Utah Man Imprisoned for Failure to Repay Paya Day loans

I think this is a bunch of Hogwash! I did a search and all I could come up with is a salt lake city Utah man, 42, who committed fraud by using STOLEN CREDIT CARDS. Curious this guy is also 42. No mention of this guy by name, or anyone arrested for fraud.

Bunch of hooey.

On No. They contacted me too, and I though they were bluffing. I need to get this money to them now.

This one will be simple. Let's post the PDL laws for Utah, OK?

Someone else posted this story lasy week!

just for ha-has I searched for this, knowing I wouldnt find it anyways, but I did so that I could prove to everyone that sees this thread that the guy who posted this story lied out his back side. This is not a real article. This is not legally possible.

To the idiot that posted this, you werent even smart enough to use the name of a real DA??? I guess theres a reason why you work for that collection agency....

The REAL D.A. in Salt Lake County, UT, is Lohra L. Miller. So much for your intelligent approach, huh sport?

Oh, one more thing. Utah is known to have very few laws regarding payday lenders, but one law that they DO have is that all payday lenders must be licensed. We all know that internet payday lenders dont follow such laws.

Finally, Bass and Associates, also known as Ellis Crosby and Associates, is not registered in Utah, therefore, they cannot collect a debt in that state to begin with.

normally I would say to just leave trash like this alone, but nowadays someone will come along who is new to this site, see this crap, and think it's real and that it could happen to them. THIS IS NOT REAL. YOU CANNOT BE ARRESTED OR CHARGED WITH A CRIME FOR NOT PAYING BACK A DEBT LIKE A PAYDAY LOAN.

This concludes our public service announcement. Now back to our regularly scheduled schooling of debt collectors everywhere...

Ok, I went to the Utah state gov. web site and read the part here where it says lenders may not use the threat of criminal prosecution to collect! This was easy, slam dunk!

-23-105. Operational requirements for deferred deposit loans.
(1) If a check casher extends a deferred deposit loan, the check casher shall:
(a) post in a conspicuous location on its premises that can be viewed by a person seeking a deferred deposit loan:
(i) a complete schedule of any interest or fees charged for a deferred deposit loan that states the interest and fees using dollar amounts;
(ii) a number the person can call to make a complaint to the department regarding the deferred deposit loan; and
(iii) a list of states where the check casher is registered or authorized to offer deferred deposit loans through the Internet or other electronic means;
(b) enter into a written contract for the deferred deposit loan;
(c) conspicuously disclose in the written contract:
(i) that under Subsection (3)(a), a person receiving a deferred deposit loan may make a partial payment in increments of at least $5 on the principal owed on the deferred deposit loan without incurring additional charges above the charges provided in the written contract;
(ii) that under Subsection (3)(b), a person receiving a deferred deposit loan may rescind the deferred deposit loan on or before 5 p.m. of the next business day without incurring any charges;
(iii) that under Subsection (4)(b), the deferred deposit loan may not be rolled over without the person receiving the deferred deposit loan requesting the rollover of the deferred deposit loan;
(iv) that under Subsection (4)(c), the deferred deposit loan may not be rolled over if the rollover requires the person to pay the amount owed by the person under the deferred deposit loan in whole or in part more than 12 weeks after the day on which the deferred deposit loan is executed; and
(v) (A) the name and address of a designated agent required to be provided the department under Subsection 7-23-103(2)(d)(vi); and
(B) a statement that service of process may be made to the designated agent;
(d) provide the person seeking the deferred deposit loan a copy of the deferred deposit contract;
(e) orally review with the person seeking the deferred deposit loan the terms of the deferred deposit loan including:
(i) the amount of any interest rate or fee;
(ii) the date on which the full amount of the deferred deposit loan is due;
(iii) that under Subsection (3)(a), a person receiving a deferred deposit loan may make a partial payment in increments of at least $5 on the principal owed on the deferred deposit loan without incurring additional charges above the charges provided in the written contract;
(iv) that under Subsection (3)(b), a person receiving a deferred deposit loan may rescind the deferred deposit loan on or before 5 p.m. of the next business day without incurring any charges;
(v) that under Subsection (4)(b), the deferred deposit loan may not be rolled over without the person receiving the deferred deposit loan requesting the rollover of the deferred deposit loan; and
(vi) that under Subsection (4)(c), the deferred deposit loan may not be rolled over if the rollover requires the person to pay the amount owed by the person under the deferred deposit
loan in whole or in part more than 12 weeks after the day on which the deferred deposit loan is executed; and
(f) comply with the following as in effect on the date the deferred deposit loan is extended:
(i) Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1601 et seq., and its implementing federal regulations;
(ii) Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1691, and its implementing federal regulations;
(iii) Bank Secrecy Act, 12 U.S.C. Sec. 1829b, 12 U.S.C. Sec. 1951 through 1959, and 31 U.S.C. Sec. 5311 through 5332, and its implementing regulations; and
(iv) Title 70C, Utah Consumer Credit Code.
(2) If a check casher extends a deferred deposit loan through the Internet or other electronic means, the check casher shall provide the information described in Subsection (1)(a) to the person receiving the deferred deposit loan:
(a) in a conspicuous manner; and
(b) prior to the person entering into the deferred deposit loan.
(3) A check casher that engages in a deferred deposit loan shall permit a person receiving a deferred deposit loan to:
(a) make partial payments in increments of at least $5 on the principal owed on the deferred deposit loan at any time prior to maturity without incurring additional charges above the charges provided in the written contract; and
(b) rescind the deferred deposit loan without incurring any charges by returning the deferred deposit loan amount to the check casher on or before 5 p.m. the next business day following the deferred deposit loan transaction.
(4) A check casher that engages in a deferred deposit loan may not:
(a) collect additional interest on a deferred deposit loan with an outstanding principal balance 12 weeks after the day on which the deferred deposit loan is executed;
(b) roll over a deferred deposit loan without the person receiving the deferred deposit loan requesting the rollover of the deferred deposit loan;
(c) roll over a deferred deposit loan if the rollover requires a person to pay the amount owed by the person under a deferred deposit loan in whole or in part more than 12 weeks from the day on which the deferred deposit loan is first executed; or
(d) threaten to use or use the criminal process in any state to collect on the deferred deposit loan.
(5) Notwithstanding Subsections (4)(a) and (4)(d), a check casher that is the holder of a check used to obtain a deferred deposit loan that has been dishonored may use the remedies and notice procedures provided in Chapter 15, Dishonored Instruments, except that the issuer, as defined in Section 7-15-1, of the check may not be:
(a) asked by the holder to pay the amount described in Subsection 7-15-1(6)(a)(iii) as a condition of the holder not filing a civil action; or
(b) held liable for the damages described in Subsection 7-15-1(7)(b)(vi).


Amended by Chapter 87, 2007 General Session
Download Code Section Zipped WP 6/7/8 07_0F006.ZIP 4,743 Bytes




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sections in this Chapter|Chapters in this Title|All Titles|Legislative Home Page

Last revised: Friday, February 08, 2008

Is the article legit? or is someone being a jerk and posting it to scare people?

someone is being a jerk

it is a fake, whiterock. If a CA threatens to have you arrested like this they are breaking both federal and many state laws as well. It's a load of BS, posted here by a debt collector who has no life, so he has to come here and put this crap up to busy himself with something.

Here is an actual article posted by Goudah! Slam dunk this!

North, who showed up at Utah's 2nd District Small Claims Court on Tuesday with a list of names, is a court representative for Money 4 You, a payday lender. The names were of people who had failed to repay their loans on time and had judgments against them.


Of North's 14 names, only one person showed up. Some had managed to pay off their loans before going to court, but the rest received bench warrants with bail set at the cost of the original loan.


"We get negative press all the time," North said. "Somehow, the positive things get outweighed by all the negative things in the media."


The positive things, he said, are that if people are struggling, they can get the money they need, and that most payday-loan customers are satisfied. According to a customer-satisfaction survey conducted by researchers from Syracuse University, 63 percent of payday borrowers are satisfied, compared to 28 percent with credit cards.


