Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Brian Groven
459 Followers
Paul Hulett
383 Followers
norman619Dec 13, 2011
FTA:
"Collection agencies can reportedly file a lawsuit requiring a court appearance, and if the defendant doesn't show up for their hearing, an arrest warrant can be issued. "
They aren't being arrested for not paying a bill. They are being arrested for a failure to appear. It's a contempt of court arrest not a debt arrest. No such thing as debtor's prison. Being in debt is still not an arrestable offense. It is not a crime.
mlw4428Dec 14, 2011
Why not just make the party that showed up to court the winning party? Why take up additional resources to jail someone on a civil case? Also I was once nearly a victim of such a thing; I had moved addresses so the mailed notices never came to me. I actually saved my own ass because I was trying to pay off the debt anyways and called the creditor.
If jailing people is going to be done then a subpoena should be issued and delivered by the city. If the person no longer can be found then the case should just go to default judgement in favor of the plaintiff.
cantstopwontstopDec 14, 2011
How can one show up to court if they don't even know they're supposed to be attending? This doesn't protect anyone who has established the debt is theirs and valid but just haven't paid it or is making payments. If they want to go to court, it should be the get a court order for payment, i.e. garnishment of wages if applicable. A person should not have to be present for such things, but should still be notified beforehand anyways and have a confirmation of notification.
There is also no system in place to check address changes (such as by social security number). so the debtor gives the court a name and old address, the court sends a subpoena to the address given and the person doesn't even get it and the debtor wins by supplying bad information. This leaves a lot of room for abuse.
Plus, this tactic only serves to put debtors into more debt, which is counter intuitive. They'll be forced to cover court costs, fines and possibly even lawyer fee's which could come up to as much as or more than they owe. A person may be in debt simply because they have no means to pay, so making their debt much worse is an abuse of the legal system to kick them while they are down.
FrankLuskaDec 15, 2011
Careful
"Constables in Dallas Tx, got into a big pile of crap for saying they had delivered notices when they had not, it most likely, has happened all around the country."
jepplermanDec 13, 2011
Failing to personally appear and respond in a civil matter is not and should not be a criminal offense (unless you have a court order mandating your appearance, which would not be appropriate in a monetary dispute). I am not sure what provision of IL law the debt collectors are taking advantage of, but this is likely to be soon (and should be) addressed by the legislature. If the defendants fail to appear or to answer the debt collector's complaint, then they will end up with a judgment, garnishment, impaired credit, etc., and not crowding up our jails on the taxpayer's dime. Why is it the State's obligation to pay for the enforcement of a creditor's rights?
odkinDec 14, 2011
You are wrong. It is not about "debt collectors" it is about JUDGMENT CREDITORS, which means anybody you sue and win money from for any reason.
If someone runs you over and you sue them and win $10,000 then this is a tool for YOU too, once you get that $10,000 judgment and the loser STILL won't pay you. You have the right to take them back to court to question them about their assets and income, and for the JUDGE to question why they ignored his orders. Only when the debtor fails to appear for THAT subpoena is a warrant issued. If the debtor appears and answers the questions, and actually has no money, NOTHING WILL HAPPEN TO THEM.
Removing this tool just makes it easier for people who lose Court cases to say "f**k you" to their victims.
odkinDec 14, 2011
Also, you are confusing the original court case with the subsequent Order to Appear. If you sue someone, and they fail to respond or fail to appear. they just lose the case. That's all that happens. You have no obligation to respond to a lawsuit.
These warrants come into play when, AFTER THE JUDGMENT the loser continues to ignore the Court Order and you subpeona them BACK to Court to explain and answer where their assets are.
jepplermanDec 14, 2011
I am not confusing anything, and I am not proposing to remove the tools which allow the enforcement of the rights of a prevailing creditor to collect (garnishment of wages/accounts, levy and sale of assets, etc.). I am only talking about the exercise of police power (to jail someone) for their failure to answer a civil suit. Failure to appear = default judgment = creditor can collect. Agree. Admittedly, I am not licensed to practice in Illinois (only in GA) and I don't understand the mechanism by which individual creditors in Illinois can be jailed for falling to answer for their debts. In your hypothetical, if the defendant is an entity, and there is no individual to hold liable (for example, if respondent superior is successfully asserted in a tort situation), then who goes to jail when the corporation or LLC doesn't appear? Nobody. Why would or should the law apply differently for the debts of an individual?
