Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!) (updated: 04/28/2015)

Welcome to the Bankruptcy Forum. Bankruptcy (BK) Forum is known as BKForum.com and will be referred to as BKF hereinafter. In order to ensure a long term success of our vibrant community, we have established certain rules and guidelines to which everyone must adhere to. Please take your time to carefully read our rules, before you start to participate in the community.

Things you agree to do:
BKFORUM.com (BKF) users agree to use the search function before starting a new thread. This prevents duplicate discussions and allows for better organized topics.

All BKF users agree to read the sticky posts which may be available at the top of a forum page. These Sticky posts often contain valuable information. They may also outline more rules and guidelines specific for that particular forum, stickies are put in place by that forums moderator(s) or admin(s).

Things you agree not to do:

All BKF users agree not to call people names or write a post simply to make a personal attack, or get a negative reaction; this behavior is not allowed on our forum. The use of derogatory language aimed at anyone will be severely dealt with. There is no need to agree with each other, or to even like each other. However, by signing onto BKForum.com you agree to treat each member and guest with the respect they deserve. No threats or personal attacks will be allowed.

All BKF users agree not to discuss, engage, or encourage any behavior or activity which violates the law. Discussion of drugs, violence, murder, theft, vandalism, fraud or any other issue which could be used to help individuals break the law is strictly forbidden.

All BKF users agree not to "bump" old threads, unless there is a specific benefit to the community by doing so. But in most cases, please don't post in very old threads, instead start new threads.

All BKF users agree not to attempt/use another members account. It is against BKF rules to use any account other than your own. Impersonating another member will result in an immediate ban. It is also against the rules to open more than one account in your own name without permission from a moderator or administrator. If you have been banned for any reason, it is against the rules to open another account. If you were banned temporarily and you are caught using another account you will be banned permanently. Choosing a moniker which is similar in either sound or spelling as a moderator or administrator is strictly forbidden.

All BKF users agree not to private message any moderator, admin, or other member with questions related to their personal circumstances (Questions about the forum or issues with the forum are ok). This forum only works when members share their experience and insights with everyone.

Things you agree not to post:
All BKF users agree not to post any derogatory/racist/or sexist remarks. This includes attachments, links and all information contained within posts, signatures, and avatars, failure to comply with this rule will result in a permanent ban.

All BKF users agree not to post any copyrighted or trademarked information without the express written permission of the owner(s) / proper citation of source.

All BKF users agree not to post any real names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, social security numbers, or any other personal details (their own or other people's).

All BKF users agree not to post links, pictures, attachments, videos, or the like of pornographic content, objectionable material or extreme violence, whether cartoon or real.

All BKF users agree not to use BKF for advertising purposes without a written contract between yourself/company/agent and the administration of BKF. Blatant advertising will result in a ban.

All BKF users agree not to spam the forums. Spam includes but is not limited to posting erroneous, non-relevant-useless, off-topic, or meaningless posts. Spam may also include posts which contain no text, or large areas of blank space between lines. Simply posting emoticons without text is considered spam. BKF is the largest bankruptcy message board and all the content is intended to help other users. Please help us improve the quality of our forum by making sure that your posts are well-worded, spell checked, grammatically correct and syntaxed.

Regarding actions of moderators and administrators:

The forum is no place to air out your opinion or be judgmental of our staff and its capabilities.

All BKF users agree not to abuse or mistreat moderators or administrators. It is against BKF rules to post any information regarding bans or any other action taken by a member of the moderating or administrative team. If you wish to discuss bans or warnings please do so via PM. To place a complaint against a moderator, send a PM to a super moderator. All Moderators are equal, any decision made by a moderator must be adhered to. If a moderator tells you something you do not like, do not go to another moderator looking for a different answer. If you are caught doing this you will be banned. The moderators work as a team and respect the decisions made by their peers and will help enforce them unless an administrator tells them differently.
If you have an issue with how the forum is run, then notify one of our administrator and we will look into the situation. We have in the past and still do appreciate any input that you offer this forum. But critical input and/or judgmental postings towards the staff will result in you getting banned.


Should you find a thread offensive or out of line, then notify a Mod in a PM so they can evaluate the situation and do the action deemed necessary.

All moderators do have active "other" lives outside of the forum and help moderate this forum in their spare time throughout the days and weeks.

If you have a problem with a member or Mod follow the proper channels of reporting it.

BKF reserves the right to delete any posts which contain anti-BKF comments or discussion. Any bashing of moderators or administrators, or any of their discussion or actions will also be deleted, and the responsible posting party(s) will be banned. Any public anti-BKF advertising, communication, or posts on another forum will result in permanent bans as well.

All warnings and bans are decided by individual moderators and administrators. Warnings are preferable to bans however, for serious offenses and repeat abusers bans will go into effect. The length of the bans can vary from several hours to permanent.

All messages posted or sent including through PM are the property of BKforum.com.

All BKF users agree not to advertiser on the forum (Niether by posting, private messaging or using your signature). If you are a company/attorney/legal adviser wishing to advertise on the site or sell a product, you must contact the head administrator and inquire about our advertising packages.

All bankruptcy related opinions expressed on BKForum.com are those of their authors and not necessarily of BKF, its staff or representatives.

You agree not to copy any material/post/content from BKF without written permission from our head administrator .

By posting on this forum you agree to these terms and conditions, including any punishment deemed appropriate by moderators or administrators in the event of an offense.

Administrators/Moderators can change these rules at any time without prior notice.
See more
See less

Critic says credit card bill leaves consumers vulnerable

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    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.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by despritfreya View Post
      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.
      The world's simplest C & D Letter:
      "I demand that you cease and desist from any communication with me."
      Notice that I never actually mention or acknowledge the debt in my letter.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by mlsj2009 View Post
        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.
        The world's simplest C & D Letter:
        "I demand that you cease and desist from any communication with me."
        Notice that I never actually mention or acknowledge the debt in my letter.

        Comment


        • #19
          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.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by bcohen View Post
            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.

            Comment


            • #21
              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.
              The world's simplest C & D Letter:
              "I demand that you cease and desist from any communication with me."
              Notice that I never actually mention or acknowledge the debt in my letter.

              Comment


              • #22
                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.

                Comment


                • #23
                  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.
                  filed chapter 13..confirmed...converted to chapter 7...DISCHARGED!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Here's a convenient, easy to read, list of our exemptions...

                    http://www.dianedrain.com/Bankruptcy...exemptions.htm
                    The world's simplest C & D Letter:
                    "I demand that you cease and desist from any communication with me."
                    Notice that I never actually mention or acknowledge the debt in my letter.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by GoingDown View Post
                      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.
                      filed chapter 13..confirmed...converted to chapter 7...DISCHARGED!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        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.
                        The world's simplest C & D Letter:
                        "I demand that you cease and desist from any communication with me."
                        Notice that I never actually mention or acknowledge the debt in my letter.

                        Comment

                        Unconfigured Ad Widget

                        Collapse
                        Working...
                        X