Posted on 02/24/2015 12:35:36 PM PST by Graybeard58
Direct link to Allentown Mcall’s article.
Direct link to Allentown Morning Call’s article.
“The moment they do so, the debt is settled. “
I don’t think you know how debt works. They can sell your debt at any time but you still owe it. Remember, you promised to pay it back. They have your promise.
That’s why they can take you to court and force you to pay. If it wasn’t legal, the court would throw it out.
My guess is they agreed at some point to pay it i.e. cosign. Otherwise, debts die with you.
Shame.
Totally inapplicable to filial medical debt.
What do you call when a person points out what the laws is on something and then you are told that the law shouldn’t apply and should be ignored by a certain group as it would effect their business?
“If they are responsible for their medical bills they should be able to deduct all family members on their taxes as dependents.”
Good point.
I don’t know how many FReepers believe that there should be one set of laws for the rich and another for everybody else, but that is pretty much how it works, isn’t it?
I understand the concept behind filial responsibility but such laws were created for a different time and place.
It will not be long before all debts will be passed onto family members, no matter how distant or estranged.
Your thoughts?
If anybody doesn't believe that, if they ever need a lawyer and can't pay for one, let them get a "public defender" and see how that works out for them. It's a certainty that you get what you pay for.
Not from personal experience but from friends and acquaintances over the years, it ain't like you see on t.v.
Thanks for the link.
I thought creditors could go after debtors estate - assuming there is an estate.
This is interesting; and it raises some questions; assuming as your comment suggests; you have some professional or semi/pro expertise in the area of indebtedness other than experience in dealing with your own personal debt.
Is this true in every state?
Can these 3rd party debt collectors report to credit agencies; in effect double down, reporting the same debt that has already been reported?
How can one find out if the 3rd Party bought the debt or is hired to collect the debt?
A link that would answer these questions would be sufficient.
I have researched this subject in the past and never came across this; can you provide a link that specifically addresses this? It would be greatly appreciated.
Nope. Not true. Not even close.
Your estate is liable for your obligations after you die, in this order:
Funeral expenses. Federal Taxes. State Taxes. Municipal Taxes. Probate fees. Secured debt. Unsecured debt. Your heirs.
Your heirs come last, unless they've loaned you money under a secured debt agreement.
In some states with filial obligation laws, your children [or parents] can inherit filial obligations in the event the estate can't pay. That is the law and the case law in Pennsylvania. Don't like it? You shouldn't. Your sole recourse is to tell your legislature to repeal the filial responsibility law if your state has one.
I am not an attorney and I cannot practice law and this is not legal advice and you get what you pay for on the internet.
That said, I think there still might be one tiny sliver, one speck of a gap, somewhere in the law that actually, shockingly, allows people to discuss the law amongst themselves without going through an attorney. Therefore I hereby invoke that teensy-weensy crack of light to speak about this subject.
AFAIK, the topic of this is issue is called "debt verification," and while many states have consumer protection laws, this is also addressed at the federal level under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Here's a NOLO link on the subject:
Debt Collection Defense: Requiring That the Collector Document the Debt
Basically it says that there's a difference between a "creditor" and "debt collector," and that people have the right to demand a debt collector "verify their debt," and if they can't, they can be sued for not being able to do so, I believe up to a thousand dollars an incident.
What people don't generally realize about the law is that 90% of it is done through definitions. For example, if you argue with the IRS, they don't refer to you as a "person" they refer to you add a "taxpayer." They do this to see if you object to it, because if you don't, then they can presume you accept what they know you believe is a mere label. But is not a mere label - is a term used only, under the law, by someone who agrees they owe a tax. So before you even get started complaining against them, you've technically agreed they're right - and they can and will use that "admission" against you in court!
Same with "creditor." You know what a creditor is in the law? The person you go into debt to. You know what the term "debt collector" is under the law? Not a creditor.
So do the math. If the debt collector is not the creditor, then you don't owe the debt to them - by definition.
And that conclusion is supported by asking why there is a federal law requiring debt collectors to be able to "verify" the debt? After all, isn't the debt verified the moment they can show you they bought it? Well apparently not, otherwise that's all that would be necessary, right?
What you're actually seeing is the "Debt Collector Extortion Protection Act." Because if any one of us tried to get someone to pay us money while claiming a false debt, that's what we'd be doing - extortion. So how do debt collectors get away with it, with demanding payments for debts they can't verify - ie, which they know are fake, and therefore extortionate? Simple - by having their own racket protection law that says if they get caught it is not extortion, but just makes them subject to a civil suit. And that's how the government "protects" people.
I'm not on a soap box here. I think this is very wrong, but it is all, in fact, perfectly legal. And a lot of material is available about it - IF you read very carefully. But that's how the game is done, by gambling that people don't read carefully and don't know how the law works, and simply won't recognize the truth when they see it. And it works - they don't.
In practice there is.
The court isn't going to throw out anything it isn't asked to throw out. And people don't ask to throw out something they think are valid. And people don't know the difference between creditors and debt collectors, and they don't know that debt verification involves the display of original debt documents that verify a creditor, and not merely the fact that the "rights" to collect collect a debt were purchased from an actual creditor. And if they do demand such things, why would a court force you to pay something that federal law describes as actionable debt collector fraud? It wouldn't.
And as for promising to pay it back, Rhett creditor also promised to accept payment from the debtor - not accept a lower payment from a third party. The moment they do that, there is no debt for the original debtor to pay back, because the debt instrument was used to receive payment from the debt collector. No one is running out on the debt - there IS NO debt once it has been "sold." And that is proven by the impossibility of the debt collector to verify the debt, and therefore verify their status as creditors, one the law.
These are facts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.