darth0Dec 14, 2011
Ain't it nice that you're are being buried for stating a logical argument that neatly sums up the facts rather than logically refuting you?
mannipplesDec 13, 2011
this is a standard practice by scumbags. pretend to serve a subpoena to someone and have the court date where the defendant doesn't show up and then profit.
many judges consider a case to be automatically retried, based on the defendant not being properly notified of the case. and proper notification is not an email or unregistered snail mail.
time to start throwing the subpoena server in jail for his fraud of pretending to serve a warrant/subpoena.
eschercubeDec 13, 2011
Collection agencies just find a fraudulent process server to claim the debtor was served and ask the judge for a writ of body attachment.
http://www.circuitclerk.org/Civil/ORDERFORBODYATTACHMENT.pdf
gkiltzDec 14, 2011
Back to the Middle Ages!
barackalypseDec 14, 2011
I'm stunned someone irresponsible enough to have unpaid bills would fail to show up for Court! They were probably too busy at work.
barasawaDec 14, 2011
Let's see, lost their job, hasn't been able to get a new one, unemployment insurance is either insufficient or non-existent, and the notice to appear is never delivered for any reason.
Did you even read the article where it was mentioned that many of the people had no idea they even had a court date much less missed it until after they were arrested?
Wait, barackalypse... I've seen your posts, and if you're following you normal pattern, you probably didn't read the article, or somehow censored out everything that doesn't fit your rhetoric colored viewpoint.
barackalypseDec 14, 2011
And as soon as a Court rules one of these people wasn't properly served, I'll be right here demanding whoever was responsible for denying them due process spend their life in prison for it. Until then, its just the words of people who owed money and didn't pay, and my personal experience says people like that have an infinite number of excuses why they can't pay and why its not their fault.
igorunchainedDec 14, 2011
And, once again, the judges and law enforcement agencies become a tool of corporations against the people. THAT is the problem.....I READ THE ARTICLE and REALIZE that it isnt technically a case of throwing a person in jail for owing money, but it is getting harder and harder to spot the difference. It isnt Kevin Bacon, but it is Keifer Sutherland.....and I can get back to Bacon in one move.
odkinDec 14, 2011
I'm going to keep reporting this until you liberals get it. This is a tool for ANYBODY who takes someone to court and wins, but still gets stiffed.
It is not about "debt collectors" it is about JUDGMENT CREDITORS.
If someone runs you over and you sue them and win $10,000 then this is a tool for YOU too, once you get that $10,000 judgment and the loser STILL won't pay you. You have the right to take them back to court to question them about their assets and income, and for the JUDGE to question why they ignored his orders. Only when the debtor fails to appear for THAT subpoena is a warrant issued. If the debtor appears and answers the questions, and actually has no money, NOTHING WILL HAPPEN TO THEM.
Removing this tool would just make it easier for people who lose Court cases to say "f**k you" to their victims.
igorunchainedDec 14, 2011
It is a money-based incarceration method and you can dance how you like, but the right is with the monied individual. It is one more tool in the arsenal and becomes a slippery slope where you need money to get out of jail/make restitution, but you cant make money in jail or when you lose your job due to time missed. Simple logic. I know what the law states and that "if YOU are owed money it can work for you", but I would challenge you to try that song-and-dance with someone who actually has better lawyers than you do...and see how far you get. Name a millionaire on death row.....it is the same system we are discussing here.
odkinDec 14, 2011
No. It's a contempt of court thing.
If the debtor has ANY lawyer then there will never be a warrant issued because the lawyer will APPEAR IN COURT when subpoenaed. And if either the judgment debtor or their attorney appears in Court, then THERE WILL BE NO BENCH WARRANT.
