[verylittlemeat]

>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.

[TheOtherHobbes]

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.

[verylittlemeat]

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.

[a1369209993]

You're the one who put the goalposts on:

> 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.

[verylittlemeat]

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.

[a1369209993]

> If the contracts are usurious and predatory then they probably will not stand up in court if challenged.

That's exactly what netcan was saying upthread.

[Paul-ish]

> 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?

[ensignavenger]

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.

[verylittlemeat]

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.

[ensignavenger]

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.

[bigwavedave]

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.

[jcrawfordor]

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.

[netcan]

..probably, unless by accident. They lose when a defendant shows up because they're not prepared to win a contested case.