Jump to content

CA state senate passage of FDBPA or SB 890....


tigger
 Share

Recommended Posts

A bit different from FDCPA, the FDBPA or the Fair Debt Buyer's Practices Act, which will require the (junk) Debt Buyers to produce more "evidence" when suing creditors than was previously required.

I've excerpted this from a press release found on the California Attorney General's website:

Attorney General Kamala D. Harris Applauds State Senate Passage of Fair Debt Buyers Practices Act

January 31, 2012

For Immediate Release

Contact: (415) 703-5837

Attorney General Kamala D. Harris Applauds State Senate Passage of Fair Debt Buyers Practices Act

SACRAMENTO -- Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today announced the State Senate passed legislation to protect consumers from unfair debt collection practices.

The Fair Debt Buyers Practices Act will require purchasers of consumer debt, or debt buyers, to provide documentary evidence to consumers in order to ensure that their collection efforts are directed at the proper individual. Debt buyers have flooded California's courts with lawsuits seeking judgments on debts without adequate documentation, often resulting in collections efforts against the wrong person.

"Too often, a consumer can get ensnarled in a long and costly battle to prove they are not the ones responsible for debt," said Attorney General Harris. "The Fair Debt Buyers Practices Act will put reasonable requirements on debt buyers and ensure consumers are not forced to pay the debts of others."

Consumer debt is routinely purchased and resold in bundles, made up of thousands of accounts, with inadequate documentation. As a result, debt collection efforts often target the wrong consumers or wrong amounts, or seek payment on debt that has expired or been discharged.

Senate Bill 890, by Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), would prohibit debt buyers from obtaining a judgment in a debt collection lawsuit unless the debt buyer can document their ownership of the debt, the balance of the debt, the date of the default or last payment, the identity of prior owners of the debt and the name and address of the debtor in the original creditor's records.

In addition, the debt buyer must also have the original contract or a document provided to the debtor while the account was active to show evidence of the debt.

--------------------edit--------------------------------

for full release, please follow the link below:

Press Release | State of California - Department of Justice - Kamala D. Harris Attorney General

also found at:

LegalNewsline | Calif. AG pleased with legislation targeting debt buyers

California Senate Passes Fair Debt Buyers Practices Act

:mrgreen:

Edited by tigger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Uh Oh, Junk Debt Buyers are not going to be happy about having to actually prove their claims.

On the flip side, I wonder what will considered proper documentation under this law. I can only assume whatever the requirements the JDB will just try to satisify the requirement with an affidavit written by the JDB themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the language in this suggests that it is directed at suits filed against the wrong person. This is deceptive and contradictory to the further part.

The Fair Debt Buyers Practices Act will require purchasers of consumer debt, or debt buyers, to provide documentary evidence to consumers in order to ensure that their collection efforts are directed at the proper individual.[/I]

often resulting in collections efforts against the wrong person.

"Too often, a consumer can get ensnarled in a long and costly battle to prove they are not the ones responsible for debt,"

"The Fair Debt Buyers Practices Act will put reasonable requirements on debt buyers and ensure consumers are not forced to pay the debts of others."

As a result, debt collection efforts often target the wrong consumers

the debt buyer can document their ownership of the debt, the balance of the debt, the date of the default or last payment, the identity of prior owners of the debt and the name and address of the debtor in the original creditor's records.

I think this is the only part that matters, and this is already a well established principle of law. We really don't need another California politician telling us what we already know. If these guys knew anything, California wouldn't be essentially bankrupt. Of course they won't address that one. More cheap grandstanding with a poorly worded bill which is completely unnecessary. Discovery solves all these problems, not some idiotic bill written by a cheap hack who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Read between the lines, then pull this guy's contribution records and see how much money he took from the JDB industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happened is that CA Legislator got their wages garnished by a judgement for a debt that was not their debt but a JDB went after the legislator who had the same name as the debtor, because there was money there. Now the legislator is going to punish all JDBs for the action of this one.

There have been postings on this issue here on this board recently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That shows how smart CA legislators are......this guy is probably an attorney, 99% of them are, but he got a garnishment against him for a debt he didn't owe? What law school did he go to?

Satan must be freezing right now because I always figured hell would freeze over before I would defend CA legislators...

It could be the legislator didn't even know about the judgement until he went to see his latest bribe balance only to find a collection agency stole his kickback money...

What ever happened to honor among thieves?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That shows how smart CA legislators are......this guy is probably an attorney, 99% of them are, but he got a garnishment against him for a debt he didn't owe? What law school did he go to?

What probably happened was that he was never served. We know how well some JDB process servers work. They probably tried to serve at the last known address of the person who really owned the debt with the legislator's name. Hence, default judgement. He found out when the state garnished his paycheck (which is when many who are not served properly find out) and then took care of it and is now making sure it does not happen to anyone else.

I find it funny because most banks and creditors have a special department that handles issues involving legislators and others who could "cause problems". Apparently this JDB did not see the need for such a department and now probably has a bad name amongst their peers for going after an important person who has the power to make their lives hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember reading about that. Even at insidearm they were having trouble with the fact it went that far. In other words they were trying their best to say you only pick on the weak and those that will be intimidated. They just were trying in a politically correct way to word it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.