You have the right to be broke. You have the right to ignore a lawsuit. You even have the right to avoid paying for as long as you can get away with it. But you do NOT have the right to avoid an Order for Appearance if you get served with one.
Maybe a "monied individual" avails themselves of their rights and you don't. If you would rather mope about winning a lawsuit but STILL not getting paid, fine. But don't take away MY rights because you don't want to use YOURS.
And why do you assume the winner of the lawsuit is the "monied individual" and the loser is broke? There are PLENTY of cases where the Loser has PLENTY of money and lawyers, and by hiding/shielding their assets and appearing in court when subpoenad they can dodge their debt FOREVER. Ask Gary Kurtz. Ask Francis Ford Copolla.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
igorunchainedDec 14, 2011
So...noone was raped/murdered/tortured and yet a situation arises that a person is able to be incarcerated.
The situation STARTS as a financial issue, but the enforcement arm is able to MAKE YOU SHOW UP to proceedings, and through NOT SHOWING UP you sign your own arrest warrant. Am I getting it so far?
The reasons why someone may or may not be able to pay have not been factored in....the reasons why someone didnt show up to court arent factored in.....but it is automatically assumed you are guilty if you dont show up (how it is in civil cases...I get it).
This is the process that I should use and champion because "it is the law"? Seriously, that seems to be your point. MY POINT is that we shouldnt lock people up unless they are literally raping/murdering/torturing people. Dont lock me up because I got fired and couldnt pay my cable bill. Dont lock me up because I USED TO have a good job (and that was when my child support issue was decided) but now I make half the money I did and drive twice as far to get to my new job. You owe me money and dont pay, I find a legal technicality to destroy your life by introducing another poor person to the system".
There is no logic to your argument, just a good citizen arguing that the system he is given is the best system there is. Give the rich more laws and more ways to enforce them, you will find a way to justify it and shout down anyone who doesnt agree. More red tape in the legal system is bound to be a good thing! We dont have enough people in the US locked up, lets find a way to make more people "criminals" and submit them to the circumstances that come with that. I think I understand why you are so passionate about "just because you feel that way doesnt mean you can make me live that way".....because I feel the same way.
odkinDec 14, 2011
You're hopeless. You are not "locked up" for ANY reason you listed. You are locked up for refusing to go to court when ordered to do so, AFTER you have already lost your case.
One day you will be the victim of some injustice or injury, and sue someone. Then see how fun it is to get the deadbeat to even TALK to you, much less pay.
You will be glad that a mechanism exists to allow you, the victim, some way to at least ASK the deadbeat under oath where he gets and keeps his living money,
The law exists to help the VICTIM. Why do you want to keep painting the PERPETRATOR as the VICTIM?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nerysDec 14, 2011
No your locked up for not paying a bill. the magic words and process used to do this too you are irrelevant.
Debt - - - - - Jail
Whats "inbetween" is irrelevant in legal terms a "straw man" argument.
the root is your in jail for not paying a debt.
how they managed it does not matter THAT is the core here and its unconstitutional.
Just because you "relabel it" contempt with legal trickery does not change that your putting someone in jail for not paying.
PERIOD.
because in MOST debt situations the CREDITOR is the perpetrator.
until full anti USURY laws are enacted this is the viewpoint I will take and there is "NOTHING" you can say to alter that viewpoint.
odkinDec 13, 2011
Sigh - more HuffPost bulls**t.
The arrest warrants aren't for debts - they are for "Failure to Appear" at Court hearings for which they were lawfullly served,
I;m sure cops hear the "I didn't know they issued an arrest warrant" excuse all day long, regardless of the offense.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
norman619Dec 13, 2011
Digg really has degraded. You are being buried for stating a fact that is actually stated in the f**king article if people bothered to read it.
odkinDec 13, 2011
I know. Weird how ill-informed and liberal go hand-in-hand.
Now Diggers will claim there is somehow fraudulent process serving going on, even though last I checked, Order for Appearance by Judgment Debtor summons were mostly served by Marshalls.
