Sued Over Old Debt, and Blocked from Suing Back
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
So how do these guys make money then? They locate the debtor and hound them untilr they pay up. It doesnt matter if they are past SOL. Some of these spreadsheets sell for less than a penny on the dollar of debt. So if you can extract three percent, you've doubled your investment. A problem is that debtors tend move around a lot (from not paying their rent), so its hard to locate people, especially with a common surname.
However, if you know that the debt is beyond SOL you may tell the collection agency to stop contacting you. If the collector continues to call you after you send them your letter, they may be violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act[1][4] and you may be able to sue the collector for damages[2][3].
[1] http://www.consumerfinance.gov/askcfpb/1405/how-can-i-stop-d...
[2] http://www.fair-debt-collection.com/rules/civil-liability-13...
[3] http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/damages-fdcpa-violati...
[4] http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/illegal-debt-collecti...
This is a problem that needs to be fixed. I would like to find someone who is willing to help fix it.
It also seems like a beneficial negotiation tactic for the consumer. Some states have an SOL well below the ~7-year period where it falls off your credit report. So if I live in Louisiana with a 3-year SOL on consumer debt and someone tries to collect a 4-year-old debt, pay-for-delete obviously becomes a much more likely scenario. My credit goes up a lot with the removal of a delinquent account, and the collector makes money off something I could otherwise ignore without penalty.
If the law says you can't collect, you should not be able to ask either. You're relying on someone's ignorance to collect a debt.
> It also seems like a beneficial negotiation tactic for the consumer. Some states have an SOL well below the ~7-year period where it falls off your credit report. So if I live in Louisiana with a 3-year SOL on consumer debt and someone tries to collect a 4-year-old debt, pay-for-delete obviously becomes a much more likely scenario. My credit goes up a lot with the removal of a delinquent account, and the collector makes money off something I could otherwise ignore without penalty.
Again, you're assuming a shred and educated citizen who is attempting to use a loophole (pay-to-delete, which violates a collector's agreement with all three credit reporting agencies).
No. Asking someone to pay after the SOL has passed as the debt is time barred is tantamount to fraud. I've already placed called to Senator Warren's office, as well as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
The law doesn't say you can't collect, it says you can't enforce the debt in court. Its not theoretically impossible that a person who had undertaken a debt that had become unenforceable might be inclined to pay it off for social reasons that don't rely on the legal enforceability of the debt, so it probably shouldn't be illegal to notify and ask.
> You're relying on someone's ignorance to collect a debt, and I will work to apply a boot to the neck of collection companies who practice that.
To the extent that an attempt to collect an unenforceable debt relies on false implications of legal consequences like wage garnishments, seizure of property, etc., it is already barred by the FDCPA, which prohibits a variety of types of false representations and implications in the context of debt collection, and punishes debt collectors who use them.
There may be a good case that this should be tightened and require explicit notice of debts that are beyond the statute of limitations and not legally enforceable in collections (which would also give the collector a positive obligation to make this determination.) But I think that prohibiting asking for payment beyond the statute of limitations is probably going to far, for the reasons above.
Perhaps then, instead of it being illegal, the collection agency (either via phone or through paper correspondence) should be required to (up front) disclose that the debt is no longer enforceable and that the debtor is not required to pay the debt back by law.
> There may be a good case that this should be tightened and require explicit notice of debts that are beyond the statute of limitations and not legally enforceable in collections (which would also give the collector a positive obligation to make this determination.) But I think that prohibiting asking for payment beyond the statute of limitations is probably going to far, for the reasons above.
I agree that a middle ground can be found between making it illegal and what we have now. My problem is with the information asymmetry.
Your members of Congress (in both Houses) would probably be the most natural place, but note that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act goes pretty far in this regard already, in that collection contact activity must stop once the consumer notifies the collector that they refuse to pay the debt [0], and if the statute of limitations has expired, the collector has no further remedies available at that point. Further, the FDCPA prohibits mischaracterizing "the character, amount, or legal status of any debt" and a variety of other false representations or implications; I can't imagine that collection of a legally-unenforceable debt is generally attempted without prohibited false representations and/or implications as to consequences of non-payment. [1]
[0] FDCPA Sec. 805(c), 15 USC Sec. 1692c(c), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/plain-language/fa...