"But, it's still a business," he said just before he went into a private room adjacent to the courtroom, to work out a pay garnishment plan with the one debtor who showed up.


In another case, Lori Christensen, of Logan, had paid off the $1,200 she owed in interest on a $300 loan from a different payday lender, but she still showed up just to make sure she wouldn't hear from small claims court again. She got the loan to help her husband pay back child support. Unfortunately, they got a divorce, and she started having grand mal seizures, she said. After months of hospitalization and treatment, she received a bench warrant.

HOLLY CRAP BATMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!$1200.00

I think i spelled that wrong...OOOPS...

Whoa, when I first saw the title to this thread I was astonished, then when I began reading it, the poor grammar gave it away for me. I can definitely see how something like this could be misconstrued for onlookers. Goldenblast, you are just awesome! Thank goodness you caught this right away! THANKS!!!

Did collection Dog AKA SLIME BALL cut and run?

Just so everyone understands, if you are summoned to appear in court and you do not show up, a bench warrant will be issued against you for FAILURE TO APPEAR. This is not in any way related to the claims made by so many of these CA's when they say you will be arrested for fraud, wire theft, or any of the other BS things they claim.

Frog, what youre talking about has absolutely nothing to do with the claims made by the guy who started this thread. A bench warrant for failure to appear will be issued in any court proceeding where someone is served a summons but doesnt show up. It has nothing to do with being arrested for fraud.

Also, I can tell you about criminal law. I went to school for it and I am a licensed bail enforcement agent. The claims made by the original poster are 100% rubbish, folks. The law in Utah clearly states that it is illegal for a DC to tell a debtor that they will face criminal charges if they dont pay up--and the OP stated that the CA filed a criminal complaint with the authorities--clearly a contradiction of that state's law.

This thread is bull crap and completely off topic. It needs to be locked or deleted.

Sky..not familar with your abreviations: CA...OP..
could you clarify?

CA is collection agency and OP is original poster

You guys That did the reasearch on this thread did a great job. Had someone seen this , It may have caused all sorts of panic. Thanks for clearing up a bogus article. We are all a bit more aware now. I am sure it will be very helpful to newer members.

thanks Sky and to all who caught this scam...I must admit I was one of the ones who got spooked by the article. but when i saw who posted it i figured it most likely wasn't what he wanted us to believe it was. I am just ticked that he/she did the cut and run..coward!!!!!!!!

If you do not post your bail for a bench warrant for faiure to appear fro not paying your loan in Utah you will go to jail until that bail is posted for whatever length of time it takes. That is being arrested as you wil be fingerprinted and dreseed in a jumpsuit and placed in the general jail population. Arrested is still arrested! I do not want Utah residents lulled into a false sense of security. If you write a check to anyone with the intention of fraud you can be arrested in Texas and in New Jersey and many other states. It has nothing to do with pay day lending laws. It is check fraud if fraud can be proven. Anyone who knows me would no that I am the last one to stick up for a troll. Who here went to law school and passed the bar in Utah. I will listen to that person! JC let the moderators decide what is off topic and needs to be locked.

You are so right JCEMT! I ignored this post, so why couldn't everyone else?!? It is very obvious the original poster was looking for attention, and got it!

A thread, I was trying to carry on an intelligent conversation in today, got locked after someone overreacted to one of my postings accusing me of attacking them. That person also advocated ignoring threads like this; however, I see that person also had to chime in on this thread posting that the original poster was a "jerk."

That seems like a violation of TOS to me, calling someone names?

I will never make an apology for speaking my mind! I felt, in the other thread, the person in question kept posting the same response repeatedly by advising two of us to read the TOS. It added nothing more the second time it was posted than the first. That person then overreacted advising I was attacking her and asked for the thread to be locked. I did a little audit of posts form this person, and found several I found to be nasty, rude, and condescending. So I'm wondering why that person seems to think it's OK when she does it, but not anyone else. I should also point out, the one that locked the thread has posted several times to these forums in a manner I felt was condescending and offensive. I didn't make a big fuss about it though, and ask for the threads to be locked. I just moved on, like any adult should.

