Your defense will start with an answer or a motion. Our First Response Kit will guide you through that. We also suggest that you get right onto the process of discovery, and the First Response Kit will do as much to help make that easy for you as possible. It includes samples of all the documents you’ll probably need. You’ll have to do SOME work for sure, but it doesn’t get any easier for you than this.
Our First Response Kit
A great place to start your defense is our First Response Kit. It helps you consider your chances of winning (vs. not fighting at all) and whether to fight, whether to get a lawyer, and if you’re going to represent yourself, how to do that. We get you started with a sample Answer and sample discovery that you can modify to fit your situation. This is as easy a way to get started with your defense as is possible. Read about it here.
https://yourlegallegup.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/16953749.jpg1125750Ken Giberthttp://yourlegallegup.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/YLLU_Main_Logo.pngKen Gibert2019-06-18 18:43:102019-06-19 20:51:32Sued for Debt
Can your bank accounts be garnished by a debt collector? What about wages? Here are some things you need to know about garnishment.
If you have assets, and this includes either a job or money in the bank, you must be concerned about the possibility of being garnished if a debt collector (or anybody else) has a judgment against you. In other words, the short answer to our question about whether your wages can be garnished is YES. Wages can be garnished once a debt collector has a judgment against you.
Bank accounts can also be garnished when there’s a judgment against you.
The Surprise that Isn’t a Surprise
Lawsuits are divided into two main parts. The first part, which is what everyone thinks about in connection with “being sued,” is a determination of liability and damages. In plain English, the lawsuit is to decide whether you owe anything and how much. In debt cases, that’s usually determined by either a default (failing to show up to court in the first place) or “give-up settlements” (where you show up to agree to anything the debt collector wants, which often includes a “consent judgment”). That judgment just says you owe x-amount of dollars, or nothing, as the case may be.
In most cases, judgments are not “self-enforcing.” That means that after the debt collector gets a judgment that you owe some money, it must still either persuade you to give it to them or find it and take it away from you. This is called “enforcing a judgment,” or in plain language: “collection.” To do that, the debt collector tries to find your assets and then goes to the court’s garnishment office and starts garnishment proceedings.
The garnishment office does NOT tell you they’re at work, and neither does the debt collector. They want you to forget about the case and get comfortable. If you move or hide your assets, their job gets much, much tougher. And if they warn you they are at work, you’re more likely to move or hide the assets, right?
Incredibly, people are quite often shocked when the debt collector starts seizing assets, freezing bank accounts, or garnishing assets.
They are at Work
Let this be your warning. If they have a judgment against you, THEY ARE AT WORK. They still want your money, and they’ve taken a big and somewhat expensive first step by suing you. Why would they stop? You may forget about it, but they won’t.
The Way it Happens
You are always the last to know when collection activity happens. This way your funds are frozen before you can take any action such as withdrawing all your funds.
Banks
The debt collector serves a notice of garnishment on the bank, and as of the time the bank receives it, your account will be frozen. Their notifying the bank first is perfectly legal.
You typically receive the notice (including your rights) a day or two, or three, or four… after your funds have been frozen. In most states, the garnishment does not only freeze funds already in your account at the time of service on the financial institution, but can get money you put in afterwards for a period of time.
During the time the garnishment is in effect, the financial institution cannot honor checks or other orders for the payment of money drawn against your accountif it would leave a balance under the amount stated on the garnishment. For most people, this means any outstanding checks will more than likely bounce or be returned for NSF.
When the amount being garnished is paid, the freeze on your account must be terminated, but since many people do not have nearly enough money in their accounts to offset any significant judgment, this is not of practical significance. If they catch you by surprise, you probably have big trouble. Not only is your money gone, but checks (and automatic drafts, for example) are bouncing right and left – and there are other laws that punish you for that.
Jobs
Wages can also be garnished, and, again, your first notice that you are being garnished is likely to be when you receive a check that is less than you thought it would be.
Federal law limits the maximum amount that can be garnished by one or more garnishment orders to 25 percent of your disposable earnings for that week, or the amount by which your disposable earnings for that week exceed thirty times the Federal minimum hourly wage, whichever is less.
In practical terms, that means (as of this writing) that if you make $154.50 or more per week your wages will be reduced by about 25%. Since most people being sued for debt are already close to the line, a 25% reduction in their paychecks can be simply devastating. And remember, you won’t find out about it until the money is gone.
Don’t Let them Get a Judgment
All of the above means that you should work HARD to avoid letting the debt collector get a judgment. If they do manage to get one, you should EXPECT NOT ONE SHRED OF MERCY. They will take every penny they can with no concern at all for the consequences to you or your family.
Sometimes people think that things are so hopeless that it isn’t worth it to try to keep them from getting a judgment. You have nothing now for them to garnish, and you don’t expect ever to have enough for them to garnish. That’s called being “judgment proof.”
Don’t go there. Things could get better for you in any number of ways, from your job suddenly turning better, to people you don’t know dying or giving you money, or you getting some sort of great idea, or… just anything. The world is full of possibilities, and good things could happen. They’re much more likely to happen if you keep looking for them, too.
It isn’t all that hard to keep them from getting a judgment most of the time if you know what you’re doing, and of course that’s why we’re here.
Don’t Ignore the Possibility of Losing Even if you Defend
Of course, if you’re being sued there’s always a chance you could lose. ALWAYS A CHANCE.
That means that you need to keep personal information about jobs and assets out of the hands of the debt collectors whenever possible.
If you have ever written a check to the company who is the alleged original creditor, you must assume that the debt collector has your banking information. You might want to change banks.
Remember that garnishments are served on people (including corporations and banks), not accounts, so it doesn’t do any good to cancel your account and get a new one in the same bank. But changing banks will go a long way to keep you from finding out, one day, that your bank account has been emptied and your checks are now bouncing.
For a lot of people it’s harder to change jobs. I’m just saying that if you do, it will be harder for the debt collector to garnish your wages. If they have any reason to know where your present job is, you should expect them to come for it.
Your Legal Leg Up
Your Legal Leg Up is dedicated to helping people defend themselves from debt lawsuits without having to hire a lawyer. Lawsuits have a number of points where specific action is called or, and we have products to help you deal with most of these situations. We also have memberships that give you access to more materials and better training, and also provide a regular opportunity to ask questions and get answers in real-time. You can use this time to find out what the debt collectors are trying to do and what you might do in response, and you can get guidance on the issues that matter and how to think about and address them.
In addition to that, our website is a resource for all. Many of the articles and materials are reserved for members, but many others are available to everyone. Every page has a site search button in both the header and footer. Put in a key word – a word you think relates to what you’re looking for – and enter. You will get a page of results.
Products Related to this Article
If history is any indication, many of the people reading this article are here because there’s a default judgment against them, and the debt collectors are now after their money. If that’s you, there’s still hope (even aside from the fact that your Social Security payments should be safe). You should consider attempting to undo the judgment – that’s called “vacating” it – and you do that by filing a “Motion to Vacate.” Click here to begin your research on that question. And we have a product that will help you file a motion to vacate.
Most of the rest of the people reading this will be because they are in the “collection cycle” somewhere and are either being threatened with suit or are being sued. If that’s you, you will want to take a look at what the risks of ignoring the suit are versus the costs and advantages of fighting it. I normally suggest fighting it because the risks if you lose are minimal (you won’t make things worse), while the benefits of winning are more substantial than you think, even if you aren’t worried about garnishment.
In any event, if you’re considering defending, I’d suggest you give some thought to our memberships.
Memberships
Members get the Litigation Manual and the Three Weaknesses Report for free with membership. They also get discounts on all products as well as unlimited opportunities to join our regularly scheduled teleconferences, where you can get unlimited real-time assistance, answers to questions, help with strategies, and encouragement. Find out about memberships by clicking the “About Memberships” link in the menu at the top of the page.
What you’ll receive if you sign up is a series of several videos and articles spread out over several days, and then you will occasionally hear from us as we add information to the site. We don’t always announce that information, though.