[1] FDCPA Sec. 807, 15 USC Sec. 1692e, generally. Same link as above.
Despicable. But is anyone surprised anymore? This is a country for the corporations by the corporations. The common folk are just critters to be exploited. Is there a way to incorporate yourself, so that you take a loan not on your person but on your corporate self?
(edit: I'd walk away from that loan, given the issue of piercing the veil I mentioned in my previous post.)
"Perhaps you mean that sometimes those extending loans to single-member LLCs require that the member co-sign the loan?" Yes.
As long of the funds from the loan are used strictly for LLC business purchases and purposes one should be able to keep the corporate veil in place. Even if the LLC defaults on the loan/debt the creditor doesn't need to pierce a corporate veil to go after your personal assets to repay the loan... they have your personal liability signature. Your corporate veil would/should still be in place for any other transactions that the LLC is a party to.
> ... if I were to try to get a loan or credit card
> (a.k.a. a line of credit) for my LLC...
Exactly. The LLC itself does not require taking on personal liability. Your phrasing: > ... but most single member LLCs will require
> personal liability.
... is why I was confused.Credit score is a huge scam too. Coming out of college I was in the bottom 5th percentile in the nation from random medical debts and such, and within a year I was in the 95th percentile. I spent a lot of time researching and negotiating on the phone to make that happen, but I paid nearly nothing.
There are so many tricks that can be used to improve the score that are completely counter intuitive. For instance, you would think it would be a good thing for your credit to pay a delinquent bill? Almost never. It's acknowledgement that you owed the debt to begin with, so it hurts you.
In the case of your doctor's office, the best thing to do is NOT pay the debt collector, and then go a different route through the doctor's office instead. Generally you can scare them with a potential HIPAA violation into getting the item removed from your report.
Edit: I should clarify, pulling your credit will only help for things that are outstanding and have already been reported as delinquent. The important thing to know is that if you catch it on there, you can negotiate anything. Even if you have to call back many times until you get the 'right' person, you can social hack the process.
This is only possible by virtue of having little to no actual credit history. If you're in your 30's with a mortgage, paid off student loans and paid off vehicles, you're not going to make massive positive changes to your report in a year without major negative items falling off.
> For instance, you would think it would be a good thing for your credit to pay a delinquent bill? Almost never. It's acknowledgement that you owed the debt to begin with, so it hurts you.
Are you referring to items at collections? Then yes and no. Collection agencies will usually offer Pay-For-Delete if you ask for it in writing, in which case you pay the item and it's removed from your report altogether. You still end up having to pay the bill. The alternative (if it's a valid delinquency) is to let it sit for 7 years until it falls off.
> In the case of your doctor's office, the best thing to do is NOT pay the debt collector, and then go a different route through the doctor's office instead.
I've never had a medical bill sent to collections, but I did have a (thankfully small) student loan sent while I was diligently paying the other loans because the mail was going to the wrong address. However, I can say from that experience that I could not pay my school at that point. The collector owned the bill. They had paid the school for it, so the school had already gotten its money.
But there's no HIPPA violation in sending a medical bill to collections, and making false accusations like that to get out of paying a legitimate bill (or getting a legitimately delinquent account removed from your credit report) is slimy at best.
One of the accepted methods here goes as follows: Pay the Doctor's Office. Send a letter saying you refuse them to share any information about the service provided. Challenge the debt collector through the credit reporting agency. Collector will then try to get the doctor's office to confirm the debt, which they no longer have a compelling reason to. CA drops it off your report because collector can no longer confirm it.
Works almost all the time. There is no false HIPAA accusation here.
>B. Are you referring to items at collections? Then yes and no. Collection agencies will usually offer Pay-For-Delete if you ask for it in writing, in which case you pay the item and it's removed from your report altogether. You still end up having to pay the bill. The alternative (if it's a valid delinquency) is to let it sit for 7 years until it falls off.
