[Sixstrings]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')HOENIX — When the bank sued Leann Weaver for not paying her credit card balance, her reaction was typical for someone in that situation. Personal and financial setbacks weighed her down, and she knew she owed the $2,470. So she never went to court to defend herself.

She was startled by what happened next. When she swiped her debit card at the grocery store, it was declined. It turned out Capital One Bank had taken $224.25 from her paycheck, a quarter of her wages for two weeks of work at a retail chain, and her bank account was overdrawn.

“They’re kicking somebody who’s already in the dirt,” she said.

In the rare event that a consumer battles back, creditors frequently lack the documentation to prove their claim, and cases are dropped. That is because many past-due debts are owned not by the banks that issued them, but by debt collectors who bought, for cents on the dollar, a list of names and amounts due.

The case of Sidney Jones shows how punishing the system can be. In January 2001, Mr. Jones, 45, a maintenance worker from California Crossroads, Va., took out a $4,097 personal loan from Beneficial Virginia, a subprime lender now owned by HSBC, the big bank.

He fell behind, and Beneficial sued. Mr. Jones did not appear in court. “I just thought they were going to take what I owed,” he said.

By default, Beneficial won a judgment of $4,750, plus $900 in lawyers’ fees, with the debt accruing interest at 27.55 percent until paid in full. The bank started garnishing his wages in March 2003.

Over the next six years, the bank deducted more than $10,000 from Mr. Jones’s paychecks, but he made little headway on his debt. According to a court order secured by Beneficial’s lawyers last spring, he still owed the company $3,965, a sum nearly equal to the original loan amount.

Mr. Jones, who did not graduate from high school, was baffled. “Where did all this money go that I paid them?” he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/business/economy/02garnish.html?ref=business

[Novus]

Debt slavery it is the way the world is going. Fight the machine or be a slave to it. Your choice people.

[Cloud9]

In Florida, garnishments are common. I fought Sun Trust for eight years for giving my construction draws to a contractor they knew wasn’t doing the work and not paying his subcontractors. Turns out that Florida has a concept called the economic loss rule. That rule simply stated says that once you borrow money and designate a contractor, the bank can release that money to the contractor knowing full well he has no intention of using the money released to him for the designated purpose. In a nut shell, the bank has no duty to protect your interest. Needless to say after eight years and three appeals I lost.

Judgments, obligations under my construction loan agreement to finish the home that was never completed, liens and attorney fees put me in debt to the tune of about $475,000.

The bank garnished my wages. It took them a while though. On the first hearing they asked for a garnishment on the wrong case number. It was denied. On the second hearing they garnished my wages from the wrong school board. On notice of the third hearing, I filed bankruptcy. They got my land and the money pit house I built, but they did not get my cars and home I lived in and they never got a penny of my wages.

Bottom line, the county law library is free to the public. A prose litigant almost never wins but he can run up the other side’s attorney fees and in the last moment he can file bankruptcy.

Never, never, never ignore a summons to a hearing; if you are not there to represent yourself, the court has no option but to accept the other side’s version of the facts as the truth.

[mcgowanjm]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cloud9', 'I')n Florida, garnishments are common. I fought Sun Trust for eight years for giving my construction draws to a contractor they knew wasn’t doing the work and not paying his subcontractors. Turns out that Florida has a concept called the economic loss rule. That rule simply stated says that once you borrow money and designate a contractor, the bank can release that money to the contractor knowing full well he has no intention of using the money released to him for the designated purpose. In a nut shell, the bank has no duty to protect your interest. Needless to say after eight years and three appeals I lost.

Judgments, obligations under my construction loan agreement to finish the home that was never completed, liens and attorney fees put me in debt to the tune of about $475,000.

The bank garnished my wages. It took them a while though. On the first hearing they asked for a garnishment on the wrong case number. It was denied. On the second hearing they garnished my wages from the wrong school board. On notice of the third hearing, I filed bankruptcy. They got my land and the money pit house I built, but they did not get my cars and home I lived in and they never got a penny of my wages.

Bottom line, the county law library is free to the public. A prose litigant almost never wins but he can run up the other side’s attorney fees and in the last moment he can file bankruptcy.

Never, never, never ignore a summons to a hearing; if you are not there to represent yourself, the court has no option but to accept the other side’s version of the facts as the truth.

[Kristen]

This is another crisis on the horizon, a droplet of water from a thunderstorm.

Firstly, to those who are employed, wage garnishing will decrease demand for goods and services. When those services are not needed, more layoffs will ensue. Also many of them may go homeless because they cannot afford rent. Then what? You might lose your job from being homeless, I don't know.

The unemployment rate is at an all time high. You might be able to garnish unemployment benefits, but taking away the whole thing would crush the debtor, making payment unobtainable. I see a wave of Student Loan defaults coming because of the jobs situation. It will be amusing to see the banks scramble when they realize you can't garnish a whole population and still make money throughout the economy.

I realize this mess was caused by people living beyond their means, but the banks however should not have financed such trickery advertisers have produced; the constant suggestion that not owning something makes you unhappy. After years of repetition it is hammered in the mind making people embarrassed of lifestyles that have been demonized. It would be nice if the person was aware of bias, but being aware is demonized too. One must abide by the norms of society or forever be displaced.

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kristen', '
')
I realize this mess was caused by people living beyond their means, but the banks however should not have financed such trickery advertisers have produced; the constant suggestion that not owning something makes you unhappy. After years of repetition it is hammered in the mind making people embarrassed of lifestyles that have been demonized. It would be nice if the person was aware of bias, but being aware is demonized too. One must abide by the norms of society or forever be displaced.

[TreeFarmer]

I'm right there with you O_S. When I finished college and got a job I took a look at my paycheck and all the stuff my friends had and then did some quick calculations to see how they could afford all of that stuff. I quickly realized that they could not and had to be deep in debt. I, like you, am a saver not a spender and it has certainly led to much greater peace of mind for me over the years.

TF

[Kristen]

My hat goes off to you two, it must be frustrating dealing with the consequences of such excess. Or it may be advantageous. For in Minnesota, the city of minneapolis gives a new home owner 10,000 dollars down so to speak, plus 8.500 from other organizations. A houe in North Minneapolis is about 40,000. You can do the math.

Outcast, I totally agree with you on people needith to take control of their emotions. Being medicated isn't helping and may be making things easier.