What you will not receive is any marketing from other people – or much from us, either. Our goal is to make the site more useful to members and visitors, not to swamp anyone with sales materials. The information we send will have links to information or products that we think may be helpful.
http://yourlegallegup.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/YLLU_Main_Logo.png00Ken Giberthttp://yourlegallegup.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/YLLU_Main_Logo.pngKen Gibert2019-05-14 12:29:482019-12-05 21:18:41Can Debt Collectors Garnish Wages or Bank Accounts?
This will eventually be an article on small claims courts in Oklahoma.
Small claims courts are a frequent bane to debt defendants because they apply loose rules (of evidence and civil procedure) designed for pro se, unsophisticated parties disputing small amounts of money. Debt collectors, however, have discovered that these lax rules can make it easier for them to get even more default judgments and to win cases on obviously insufficient evidence. Oklahoma put a stop to that by enacting rules that forbid debt collectors from bringing their claims in small claims courts.
Of course this hasn’t stopped them.
Here is the rule: http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=438809
Here’s an article. There will be more: https://www.okbar.org/freelegalinfo/smallclaims/
http://yourlegallegup.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/YLLU_Main_Logo.png00Ken Giberthttp://yourlegallegup.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/YLLU_Main_Logo.pngKen Gibert2019-04-26 18:49:402019-04-26 18:49:40Oklahoma Law on Debt Collection
We discussed two kinds of jurisdictional issues in a recent teleconference – two different issues that call for very different responses.
In this video we’ll discuss what happens when the debt collector doesn’t show its ownership of the debt and when you are not properly served with the lawsuit.
Ownership of the Debt
When debt buyers bring a lawsuit, their ownership of the debt is always in question. It won’t be their name on the debt instrument or contract, and they will have purchased the debt – gotten it on “assignment.”
There is nothing wrong with that, let me emphasize. Most debts are freely transferrable (unless either a contract or law says they can’t be transferred) – so in most cases this will not be an issue. But what is an issue is proof of ownership. Only the true owner of a debt is permitted to bring a lawsuit. In a way that’s a no-brainer, isn’t it? If I happen to hear that someone owes you money, I can’t sue them for it can I?
No – if I want to sue, I must prove that I am the “true party in interest.”
Without the true party in interest’s participation, the court does not really have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. If I bring suit on a debt someone else owes you, and that person gets around to pointing out that I don’t own the debt, the case should be dismissed immediately – without prejudice. If the person being sued does show that the plaintiff cannot prove ownership, the proper response by the court is to dismiss immediately without taking any other action – it can’t make a judgment about the validity of the debt without the real owner being present.
You can attack ownership of the debt at any time, and in a debt case you should always contest the issue not only because you might win, but also because debt collectors actually try to collect debts that don’t belong to them fairly often. You should always make them prove it.
In the case of the big junk debt buyers, they often will have a so-called “bill of sale” between the original creditor and the junk debt buyer. It will say that the creditor is selling and assigning umpteen million dollars worth of debts to the debt collector. It will mention an attachment with the numbers of the accounts sold.
And it will often not have that attachment or anything else linking your account to that sale. That is inadequate proof of ownership. It is no proof
of ownership. If you attack the case on that basis it should be dismissed – unless the debt collector can supply the information. For some reason,
they often cannot.
You can make this argument at any time.It isn’t waived by you participating in the case. Any time you can prove the debt ownership isn’t
established, the case should go away.
Sewer Service
Sewer service is different. In this situation, the process server threw the summons into the ditch while the defendant was watching and then swore to having given the summons to the defendant. In that situation, the defendant is forced into a choice: attack the court’s jurisdiction immediately by motion to quash, wait and attack jurisdiction, or defend. If you take actions to defend on the merits of the case – you say you don’t owe the money – you will likely be “waiving” or letting go your attack on the court’s jurisdiction.
http://yourlegallegup.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/YLLU_Main_Logo.png00Ken Giberthttp://yourlegallegup.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/YLLU_Main_Logo.pngKen Gibert2018-07-24 18:24:162018-10-01 19:04:15Jurisdictional Issues in Debt Law
Vehicle repossession is not “debt law” in the sense we mean it at our site.
