Most defendants don't know anything about the case. They've been avoiding collection calls for years as agencies sell and resell their debt. Piles of unopened mail, etc.
For their part, the agencies tend towards sloppiness. Some debt sells at <5% of face value, and comes with virtually no information or documentation.
Thinking about this is a matter of justice is ridiculous. It's not a justice driven process, it's an economics driven process. The agencies do this as their business. They work repetitively, create a process and pursue cases as long as average revenue exceeds average court costs. If a defendant shows up and wins, it's a small cost. Most defendants don't show up, so they don't bother spending legal time making cases good.
And yes, it is the courts responsibility to put a stop to it. For one thing, resolving debt humanely (or not) has been a court function since ancient times and still is. Secondly, debt collectors have basically turned these courts into their own shady place of business. It reflects badly on the court, besides clogging it.
>They've been avoiding collection calls for years as agencies sell and resell their debt. Piles of unopened mail, etc.
OK but with the exception of fraud and incorrect identity then the rest of the people have a real original debt right? The debt might be sold at a fraction of it's original amount but that's because the debt collector takes a risk to put in time and legwork in exchange for collecting a real legal debt.
I am against exploitative debt fees/interest and I realize the debt collection world is full of shady figures but the narrative of the debtor as victim is a bit oversold.
No it isn't. Many people become debtors because they have no choice.
If the choice is between clocking up an insane credit card bill at astronomical rates or not having your family thrown out onto the street for another month or two because maybe your job search will finally pay off, what would most people pick?
Some people get into debt because they can't manage money. A lot of people get into debt either because they're not paid enough, or they're not paid regularly enough. or the economy fell apart around them for reasons that are nothing to do with them.
And anyone who freelances will tell you stories of clients who refuse to pay for 3-6-9-12 months past due. (Yes, you can always find better clients - if you have enough of a lead time.)
Debtors are debtors because they're at the bottom of the power pile. Many aren't "guilty" of anything except getting screwed over by a business culture which is driven entirely by inhumane feral greed.
> the rest of the people have a [legitimate] original debt right?
> the narrative of the debtor as victim is a bit oversold.
When in fact the narrative of the debtor as victim is significantly undersold, and many (I suspect, but won't assert, most) original debts were incurred due to usurious and predatory lending.
I wouldn't argue that debt collection enforcement is outright unethical in general, but their cases tend to very flimsy, and if people realize they can easily knock them down... good for them.
Don't sign the contract and take on the debt if you can't pay it.
If the contracts are usurious and predatory then they probably will not stand up in court if challenged. Most collection agencies settle for 50-70% of the balance of a debt without question anyway.
Debt collectors have to provide proof that you know about your debts and that they are legitimate in order to enforce collection of them. If they can't do that then there is no judgment.
> You're moving the goal posts on me. I'm talking about debt collection enforcement not the morality or circumstances of why people take on debt.
Not all people chose to take on debt. From the linked article:
> Medical debt can be particularly devastating and accounts for more than half of all collections activity.
I don't think we can realistically characterize medical debt as a choice for most individuals. If someone is ill and and has medical debt, is it right to issue a default judgement against them for that debt? What if their illness is the reason why they couldn't show up to court in the first place?
Fraud in debt collection is rampant. Yes, there are legitimate debtors, but you can't assume than some one who is being sued legitimately owes the debt. Even without fraud, many debt collectors illegally harass the debtors, knowing they can't afford a lawyer to defend themselves.
AFAIK harassment in most states is very illegal now and is a great way to get your debt dismissed.
The same goes for fraud in debt collection. As I mentioned in previous comments, tactics like sewer service by debt collectors are a great way to get your debt dismissed.
Many people with lapsed unsecured debt know they owe that money, they simply prefer to pretend the debt will go away if they ignore it. If they don't know they owe the money then they definitely know they're being sued because in court they can't get a judgment against you without you knowing about it. On top of that many states require the debt collector to prove you owe the money even if you completely neglect engage with the system at all.
Harassment and fraud is illegal, but people do illegal things all the time.
"court they can't get a judgment against you without you knowing about it"
... in theory, but in practice there are several ways to "serve notice" that don't involve the other party actually receiving the notice. Sure, if you can hire an attorney you may be able to get the default judgement overturned if you find out about it later, but again, it isn't all roses.
I'm not an expert on every states laws, but I don't think that the standard of proof for an uncontested claim isn't particularly high in most jurisdictions.
