Zombie debts are hounding struggling Americans
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
There are many flaws in the US Tort system, but it at least incentivizes law firms to create class action suits to fix stuff like this article describes when private entities are the ones doing the behavior we want to change.
When it’s the government, these types of class action suits are rare, I think.
A better attempted solution would be to write to congresspeople.
Cynically, I would try to find some globocorp that could benefit from having this function privatized. At least then there would be a regulator and two different orgs to argue.
Since class action lawyers generally rely on the proceeds of the lawsuit to collect expenses plus ~35% of the proceeds as their fee, it's highly risky for them to take such a case.
Additionally, since the cases in the article are to essentially prevent a debt collection, even if the lawyers win, there isn't necessarily going to be a payout, just an injunction.
One way to handle these situations is to eliminate administrative courts. Two, the government should have to sue to recover money from individuals as any other entity would have to do.
That being said, the article admits that in at least one of the cases, the lady was making payments on what I assume was a legitimate debt, then abruptly stopped. She was surprised to find out she still owed the remainder some years later. That's on her.
But it also makes me question the extent of the problem. If one of the 3 most sympathetic cases that they chose to write about isn't even an illegitimate debt.
But yes, still BS.
>confiscating independently earned money from your children
2) The "child" is only involved because the welfare benefits were claimed using her as a dependent or claimant. That same child's Taco Bell wages put them over the limit to qualify for benefits, but those wages were also not included on the application.
This probably falls on the mother for claiming a child that was no longer a dependent. Or purposefully excluding income in order to qualify. But it still is attached to the child. And for all we know, the child could be the one who lied about her income.
Assuming it was the mom's fault, it was shitty of the mother to do, but the child is still liable. Just as if the mom opened a credit card in the kids name and ran up debt.
This is the problem: the State is turning to the enemy of the poor in the US, and if you crunched the numbers, they're probably not even earning that much off these people. It's fucked up.
I honestly can't see how it can even be about money when you have government agencies stripping drivers licenses and vocational certificates from people for defaulting on student loan payments. At that point, the government's taking away their ability to work and earn an income in response to them not paying a debt. How is somebody, who likely couldn't pay it before, supposed to pay anything back when you take away their ability to actually earn a wage?
I am honestly surprised there is not more violence due to police brutality, discrimination, asset forfeiture, and now this.
But I agree with you - there needs to be consideration for the debtors in light of the negligence of the collector
I think the issue here is that this debt is not subject to the statute of limitations. Some other federal debts- student loans- have similar exemptions and special considerations.
[0] https://www.incharge.org/understanding-debt/credit-card/what...
This makes it sound like the limitation is on how long you have before you can't sue. But if you have already sued and won then the statute of limitations wouldn't apply. I think instead there is a time limitation for collecting on the judgment from the suit.
It's all corrupt.
https://creditcards.usnews.com/articles/what-happens-when-yo...
Nothing wrong with that. The point of any statute of limitations is to prevent action after a period has elapsed, with the full range of remedies available before that.
Edit: why the downvotes?
Clearly many posters here do not know what a statute of limitations means, and assume it means something it doesn't.
Obviously this depends on the jurisdiction, but in general, and as mentioned, it puts a limit on how long one has to sue.
But if a lawsuit is started right before the limit then obviously the limit does not apply and the lawsuit and any court order will stand.
Nothing new here. This is how it is meant to work. Don't shoot the messenger.
there is if you are deliberately using interest compounding and deferring the suit vs a likely slow repayment schedule which would result if the debt was settled earlier in order to expand your balance sheet and maximize your profits..
this is not acting in good faith.
A statute of limitations is not aimed at helping people wriggling out of paying off their debts. Depending on the debt and jurisdiction there is bankruptcy for that.
Nor is it intended to maximize your profit margin.
If you know there is a debt, and further, that it accrues interest, you should (in good faith) attempt to collect it as soon as you possibly can.
This is literally the definition of acting in good faith.
random goog:
"Acting in good faith, or bona fide, as it is sometimes also referred to by the courts,
refers to the concept of being sincere in one's business dealings and
without a desire to defraud, deceive, take undo advantage, or in any way
act maliciously towards others."
further there is something (IANAL) in the law about 'reasonable attempts at attempting to remedy breach of contract', which would apply in not following up with someone who is not making payments.
I'm not arguing for random debt forgiveness as others in this thread (and you're right - there is bankruptcy for that, etc), but pointing out that there is, in fact, literally and by the law 'something wrong with' letting debts accumulate on purpose for the purpose of profit maximization.
I again am not a lawyer, but wouldn't be surprised if someone could actually attempt to defend against some tort on these lines - especially if profit maximizing intent could be proved - while the debt wouldn't be stricken, the interest compounded could conceivably be since it accrued within the context of a bad-faith use of the situation.
A statute of limitations is not aimed at helping people wriggling out of paying what they owe (among other things). It is aimed at putting a reasonable time limit on taking legal action.
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/0221...
They view it just the same as if you owe taxes from 20 years ago.
It seems income sharing agreements typically include clauses which mitigate their risk of becoming invalid as voluntary slavery, such as limited time, a minimum income threshold, and buyout options. They could also be structured as a debt, with a payment structure based on income. Potentially bankruptcy law would affect their interpretation also.
How the (#$*) did Obama let that get out of the first committee reading (Warren wasn't elected yet)?