We cannot have it both ways when dealing with spammers, we either ignore them or we don't! We either let people speak their minds, or we don't! We either request a thread be locked because someone points out we are repeating ourselves, then come here and call a poster a "jerk", or we don't! We either lock threads because someone screams they are being attacked, and leave threads like this one open, or we don't

That being said, to whichever of you decide to crucify me in these forums, I say "whatever!" You need to make sure you are following the rules yourself, to the letter, before you start attacking me.

The moderators have the job to decide what is correct and should be allowed and what is not. There will always be gray areas. There will be different opinions about the same subject. Just like in officials in a football game they are sometimes wrong. When you feel you can make perfect judgments and step up and do the jopb better let administration know but until that time I suggest that you keep this on a professional level and allow us to do our jobs. I do not know what person to whom you are referring but to go looking for threads to get something on that person is very disturbing to me.

Frog it was me they went looking for

I was the one that asked the question about the poster being legit or a jerk...

Frog, that isnt correct. You dont get locked up until you pay the bail. You can only be charged with failure to appear if there is a court proceeding. So, you get locked up until the court case concludes, or until the judge agrees to let you out, or until the fine is paid. In either case, like I said, one has absolutely nothing to do with the other! The OP claimed that an outstanding debt was reported to law enforcement, who then charged the person with a crime. Nowhere in this thread did anyone advocate failing to appear, so I dont see how that is relevant in any way.

In fact, I'll do one better. In Utah, failure to appear when a subpoena is issued shall be treated exactly the same as contempt of court. In Utah, Contempt of Court carries a maximum of 30 days in jail.

Let's also clear this up here--the people in the example you gave were already on the losing end of lawsuits. They already had judgments against them! So, they had already gone to court or already lost their case. You are comparing that to some loser who's claiming that a CA can seek criminal arrest WITHOUT THE NEED TO PROVE THE DEBT IN COURT. First off, they cant seek criminal charges against you for not paying the debt, period. Second, if you go to court, they must prove the allegations against you!

Make no mistake, youve seen me post and I never tell someone to blow off a summons. But that has nothing to do with anything in this thread except for your post. It has nothing to do with the OP.

I am not a legal expert, but am learning alot from this discussion....

unemployedron--I chose not to ignore this because the goal of this forum and hopefully all of us here is to help people who come here not knowing the answers. If this was left alone with no comment to refute it, who knows how many people would have come along, read it, and worried themselves sick over it? This place has a purpose, and if I need to post an answer to a troll like this, I would rather take the time to type it out than to leave it alone and see people actually believing the crap that people like this have posted.

My opinion is that while people are entitled to their own opinions, no one is entitled to incorrect "facts". If a person cares enough about a topic to debate it, then they should have no problem researching a little bit and learning about it as well, no? This goes beyond opinions in my book--knowingly posting up fake crap like this goes directly against the goal of this entire website and as such should not be permitted.

FrogPatch it is unfortunate that was the only message you could take away from my post, that I went looking to "get something" on someone. That was not the point of my post.

The main point I am trying to make is to either ignore these posts from "No Nonsense Cellector" and others you might not agree with, or don't. Don't request for a moderator to lock a thread because someone said something you didn't like, then move on to another post and post the author was "being a jerk." You either respect what someone has to say, even if you don't like and agree with it, or don't and move on.

That's It.

I agree with Sky...I read the post and got nervous about what I read...Having someone clarify and correct the information was the right thing to do. I did not know enough to go and do the research to see if the information that Collection Dog posted was correct or not. To have the people on this site have the knowledge to see the post for what it was, makes me and hopefully alot of other people feel better.

Skydivr7673, I was absolutely with you in regards to clearing up any lies that may be posted by "Nonsense" or anyone wishing to emulate him. Over time, his posts just became ridiculous and repetitive. Eventually, several voices in the forum called for ignoring those posts.