The article is not clear that these are not even Failure to Appear charges having to do with the original lawsuit. These are cases where the debtor has ALREADY lost the lawsuit, and now the winner is bringing them back into Court for a Debtors Examination to explain why they have ignored the Court Order to pay. When a debtor doesn't appear for the Debtors Exam is when the Court issues a warrant.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
markusfarkusDec 13, 2011
It seems like most of these people didn't even know about the lawsuits. That's the point of the article.
norman619Dec 13, 2011
Sorry but they need to first be served in order for a judge to be able to issue a bench warrant. If they were never served then they wouldn't be facing failure to appear warrants.
markusfarkusDec 14, 2011
So these people are just liars?. There's no way there was any abuse or screwups?
FTA:
"We hear time and again from the legal aid lawyers who ultimately find out often about these people when they're in jail that people didn't even know there was a lawsuit against them, let alone a judgment had been entered," Madigan told WBEZ. Her office is investigating agencies that may be abusing the law, and said judges need to be fully aware of debtors' rights before such hearings.
odkinDec 14, 2011
Yes. They are deadbeats and liars. They already lost in court once, then ignored the Order to Appear for ignoring the judgment..
Most of these summons' were served by Sheriffs or Marshalls. Maybe they judgment debtor didn't know the warrant got issued BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T THERE in court. But they certainly knew they were SUPPOSED to be there.
norman619Dec 14, 2011
markus:
Yes they are. You really need to look into the process. I'm pretty familiar with our court system. Seems you are not. I suggest you learn soon so you don't do something stupid when someone tries to use it as a weapon against you.
nerysDec 14, 2011
That is called a straw man argument.
Debt - failure to appear - jail.
the "failure to appear" is a straw man to link DEBT to JAIL. no language trickery removes this link.
just because you "hide it" behind "failure to appear" does not remove the absolute fact that failure to pay a debt is resulting in JAIL.
PERIOD.
Billy_JackDec 13, 2011
Throwing people in jail because they owe a little bit of money is the way they did things back in the dark ages...Quite frankly, its a civil matter, if someone fails to appear then a judgment should be made and the judgment should be something financial...There isn't enough room in jails to lock up the rapists, murderers, child molesters and thieves etc and we are wasting tax dollars and tying up the police, court systems and overcrowding jails with this BS...Really? What does the creditor expect to gain by having someone that is unemployed and sitting in jail? Now the debtor has even more debt to pay ie court costs and bailing out of jail...It makes absolutely no sense...When a creditor decides to give credit to someone that is their decision, Why should the taxpayers be saddled with trying to clean up their mess by using taxpayer resources AGAIN??Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
odkinDec 13, 2011
Read the article and listen to the facts.
it is a civil matter. If you owe me money, I sue you in Civil Court. I pay filing fees, and I pay to have you served. If you fail to appear, I win. If you appear and can't prove you don't owe the debt, I win. I am now out what you owe me, plus court costs and filing fees.
Six months go by and you still don't pay me and you ignore me. I can go to Court, pay MORE money, and have you served with an Order for Appearance by Judgment Debtor. Usually served by a Sheriff or Marshall. If you appear, I can ask you anything and everything UNDER OATH about where your money is, where you work, how you manage to live and eat, and why you haven't paid per the Court judgment. I can then take that information and attach your wages or bank account. Maybe you honestly answer that you are destitute with no assets. In that case, NOTHING WILL HAPPEN TO YOU.
However, If you DON'T appear, the Judge gets mad - you are not only ignoring his original judgment, you are now ignoring a court order to appear. Now the JUDGE issues a warrant.
Lesson - DON'T IGNORE COURT ORDERS regardless of what they are about.