Collection agencies do not like to pay-for-delete. They'll say they're legally bound to report exactly as it happened (also a lie). They will fight you on it if your debt isn't significantly large enough that they're making enough profit for it to be worth it. You can get them to do it, it will just take time and negotiating.
>A. This is only possible by virtue of having little to no actual credit history. If you're in your 30's with a mortgage, paid off student loans and paid off vehicles, you're not going to make massive positive changes to your report in a year without major negative items falling off.
I had 12 delinquencies removed. They were of varying difficulty, all different collectors. Some were easy, some very, very hard. One in particular I had to go so far as to pull phone records from years ago. Any negative item falling off your report is huge. Even one small $100 delinquency hurts you a ton, regardless of your history.
The only thing I didn't deal with was credit card debt. I hear its a lot harder to get late payments removed, but I've never tackled it.
Unfortunately, the best way to handle it is work for you. First, you need to send a letter to the collection agency demanding proof of the debt. If it is an old debt, odds are they will not want to deal with this and will stop collection attempts. Know the FDCPA [1]. Any legit collection agency should already be following it, but if you start quoting it about time to call, you sent a letter so do not call again, etc... they will take notice.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Debt_Collection_Practices...
<quote>
[Gracchus's land distribution bill of 133 B.C.] was the first in a series of violent clashes between two groups who called themselves the optimates and the populares. The nucleus of the optimates was the small clique of nobles … who more or less monopolized the highest offices and dominated the Senate, but they had wide support among the propertied class, even, as Cicero says, propserous freedman; otherwise they could not have maintained their unbroken hold on the higher magistracies. They were conservatives, who regarded the rights of property as sacred, and therefore resisted bitterly any attempts to redistribute land or cancel debt. They were upholders of the constitution and of religion, which could be used to block any revolutionary legislation. Though at times they had to yield to popular pressure, they always remained the government.
The populares were a much less well defined group. Their leaders were individual politicians or very small groups of politicians, who at intervals attempted to legislate in the interests of the people, by which they meant the common people.… The populares developed a regular programme of legislation:
First came the distribution of smallholdings to landless citizens.…
The next … was the provision by the state of corn for the proletariat of Rome at a price that they could afford.
From time to time the populares were interested in the problem of debt, which frequently meant agricultural indebtedness.
They were early successful in introducing the secret ballot into voting in the assembly, for legislation, elections and trials.
They also stood up against the execution of Roman citizens without a lawful trial; the Senate was very prone to ignore this elementary right of the citizen in what it deemed to be political crises.
Most populares advocated the grant of citizenship to the Italian allies. They were generally interested in the welfare of the provincials; most of the extortion laws were promoted by populares.
Finally, they substituted equites (citizens owning 400,000 sesterces who were not senators) for senators as jurors in the criminal courts.
</quote>
Compare these with the various demands of the American and French revolutions, the British Chartists, and the revolutions of 1848 (Wikipedia will give you a good overview of each).
Title: Augustus. Author: A. H. M. Jones. W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., New York. (c) 1970. SBN 393 04328 2
(The book itself is authoritative and well-researched but exceptionally densely written, to the point of being difficult to parse. There are other biographies, which though longer may well be more accessible.)
From the article:
> the judge ruled that Encore’s lawsuit to collect the debt was separate from Ms. Thompson’s case accusing the company of violating the law.
Disregarding the fact that the original judge should not have awarded a debt that was past SOL, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that Encore taking action to collect a debt it purchased is a separate legal question from a claim that Encore is violating the law. I'm not saying they are related of course, but I have a feeling the arbitration agreement is pretty clear that if you want to sue Encore you have to use arbitration.
The reason that corporations like binding arbitration is that it eliminates the jury, and gets rid the option of the jury nullifying the law. Sometimes onerous laws get bought and paid for by corporations, and jury nullification is one of the few tools left to combat this.