And to add to this, if a debtor doesn't get served (let's say that they took some bad advice from a friend and decided to dodge the constable trying to serve them in the hopes that "since I wasn't served, I can't be sued" is accurate), the constable will notify the attorney that contracted them to serve papers, saying that they couldn't serve them in person. At that point, the attorney sends a certified summons to the debtor's last known address and is then allowed to go to the court clerk and say that they've tried their best x number of times but the debtor can't be reached. They will enter their certified proof of mail into the record and the case will be tried on the scheduled date regardless, resulting in a default judgment when the debtor doesn't show up. Once that happens, if the debtor is employed (and even depending on the type of debt), they'll get a nasty surprise when their employer notifies them that their wages are being garnished and that there's no longer anything they can do.
I mean, I've been harassed by years for a debt that doesn't even belong to me, but rather to the person who previously had my phone number. Over the years I have learned their name, address, name of one of their family members, amount of the debt, and who the debt was originally owed to (a local government agency no less). The debt collectors shouldn't have disclosed any of this to me but they did, unprompted, often in voice mail. Mailed threats have been unsuccessful in stopping the calls, as when I send a nastygram to one collector they seem to just sell the debt on to another.
I guess my point is that the legal protections against harassment do exist but are not effective. It's not even my debt and I have a master's degree and generous income and I ended up changing my phone number in order to stop multiple calls per day. So to whoever ends up getting that number assigned, sorry about Esteban's $8k in back tuition and good luck.
The irony is that my new phone number also gets calls from debt collectors, but far less often. It seems the debt was either smaller or sold into a less predatory corner of the industry.
Yeah ok. I think you will keep scapegoating these other ‘evil’ ‘no-defence‘ people, until you yourself are on the receiving end of systemic inequity - or systemic failure - at some point and that’s when the penny will drop...
It's pretty fundamental in our society that the court looks at the arguments presented before it. If the claimants make a reasonable case and you have nothing to say about it as the defendant then the court will act on that. The idea is that it stops people coming into the court prejudiced.
This isn't a case where a guy didn't pay his builder and then no-shows at court.
These are debts sold at >10% of face, often smallish debts that have accrued massive interest. Some agencies specialise in persistent calling. Some specialise in deal-making. Some specialise in legal proceedings. These are the ones we are talking about.
To work, they need to keep legal costs low. They often don't bother to have a case, because they're happy to win just the no shows. That's the formula. Buy 100 notes. Take them to court. 80 or so will no show. You can then try to seize the their assets. The whole thing is premised on the fact that these defendants don't open their mail. Either side making a case to a judge is rare.
It's a misuse of the legal system, and the court shouldn't allow it.
Most states now have laws against debt collection harassment and have caps on debt collection interest and fees.
There has to be proof in court that a debtor was served papers to get a judgment. There's a term called 'sewer service' where some shady collectors try to fake this service. If you get lucky your debt collector might try this on you, it's a great way to get debt wiped clean by a very angry judge.
unless the debtor has the cash ready to pay, most debtors never, ever respond (and shouldn't) to any actions to collect debt by a third-party collector, so that there is no chance at the even tiniest appearance of acknowledgement.
often, even if you have the intent to pay the debt, paying to any agency other than the originator of the debt is risky. debt collectors roll over debt en masse to keep them legally fresh and will not honor any promises that haven't been duly signed and served.
Contact from a third party collector? Sure, don't respond. But if you're being summoned by the court under threat of a default judgment then you should probably show up or don't be surprised about the outcome.
> It's a misuse of the legal system, and the court shouldn't allow it.
I really don't see how.
They file a case. They present an argument. The other side doesn't. What should the court do? Keep asking the other side to bother to show up? If they did that you could block any claim forever by just not showing up. That's not justice.
Our whole society's legal basis is 'show up and present your case and have it judged'. It's called the 'adversarial system' - look it up.
If it's a genuine debt, and it sounds like it is, then either pay up or argue your case in court.
I'm not thinking about this as an individual case, or debating an individual case.
I'm talking about a business model whereby an agency systematically buys "no show debt" at a tiny fraction of face and mass produces personal bankruptcy. As the article shows. This business model (subsidised by the state, which provides the court), in 2020, is civil law.
That business model is not something the courts should play ball with. Lawyers and judges will stay within the legal rules.
In any case, I think there needs to be a debt regulator...
You can't address the business model if you can't explain how you would change how an individual case plays out.
The standard of evidence in civil court is "the preponderance of the evidence". Would you propose changing that standard, so that a debt collector's unchallenged word isn't good enough to prove their case? What exactly do you propose to do about the fact that most people default?
Should we make participation in civil cases mandatory and issue bench warrant when defendants fail to appear? Should we reduce how much income can be garnished so that garnishment is effectively useless? Should we require that every update in the case be personally served by a process server?
The business model would collapse overnight if debtors began challenging creditor plaintiffs en masse. I don't see how the failure of a defendant who has been properly served to defend their case reflects a systematic failure on the part of the courts or the law.