ANY Judgment creditor can have an ORAP issued. It has nothing to do specifically with Debt Collectors.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Billy_JackDec 14, 2011
@odkin...If a creditor chooses to give someone credit they choose to take the risk of not being paid...LESSON...If the creditor doesn't want to take a loss then they shouldn't loan money, its part of the risk they take when loaning money...Taxpayers shouldn't be saddled with trying to collect a debt for a creditor, nor should taxpayer resources be used to collect said debt (yes, throwing someone in jail for not showing up for an order for appearance is still trying to collect a debt for a creditor)...If a debtor doesn't "show" then a financial judgement should be awarded, it isn't the taxpayers fault that the creditor keeps going to court to collect said debt and keeps getting stiffed...Eventually the person that owes the debt will either cut a deal with the creditor and pay up or they will file for bankruptcy...Instead, the judge should simply make a judgement and be done with it, tough luck for the creditor if they keep paying filing fees and court costs, you can't get blood out of a stone no matter how many times you try to take the "stone" to court...
odkinDec 14, 2011
It's not about CREDITOR and DEBTORS. It's about anybody you sue and win money from for any reason. If someone runs you over and you sue them and win $10,000 then this is a tool for YOU too, once you get that $10,000 judgment and the loser STILL won't pay you.
You're just making it easier for people who lose Court cases to say "f**k you" to their victims.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bahrend421Dec 14, 2011
Thats stupid and they probably can't them because they are not making enough money to pay them plus also of high taxes they have to pay and because of the unionds just like we have in New York and unions died in the private sector more then fifty years ago and was my fathers and father-in laws generation and not mine or my wife's generatiion at all.
mlw4428Dec 14, 2011
Why are debtors required to show up for court? Just default the case as a win for the party that did...throwing people in jail for a bench warrant is rather pointless and is crude when the case is nothing more than a civil matter...not criminal.
Here's what you can do to get out of this: go to court, leave court, declare bankruptcy, win. The judgement will get wiped out, the creditor won't get a dime, and you'll just have wasted their time and money.
odkinDec 14, 2011
You are NOT required to appear to defend your lawsuit, You can ignore it and let a default judgment be entered,
The article is about people who already lost and had judgments entered against them. They didn't file BK. They didn't pay either, and the judgment creditor couldn't find their wages or bank account to attach.
The judgment creditor (who could be me or you or anyone who sued some scumball who's hiding his money) only has one recourse: subpeona the loser BACK to court for an asset examination. If the debtor goes to court and turns their pockets inside out and has no money and no assets, that's the end. Nothing happens. You have the right to be broke.
If the judgment debtor ignores this court order to appear, THAT's when a warrant gets issued.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mlw4428Dec 14, 2011
I understand this. However they can look at a person's finances and assets (if they're truly hiding anything...well a court won't find it on the person during the hearing). None of this should really require an interruption to a person's life. Not all employers are happy just to give you days off so you can go to court.
odkinDec 14, 2011
If you have an employer, the person who sued you (and won) should be attaching your wages, Maybe you shouldn't be hiding your employer info from the person you wronged who won against you in court.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mlw4428Dec 14, 2011
Not all legal notices are received. I know this from personal experience...I unintentionally closed out an account with a balanced left on it. 2 years later I found out when I was opening an account elsewhere.
I'm not required, and just simply will not (I don't have that kind of time to waste), update ALL of my previous employers, businesses I worked with, and former creditors whenever I move.
I'm sorry if it's not fair to the business, but then again it's not fair to take someone to court without telling them. If they won't pay to find me I won't waste my time (time = money) trying to find them.
Just issue the default judgements. If a person is working the IRS knows and wages can be garnished. Generally it's fairly easy to find someone...no one should ever be thrown in the slammer for a civil matter.
nerysDec 14, 2011
thank god pa is a no garnishment state. (no I don't have any defaulted debt not the point)
user500Dec 13, 2011
Like police, 99.9% of judges give the rest a bad name.
norman619Dec 13, 2011
You clearly didn't read the article. The people are being summoned to court. When they fail to appear an arrest warrant is issued for failure to appear. Nothing wrong with that. The arrest isn't for owing anyone money. the arrest if a contempt of court arrest.
nerysDec 14, 2011
yes the arrest is for owing money. but since they can't do that DIRECTLY the generate a "straw man" reason to snag them
failure to appear.
but debt - failure to appear - jail
MEANS debt = jail
its just that simple. a debt owed should NEVER "under any possible conditions envisionable" result in jail time unless FRAUD is shown.
usajobsDec 16, 2011
Job Vacancies in Illinois. More details visit:- http://www.usajobsnew.com/jobs-in/illinois