Your Right to a Jury Trial in Debt Litigation

Your Right to a Jury Trial in Debt Litigation

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.

What is Arbitration and Should you Seek or Oppose It?

Compel Arbitration or Oppose it?

Arbitration. Should you compel arbitration? Or oppose it? I’ve recently had a comment on Youtube asking me to discuss arbitration, and it has also come up in several recent teleconferences as members contemplated seeking arbitration. Others have wanted to know whether to oppose a motion to compel arbitration.

Let’s start with a definition: Arbitration is the submission of your case to a private entity known as an arbitrator. After some process and a hearing (most likely), the arbitrator will decide what happens in your case and issue what amounts to a judgment.

For debt cases, it’s always a single arbitrator or a company that will provide a single arbitrator that’s appointed, but for other cases it could be other things, like a panel, perhaps. In any event, there will be an arbitrator and some special rules that will NOT be your state’s rules of civil procedure and also might not be your state’s rules of evidence. But there will be rules that control the process.

Arbitration is popular because it makes it faster, easier and cheaper for people to engage in litigation. The discovery process will be limited, and the appeals process almost eliminated. That’s why rich companies and debt collectors always love it. Almost all of these things are completely and profoundly BAD for debt defendants. That’s why I’ve always suggested debt defendants should avoid arbitration.

But there is another side to the question, and there are some who argue in favor of allowing or even forcing arbitration in debt cases. What’s their argument?

I think the argument in favor of arbitration boils down to the fee, which apparently has to be paid up front by the debt collector And that can amount to two or three thousand dollars, or even a little more. The idea here is that debt collectors won’t want to put that much money down on the barrelhead just to chase a bad debt and that court is, for them, much cheaper.

There is some sense in this argument.

Debt collectors never worry about winning a case, but they do know you don’t have much money. That means that they’re sure they’ll win, but worry that they won’t collect, which is the most important thing to them. The more you make them spend, the more worried about that they’ll be. Maybe they’ll drop the case if you demand arbitration.

We often make the argument that by pursuing discovery, filing and defending motions, and preparing for trial you are driving up the costs of litigation and may make the whole thing too expensive for debt collectors to want to do. Again, not because they worry about losing, but just the amount of money they’re having to spend when their business model is designed around easy, cheap judgments. However, conducting discovery and filing and defending motions and the rest do in fact improve your chances of winning, and we think that, when it comes to a debt collector, you should win your case. These things are the way to do it, and the chance the company will drop the case is basically the icing on that cake.

In arbitration, it’s the whole cake. You should remember that.

One big question that may be more theoretical than real is, who ultimately pays the arbitrator?

I say it may be theoretical since I just said the debt collector isn’t sure you’ll have any money at all, but this won’t stop them from seeking as big a judgment as possible. And if they get a judgment, they WILL try to collect it. All. So be advised that the judgment size could matter.

Okay, but who pays the arbitrator?

I think some states may have rules that matter, and I know that California, for example, does have rules regarding employment and consumer-brought claims. In the absence of any state based rule, you
would look to the arbitration provision giving you the right to arbitration – i.e., the contract. That will often say who pays the arbitrator, and it can specify any of a number of things, from company pays all to loser pays all, to dividing it up. The contract isn’t often going to put all the burden on the company because, after all, the company wrote the contract.

If it says company pays all, though, the company can’t shift that payment to you if you lose. If it’s loser pays all, though, it obviously will. But if there isn’t a direction in the contract, that would usually mean you start by splitting the cost, but that the arbitrator can award the cost to the winner, i.e., add it to the judgment.

The rule in your case is going to depend on your own specific circumstances.

The net of all this would suggest that you will have some advantage if the contract makes the company pay, but there’s risk if the loser pays. And of course it matters a lot who pays up front, which is often the debt collector.

So… should you compel arbitration?

In a debt buyer/collector case (i.e., not the original creditor) I’d still lean strongly against. You should win this case under most state laws because of the rules of evidence, and you cannot depend on the arbitrator to enforce those rules rigorously. If it’s an original creditor, it’s a much closer question. You’ll have to consider all the things we’ve discussed here and make a judgment call.

Filing a motion to compel arbitration might trigger some settlement negotiation, but I wouldn’t think you could get the company to give you a very steep discount, but there I’m just guessing based on what I know about lawyers and not experience in these type cases.

I remain very hesitant about suggesting arbitration, but there may be value in considering it if you’re
dealing with an original creditor.

Usury and Non-Bank Loans

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.

Moratorium on Evictions

There’s a New Moratorium in Town

With evictions beginning to happen, the feds have stepped in with an eviction moratorium. See, hosted.ap.org/berkshireeagle.
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.

Usury and Non-Bank Loans

National Banking Act and Debt Law

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

Sample motion to Dismiss

Hey there! This content is available to MEMBERS only! Consider registering for an account.

Assignment Contracts – Holy Grail for Debt Defendants

Assignment Contracts
We say that there are “no magic bullets” in debt defense, but what we really mean is a variation of "there are no free lunches." You can find things that really help and exert a lot of pressure on the other side, but they're never going to be actually magical; you'll have to work to get them, and you'll have work to use them. Assignment contracts are perhaps the best example of this.

Simple, formulaic things like writing the word “refused” on the summons or claiming that it is illegal to use your name, or . . .

Hey there! This content is available to MEMBERS only! Consider registering for an account.

How Ability to Pay Affects Debt Defense

Read more

We can help either way. Click on the Articles button on the menu bar above to go to publically available videos and articles,

Sitemap

Quick Links

Get In Touch

© 2025 Your Legal Leg Up, All rights reserved