Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Eugene

(61,592 posts)
Mon Jun 27, 2016, 10:33 AM Jun 2016

Supreme Court lets debt collection class-action suit proceed

Source: Reuters

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday allowed a class-action lawsuit against debt collector Encore Capital Group Inc to move forward, declining to hear its claim that such companies should be protected from state "usury" laws barring money-lending at unreasonably high interest rates.

The court left in place a May 2015 ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York that found that Encore's Midland Funding and Midland Credit Management units were not national banks with legal protection against state usury laws.

The class-action lawsuit was brought by a New York borrower named Saliha Madden who objected to the 27 percent annual interest rate she was being charged.

Debt collection companies typically buy debt from banks and other creditors for pennies on the dollar, then try to collect higher amounts from people who owe the debt.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-debtcollectors-idUSKCN0ZD1RJ



World | Mon Jun 27, 2016 9:52am EDT
WASHINGTON | BY LAWRENCE HURLEY
6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court lets debt collection class-action suit proceed (Original Post) Eugene Jun 2016 OP
I've dealt with those Midland bastards. hobbit709 Jun 2016 #1
Damn, the SCOTUS seems Kelvin Mace Jun 2016 #2
It's a matter of skewed perception. Igel Jun 2016 #3
I believe that SCOTUS shouldn't re-write laws and agree that the 5-4 decisions should prompt 24601 Jun 2016 #4
Agreed, Kelvin Mace Jun 2016 #5
Now they need to rule against "zombie debt" collection agencies. Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2016 #6

hobbit709

(41,694 posts)
1. I've dealt with those Midland bastards.
Mon Jun 27, 2016, 10:37 AM
Jun 2016

Practically everything they tried to tell me was a violation of federal law.

Igel

(35,191 posts)
3. It's a matter of skewed perception.
Mon Jun 27, 2016, 10:57 AM
Jun 2016

The SCOTUS is on their side, which they think is the side of the law. For some things there are biases and a desire to change how the democracy works and what the Constitution's meant for many a decade, but for the most part they just read the law and try to come up with adequately narrow and adequately reasonable interpretation given the text and, if that doesn't work, the legislative history (which includes what was said in the legislature, what politicians added after the debate closed, and the signing statement, if any).

Everything else is a result of the prism that we view the world through.

When there are 5-4 splits, my personal belief is that it's a cry for the House and Senate to revisit the law because it's unclear or can be warped easily from what was intended. Or somebody is trying to rewrite both history and culture to suit his/her own image. That is an oligarchy, and most people support the oligarchy when it suits them. Risky business, that--sort of like having alligators patrol your neighborhood to keep down the possum and rat population.

24601

(3,940 posts)
4. I believe that SCOTUS shouldn't re-write laws and agree that the 5-4 decisions should prompt
Mon Jun 27, 2016, 12:33 PM
Jun 2016

Congress to legislate on an issue. In the area of debt collection, I'd support a remedy that cancels the debt when a jury decides that a collection agency was negligently abusive. If they are intentionally abusively, I'd mandate that the lender selling the debt or hiring the collection agency must pay the debtor twice the amount of the debt and that the collection agency must pay the debtor three times the amount of the debt.

Some may ask why hold the lender accountable. It's to ensure they remain engaged in the process and have a monetary stake in ensuring they sell a debt only to ethical individuals / firms and hire only those collection agencies that will follow the law.

 

Kelvin Mace

(17,469 posts)
5. Agreed,
Mon Jun 27, 2016, 12:42 PM
Jun 2016

too many split decisions. But at least we are on the right side of a few for a change.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Supreme Court lets debt c...