Other Contributors

About Us

The contributors to the Consumer Law & Policy blog are lawyers and law professors who practice, teach, or write about consumer law and policy. The blog is hosted by Public Citizen Litigation Group, but the views expressed here are solely those of the individual contributors (and don't necessarily reflect the views of institutions with which they are affiliated). To view the blog's policies, please click here.

« Back-breaking student-loan collection courtesy of the Commonwealth of Virginia | Main | Is there a future for mass-tort class actions? »

Tuesday, August 08, 2017


Edwin Bell

Rubber Stamp Justice

"Many debt buyer lawsuits rest on a foundation of highly questionable information and evidence. Debt buyers do not always receive meaningful evidence in support of their claims when they purchase a debt, and in some cases the sellers explicitly refuse to warrant that any of the information they passed on is accurate or even that the debts are legally enforceable. Enormous accumulations of interest—often in excess of 25 percent compounded over periods of several years—are added to many alleged debts based entirely on the debt buyers’ own calculations. The lawsuits themselves are then often generated largely by automated process without meaningful scrutiny by any human."

"The predictable result of all this is that debt buyer lawsuits are sometimes riddled with fundamental errors. Debt buyers have sued the wrong people, sued debtors for the wrong amounts, or sued to collect debts that had already been paid. In other cases they have filed lawsuits that were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations or were otherwise legally deficient. There have been multiple allegations, some which have led to successful legal cases, that some debt buyer attorneys fail to serve defendants notice of the suits against them in order to obtain large volumes of uncontested judgments. While industry representatives and their critics differ over the prevalence of these problems, their existence is not in serious dispute. Leading debt buyers have settled numerous lawsuits and enforcement actions alleging errors and legal flaws, and the settlement agreements have forced them to throw out tens of thousands of unfounded judgments they had won against consumers."


I'm in [different state]. We have this here in my area of [state]. It appears that there are a few basic possibilities for small claims credit card cases.

1. Do not show up at all. Def loses by default.

2. Show up, sign stipulation or consent. People who sign stipulations generally make 1 or 2 payments. Then ptf files its affidavit, and the stip ripens into judgement. Either way, def loses.

3. Show up with lawyer. Plaintiff generally seeks a walk-away. Def wins, but you pay your atty. That is much cheaper than losing.

4. Show up with lawyer, but bank wants to fight. There is a fee-shifting provision, so the bank probably pays for def's lawyer.

The bank, and even more the third-party debt buyers, are playing the numbers. They generally have at least half #1 (no show), and the bulk of those showing up choose option #2.

Ariadne Montare

This kind of information should be shared with the Consumer Fraud division of the Attorney General's office and the judicial rules committee for the state of Virginia.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe to CL&P

RSS/Atom Feed

To receive a daily email of Consumer Law & Policy content, enter your email address here:

Search CL&P Blog

Recent Posts

July 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31