Critic says credit card bill leaves consumers vulnerable

[despritfreya]

mlsj2009,

I appreciate your comments as well. All I was pointing out is that the Bill seems to do nothing more than codify that which already exists under rules of evidence and in the cardholder agreement.

There does not appear to be anything "material" in the Bill that really adversely impacts consumers.

The media and those opposed to, or, in support of any bill like to "spin" their thoughts and, for the most part, the typical consumer buys into the "spin", depending upon their point of view and who is doing the spinning. That is what propaganda is all about - nothing wrong with that. Consumers just need to do their own investigating and come to their own informed and intelligent conclusions.

Des.

[GoingDown]

mlsj2009,

I appreciate your comments as well. All I was pointing out is that the Bill seems to do nothing more than codify that which already exists under rules of evidence and in the cardholder agreement.

There does not appear to be anything "material" in the Bill that really adversely impacts consumers.

The media and those opposed to, or, in support of any bill like to "spin" their thoughts and, for the most part, the typical consumer buys into the "spin", depending upon their point of view and who is doing the spinning. That is what propaganda is all about - nothing wrong with that. Consumers just need to do their own investigating and come to their own informed and intelligent conclusions.

Des.

Sure. Right.


"Dial said the bill was born after he was approached by the Arizona Creditor's Bar Association."


Hmmm... I wonder what the wonderful junk debt buyer friendly ACBA wanted out of this bill?


And wait a minute... what do we all know about "presumptions" in bankruptcy law? Remember? It's what gives rise to a lot of adversarial proceedings, and often makes certain debts non-dischargable.

Hmmm... I wonder what would happen if we gave junk debt buyers a presumption? They wouldn't abuse it, would they?

Of course not.

Pay no attention to what is going on with this law.

[GoingDown]

After having visited the official Government website, GoingDown, this is the result of trying to find revising title 44 by adding Chapter 35: http://www.azleg.gov/SearchResults.a...f+Title+44%3A+

Any ideas how to Google this to come up with the Government site sharing with me the link coinciding with this information? Still seems fishy to me.

"HB 2664" keeps getting used over and over again with each passing year. They just re-use the number, again and again. You have to make sure it is the HB 2664 for the year 2012.

Google has a lot of problems with very old, outdated articles appearing at the top of their search results. That's something they need to work on.

Bypass Google and go directly to the Arizona House site and click on bills, and then you will see a range of bills by number. Click on the one that would have 2664 in it.

It would say: HB 2650 through HB 2700

right here...

http://www.azleg.gov/Bills.asp

and after that pops up, click on 2664.

[bcohen]

Currently, junk debt buyers typically provide printouts of account statements, and/or written affidavits from someone purported to work for the OC as "evidence" to support their case. Currently, some of the viable methods of defending against such a lawsuit are to attack the JDB's chain of custody (make them prove they have standing to collect this debt), or attack the OC affidavits (make them have to bring the affiant there to testify). It would appear that this new law, if passed, would make it impossible to attack a JDB's case on any of these grounds, as the mere act of providing an electronic representation of the alleged debt will be proof in and of itself that the debt is owed and valid. So I fail to see how this is much ado about nothing.

[despritfreya]

Currently, some of the viable methods of defending against such a lawsuit are to attack the JDB's chain of custody (make them prove they have standing to collect this debt), or attack the OC affidavits (make them have to bring the affiant there to testify). It would appear that this new law, if passed, would make it impossible to attack a JDB's case on any of these grounds, as the mere act of providing an electronic representation of the alleged debt will be proof in and of itself that the debt is owed and valid. So I fail to see how this is much ado about nothing.

See, this is why one needs to read the Bill as well as have an understanding of the rules of evidence that already exist.

The House version states:

“A creditor MAY establish a presumption of the amount of the debt. . . The cardholder MAY challenge the presumption. . ."

Like any document that is admissible at trial, once admitted, it is up to opposing counsel to impeach the credibility or the accuracy of the document. Therefore, a presumption that is allowed to be challenged is not any different than what is already in place.

Once again, "much ado about nothing".

Des.

[GoingDown]

Okay, I'll answer my own question:

"Dial said the bill was born after he was approached by the Arizona Creditor's Bar Association."


Hmmm... I wonder what the wonderful junk debt buyer friendly ACBA wanted out of this bill?


And this is why junk debt buyers want this bill passed:


STATE CAPITOL, PHOENIX – Rep. Debbie McCune Davis, D-Phoenix (District 14), says that HB 2664 is bad for the economy and could empower out-of-state debt collectors to force Arizona citizens to repay debts they may have already paid or that have been dismissed or forgiven.

