Rich3077 Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 M.C.L. § 445.257. Actions by persons suffering injury, loss, or damage; damages, fines,fees, and costsSec. 7. (1) A person who suffers injury, loss, or damage, or from whom money was collected bythe use of a method, act, or practice in violation of this act may bring an action for damages orother equitable relief.(2) In an action brought pursuant to subsection (1), if the court finds for the petitioner, recoveryshall be in the amount of actual damages or $50.00, whichever is greater. If the court finds thatthe method, act, or practice was a wilful violation, the court may assess a civil fine of not lessthan 3 times the actual damages, or $150.00, whichever is greater, and shall award reasonableattorney's fees and court costs incurred in connection with the action.This is Michigan consumer law... now.. it says court may assess a civil fine of NOT LESS than 3 times the actuall damages.Does a civil fine go to the state or to the plaintiff?PeaceRich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocDon Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 Civil fines normally go into the "general fund" of the government entity (like the State of Michigan) unless otherwise specified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich3077 Posted January 12, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 Thanks DocDon, I guess I will stick with federal law. PeaceRich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocDon Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 Most definately. Not only for that reason, but also because Federal judges are versed in Federal Statute (ie: FCRA, FDCPA). If you file in small claims, for example, you'll probably end up in front of a magistrate and they often don't understand that the FDCPA is a strict liability statute - meaning the violation is created when they violated the Act, and the "the disgruntled consumer" argument that so many magistrates and district judges allow is moot.If I remember way back, a member went into small claims and the magistrate asked if they owed money. They said the underlying debt was irrelevent (which is true). The magistrate said to the effect, "if you owe them, I don't see what the problem is", and the case was dismissed. District Judges are better, but not by much. Members have reported some behaving similarly to the magistrate scenario, other said they asked for the copy of the FDCPA to review it.As with anything else, get the system to serve you best. Don't simply assume that just because you walk into a courtroom that justice will be served. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Roy Bean Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 As always, this is not legal advice, but when dealing with judges who just don't get it (or don't want to), a motion on your part to have the court take judicial notice of the strict statutory nature of the act (i.e., that your alleged status as a debtor isn't relative to their violation of the act) will at least help keep things on track and if they fail to grant the motion, it's a cause for an appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts