Return of Debtors Prison?

Quote:

Red and Green! I should only get mad around the Holidays! If it were you, who could tell?

in all seriousness.their should be the same rules for service for every state.it is sickening.it makes me turn green....hulk green.

This needed to be bumped for others to read!

Prison is for contempt of court....not for owing a debt. There is a difference.

Yes, but in certain states they will set bail at what you owe and turn the money over to the collector according to what I read! In many of these cases there was also improper service but arrests were made anyway!

[SIZE=3]Contempt of court for not showing up to defend against a suit should not apply because it is a civil matter. Basically you lose twice. You end up with a default judgment and then you end up with a lien or a garnishment without ever defending yourself. Part of the time this happens because you don???t even know you are being sued. It is in the lenders favor if you don???t show up. To get contempt of court on top of it is just ridiculous if that is what is really happening. Furthermore, to set the bail at the amount due and then turn it over to the collector is criminal. [/SIZE]

of course it is dollars,but the issue i'm picking up here is the fact that the bottomfeeders instead of trying to collect on default's.risking having said judgement vacated for "improper service".the bottomfeeder goes right for the juggular.that is because i would like to think because of this site,and a couple of others.people just living with,and dealing with default judgements are not happening as much.that is why there should be set rules for service that include serving the defendent personally.that would cure alot of ills with these sue happy idiots.like ASSETT ACCEPTANCE,MIDLAND,EVERY CACH d/b/a,AND LVNV.sorry but serving a person personally would get rid of this,or at least go a long way to stem the tide.

I was agreeing with you but I don???t think I was very precise in my statements. I do think federal standards should be set for the service practice. I think these should first include service in person by a sworn officer. If the officer is unable to serve then other methods should be available. The plaintiff should be required to prove that service was adequate before anything else happens especially if the defendant did not show up. If the defendant did not show up then it should be obvious to a judge that service was not handled sufficiently. The judge should make effort to insure that the plaintiff is not gaming the system.

The service method is only one important piece of the puzzle in this article though. Use of contempt of court in a civil matter should never happen. If the defendant does not show up then the penalty is they end up with a default judgment without defense. If the defendant does not show up for the next hearing then the penalty is they end up with assets seized, wages garnished, liens, etc. without defense. It is ridiculous for a judge to issue a warrant in addition to these things and I am not convinced that it is even legal. I think it is an inappropriate use and an abuse of the way the system is set up.