“This is bad legislation that will weaken consumer protection laws and targets families that are struggling financially,” McCune Davis said. “It benefits out-of-state debt buyers, companies that purchase and attempt to collect debt after it has gone into default.”

HB 2664 gives debt collectors the power to accuse almost anyone of owing a debt without having to show a contract. If this bill passes a debt buyer would be able to sue a person with little evidence. The lawsuit could proceed if the company had something as simple as a spreadsheet showing a name and an alleged amount due or a generic credit card agreement – even if the debt was already been paid or dismissed.

Peoria resident Hayden Scheider, who is speaking out against HB 2664, said that he was a victim of mistaken identity and was sued for a debt he did not owe.

“I was sued by a debt buyer for a debt that was not mine. I won because the debt buyer didn’t have a proper basis for the lawsuit,” he said. “HB 2664 will allow a debt buyer to continue with a lawsuit even without a proper basis. HB 2664 will help out-of-state debt buyers and hurt Arizona families.”

"Middle-class families, Arizona’s economic engine, deserve to have the legislature focus on good ideas to put people back to work, not ideas that benefit special interest groups from other states," McCune Davis said. "Most states are strengthening consumer protection laws in this industry, but this legislation would weaken them in Arizona.

“This is an industry that is rife with abuse and this bill will only worsen the problem,” McCune Davis said.

[despritfreya]

In response to GD,

HB 2664 gives debt collectors the power to accuse almost anyone of owing a debt without having to show a contract. If this bill passes a debt buyer would be able to sue a person with little evidence. The lawsuit could proceed if the company had something as simple as a spreadsheet showing a name and an alleged amount due or a generic credit card agreement even if the debt was already been paid or dismissed.. . . Peoria resident Hayden Scheider, who is speaking out against HB 2664, said that he was a victim of mistaken identity and was sued for a debt he did not owe.“I was sued by a debt buyer for a debt that was not mine. I won because the debt buyer didn’t have a proper basis for the lawsuit,”

I suppose we will agree to disagree. The reality is anyone can sue anyone and such happens all the time as evidenced by that Peoria resident that was quoted. If you do not defend you get a judgment against you. If you properly defend you defeat the suit - just like the Peoria resident did. This legislation does not seem to change what is already the norm. Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not defending the legislation. Any legislation that is put forth by the creditor lobby is bad. All I am saying is that the focus of what the legislation does or does not do is nothing more than “spin” and does not address what already happens in a “court of law”.

Des.

[catleg]

This is very similar to the "legal process" (sic) followed by the civil courts in NJ, particularly Special Civil Part where debt cases under 15k are tried.
It makes the courts into little more than a collection function of the debt industry, and at a very cheap price to boot.
Hopefully AZ has some decent debtor exemptions; here in NJ it is $1000 wildcard total. And they won't tell you about that either.

[GoingDown]

Here's a convenient, easy to read, list of our exemptions...

http://www.dianedrain.com/Bankruptcy/BankruptcyArticles/Articles/ArizonaExemptions/bkarizonaexemptions.htm

[catleg]

Here's a convenient, easy to read, list of our exemptions...

http://www.dianedrain.com/Bankruptcy...exemptions.htm

Wow that's pretty good, you guys are lucky. The laws here are very "old fashioned" though the courts for collections are very "modern". Go figure.

[GoingDown]

I just wish we had a decent exemption amount for our checking accounts. $150 doesn't do much these days. I wish they would update that part to exempt about $2500 for checking accounts. And forbid banks from charging fees to respond to a garnishment order. So, as long as you kept it under $2500, you didn't have to worry about them trying to seize your checking account.

I noticed they recently updated that link, and have made it very clear:

"One single bank account (with the exception of social security, all funds deposited into accounts lose their exemption – such as retirement, etc)."

So, anything other than Social Security is fair game once it hits a checking account.

Eventhough various pensions and retirement income is technically exempt from wage garnishment, once it goes into a checking account, it is no longer exempt.

If it was at all possible to get those pensions and other retirement plan income payments in the form of paper checks, that would be the way to go. Then just stand in line and cash them. Or have them put on a pre-paid debit card and then as soon as they get direct deposited, go down and withdraw as much money as possible, before the judgement creditors get their grubby hands on it.

When I get paid, I always get paid by paper checks, and then I just go down to the bank it is written on and then stand in line and cash it.

But now, since everything is past SOL for me, I'm thinking about opening a new checking account, for convenience, but I'm still not going to leave much money in it. Just in case.