If you’ve read many of our materials, you know that we consider debt law as good as it gets for self-representation. That is because debt buyers buy vast quantities of debt and essentially take a “factory” approach to bill collecting and lawsuits. You can expect pretty much every case brought by a debt buyer to follow a similar approach – the petitions are almost always virtually identical, and the whole process is usually shoddy. Typically, the debt collectors don’t have what they would need to win a contested fight – and they don’t want to get what they would need to win because they are designed to catch the 80 – 90% of the people who do not fight.
And debt cases are “document-intensive,” meaning that the debt collector’s whole case will usually depend on getting some documents into evidence. There is very little testimony and no expert witnesses. So that means a pro se litigant can focus on a few simple evidentiary questions and not worry too much about arranging testimony or other trial tactics.
But our materials do not apply to vehicle repossessions and the surrounding issues. Those cases present a different set of issues and opportunities.
What is a “Vehicle Repossession?”
When you buy a car on credit, you will typically sign a contract agreeing to pay a certain amount per month (plus a variety of other terms, obviously). And these contracts and their terms are, in general, a terrible, terrible deal for the customer. One of these terms is a lien and right to repossession, and there is a whole body of somewhat specialized law on all of the repossession process.
If you fail to make payments, the company may have installed tracking and disabling devices in the car – so the car may stop working. And then the repo guys come and get the car. And then the REAL scam begins.
When dealers repossess a vehicle, they are not “collecting a debt.” They are, in legalistic terms, exercising their liens and cutting off your right to a security. It looks like a collection, and it is one, but the law of most jurisdictions does not see it that way.
Still, the idea is for them to get their money back, and what they plan to do is sell the vehicle at an auction.Early in the process, then – before they get your car – you can talk to them and negotiate terms more effectively than later.
Once they get your car, they will want to sell it. If they do this in a “commercially reasonable” way, you will be on the hook for whatever amount of your car note remains. And inevitably, this is a shocking amount. For various reasons (some good and some bad) the courts are extremely lenient as to what constitutes “commercially reasonable.”
But the fact is that the dealers get almost nothing for the cars they repo. They sell them to each other, at auction, so this is one of the all-time scams – and the courts wink at it. In any event, repossession law focuses extensively on this question of “commercially reasonable” and on certain notice provisions. State laws in this area are complex for most people, and the court decisions are not easy to understand.
And the car dealerships have stacked the deck in most cases. Their lawyers specialize in this law, know the facts of the cases they bring (much more than debt collectors, anyway), and will almost always have the contract you signed. They’ll have people who can swear to them, too, because most car dealerships are built around the repossession process.
This doesn’t mean you don’t have a chance to win. It just means that this isn’t the best kind of law to go pro se. Fortunately, if you are broke, most of the legal service organizations that help people without money are good at this. It’s a problem a lot of people with money problems have. We suggest you find one of these places – many law schools have clinics that do this, too – and see if you can get help.
If you can’t do that, it still makes sense to fight, and on a simple dollar basis, joining us to help you do that will probably be worth your money. Your chances of winning aren’t great, but they do use a factory approach, and some of our tools will apply to that. And by fighting you can reduce some of the damage they will do to you.
Repossession and Suit to Collect the Difference Happen Fast
Unfortunately, vehicle repossession cases can happen very quickly. Our advice is to make every effort to find help. Filing an answer by yourself could very well hurt your case. If you must do it by yourself, our membership can give you SOME help – and in that case you simply must join and talk to us before answering the suit. Trying to represent yourself without any help is just not a good idea.
Our Case Evaluation Service
One of the services we provide to members and non-members alike is a “case evaluation.” It’s a great deal for people being sued by debt collectors who would like some guidance about their case. We do not recommend this service for people facing vehicle repossession, though. If you send us one, we will have to spend the time to figure things out (so we will keep your money for the time we must spend) – and then we’ll almost certainly give you pretty much what we say here. Save your money and your time and look for a lawyer who can handle this case for you.
http://yourlegallegup.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/YLLU_Main_Logo.png00Ken Giberthttp://yourlegallegup.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/YLLU_Main_Logo.pngKen Gibert2018-07-19 15:57:132018-10-02 18:04:01Vehicle Repossession and Breach of Contract Lawsuit