So I am only echoing what, seemingly, most everyone else wanted.

I feel if it is a good opportunity to refute any lies or inaccuracies that might be posted by "Nonsense" then we should. We shouldn't, however, call for a thread to be locked when we don't like something someone posts. We either live with these opinions from others or we don't!

Unemployed - I don't recall seeing any posts on this thread from "Nonsense" did I miss something?

Ron, this isnt an opinion. It is a deliberate effort at knowingly putting a lie on this board. Face it--there isnt a collector anywhere in the country that doesnt know he/she cannot have you arrested for not paying the debt! They KNOW IT. So, the only explanation for it being posted like this is that it was intentionally done to mislead. That is where opinion gets left at the door--the one purpose of this forum is to help people get the CORRECT information so they can be better educated and prepared to handle their finances. This isnt about opinion. If it was, I would agree that it should be left alone.

Sorry, Whiterock73, when I'm referring to "Nonsense", I'm referring to someone that posted here under the name "No Nonsense Collector" for a couple of weeks. He seemed to be having a really good time! So I'm just using it as a "generic" name for him, or anyone else like him.

The author of this Pulitzer winning piece of journalism was actually "Collection Dog."

I'd be willing to bet my left arm, though, that "Nonsense" and "Dog" are one and the same.

And getting back to the original post, when I did read it, before I even Google'd it, I knew it was garbage and worried that someone coming to this site for the first time would believe it. I am thankful someone did post refuting it.

Thanks for clarifying that Ron.. I read it and not being familar with Utah laws got nervous..,you could be right, same individual posting the misinformation..But I for one, don't need their "smut".
this situation is going to be tough as it is without their dirty tricks. I just need to learn to rise above it and be quicker to pick this people out..

ok, time for my two cents here.

skydivr, Goldenblast, kscornell, frog..(and anyone else I may've missed) you guys gave, as you always do, useful and relevant info.

I don't see, when the people I listed above were STILL discussing the situation, how the thread lost its purpose and got off topic. The only place I ever saw it off topic was when discussions were had about ignoring it. I will NOT call anyone out here, but if you don't like a topic and choose to ignore it, do so. That is your business. Everyone sees a situation differently.

Now..I really hate to pull rank here, but I will..For the very first, and hopefully last time. I am a moderator, probably the most senior mod on this board right now. I know the rules very very well..I CAN NOT LOCK OR DELETE THIS THREAD!!!!! It is against the rules! Frog, who also knows the rules very very well, is very correct in what he said. Let's stop this, ok? I for one am getting insinuations that we mods don't do our jobs. Some of you will never know just how well we do our jobs. And...Not that it matters..I wouldn't have locked or deleted this even if I could! Nothing wrong!

of posts form this person, and found several I found to be nasty, rude, and condescending.??
unemployed ron....this is just creepy. An audit? wow.

IF this is what members to to each other on this forum, I am glad I am a guest. It seems safer to join elsewhere. Too much backstabbing here.

Holy, if this is what members on this forum do to each other I am glad I am a guest. It is safer just to join another forum. Too much back stabbing here.

I was so outraged I posted twice by mistake. Guys get a grip on your anger

Guest, please! There is not a lot of backstabbing here..We are a huge community, the biggest of this kind, and there is bound to be heated discussions at times. all's well that ends well. It's all good.

I hope i was not part of the problem in this thread... if so i am sorry.

No of course you werent. Please dont worry about it.

OK...

I cannot PM Guest, so I have to post a response here.

Guest, what is creepy is you coming here and posting comments like that under an anonymous "guest" posting. At least I have the courage to register here, post my opinions, and take whatever heat I receive if someone doesn't like them.

Not hide behind a "Guest" screen name.

BTW, these forums and posts by the members are freely accessed by anyone. Feel free to audit any of my posts at any time. I'm not offended nor do I find it creepy.

I would be willing to bet, however, that our guest is actually not a guest at all, but an actual member of our forum that decided this topic wasn't beaten to death yet and wanted to "anonymously" stir it up some more.

Congratulations, job well done!