Jump to content

Dave Ramsey - bad advice on JDB's


fightemdontfold
 Share

Recommended Posts

Listen to the first hour of this guy's show while at work and have been very disappointed that this supposed "financial expert" is very poorly informed relative to JDB's and is giving his callers bad advice as a result.

 

Would be interested in knowing if others who listen to his show has observed the same thing?

 

He seems to always advise that the alleged debtor should try to settle with the JDB.

 

Today when listening he even admitted the company probably has little information about the debt, the caller was claiming he knew little about the debt and was telling Ramsey this.

 

He does advise people to get proof of the settlement in writing before paying them and he also advises against giving the JDB any access to your checking account, but he never advises people to simply ignore the calls and fight them in court. He never has advised about debt validation either. He gives his listeners the impression that they are liable to pay the debt even though they probably aren't, all the callers I have listened to who get the bad advice sound like htey are being contacted by a JDB.

 

What horrible advice this guy gives, it would be nice if someone could school him on the fact that he is giving improper advice and advice him on what he should be advising his listeners. I wanted to call in but his show is taped where I am.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, all these financial "gurus" give terrible advice when it comes to debt and collection. Sometimes I want to choke the Bankrate credit guru for the nonsense he spouts, and Farnoosh Turabi isn't any better. They are all as timid as lambs and I am tempted to set myself up as a JDB and start dunning them for a fictitious bill just to see if they will follow the same hogwash they trowel out. It's like they are owned by the collections industry.

 

Dear Debt Advisor:

 

I am 14 years old and am being dunned for a debt that dates back before I was born - somewhere in the Lincoln administration. I got a phone call yesterday and the man was absolutely rude about it - saying taht since I haven't paid this bill in 150 tears he doesn't have to be civil to me. He claims I can only pay the debt in gold because the debt was loaned in gold. Is that true?

 

---signed, Dunned in Dallas

 

Dear Dunned:

 

Wow... you haven't paid this bill since the Civil War? Shame on you. I suggest you go down to the debt collector's office dressed in sackcloth and ashes and crawl in on your hands and knees and beg them to accept twice what you owe them. Next time, pay your debts within the same century as they are incurred.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to understand that part of that is a moral thing. There are people that want to take care of their debts, even if they technically cannot be collected on anymore just as there are people that will not jump on a JDB at the first violation. That is one thing that I think is missing in this board is that there are many that seem to think that fighting the JDB no matter what is the only answer. It is not. It is however dependent on your moral values and only the individual poster can determine that.

I also have to ask, was the caller clear in stating that they have no idea of the debt. I have listened to Dave Ramsey in the past and he has advised people of getting information if they had no clue about the debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually the caller tonight was saying he didn't know, and then he said he did recall having a Chase card (that was who was on the suit, a JDB trying to collect on the card most likely).

 

The thing is the guy said the company had a judgement and the guy said he had never been served any papers, he knew his rights there. Ramsey responds by saying they can get a judgement without him being served. Total BS. Now I have heard that sometimes a judge will grant a judgment after a certain amount of time has passed with service being attempted, but then a judgement can be vacated with some work - bottom line is to get a air tight judgment the defendant has to be served and given the chance to step in front of a judge.

 

I mean relative to the caller tonight, why would the JDB be calling if they really had a judgment? They are probably just scaring him into paying them.

 

He actually advised the caller tonight to possibly sue the company contacting him in order to get more information about the debt, this was when he admitted they probably had no more than a couple lines on a piece of paper. I have never heard of suing for information, I mean WTH?? He even admites to knowing the company bought the debt for pennies on the dollar. I mean why advise someone to pay when you are at the same time sayign they have little evidence of the debt. Horrible. And tons of people listen to this guy.

 

I have actually heard the guy Ramsey in the past tell a person that they were "lucky" to be getting such a generous settlement offer, we all know the JDB's will offer settlements then sell them off or sue after getting some money from the debtor.

 

He did advise to get the settlement in writing, but that is still bad news for a debtor. Only a settlement settled in court would be assurance that the JDB would not sell the debt or sue, bottom line the callers and listeners are going to be subject to future calls and collections because of this bad advice. He never instructed the caller to get anything in writing specifiying the debt was settled, just that the payment was made, at least in the calls I have listened to. Odds are the debt is sold again or worse they sue with that payment in their back pocket to get the entire amount awarded to them in court.

 

Would love to hear a caller call-in and tell him what crappy advice he is giving to people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say it is time the lady who runs this site, I think her name is Kristy (might be wrong on that) gets a radio show and helps to right the bad advice given out by people like Dave Ramsey on the topic of JDB's and debt collectors. Just my opinion, there is a huge market out there for correct advice and information on the subjects, especially 3rd party collectors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He seems to always advise that the alleged debtor should try to settle with the JDB.

 

I guess he has no experience fighting JDBs considering he filed BK when he was in debt. 

 

My opinion is that the best source to get advice from is someone who has personal experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I listened to the call mentioned above and have a few things to add. If you have iTunes, you can download the podcast and listen, it is the first call.

In any case, here are my notes:

  1. He does tell the caller to go to the courthouse and see if there really is a judgement against them. That would be consistent with any advice given here.
  2. A judgement can be obtained and be valid even if you were not served IF the attorney followed the exact procedures for alternate service and can prove it was needed. Again, you need to see the court case file prior to knowing what happened.
  3. If there is no court file, the obviously, one should refuse to pay. That was implied in the discussion.
  4. If there is a valid judgement then the advice was to settle. After all, the caller stuck his head in the sand for 13 years and ignored things. That is why you should not do so.

Now, first off, Dave Ramsey is not an attorney. He is a financial counselor and most of the FDCPA stuff is in the realm of an attorney. Also, his view on bank record keeping practices is outdated in the sense that he still thinks banks act like they did in the 70s and 80s. Small banks still keep their records like that (and hence, they are impossible to beat in a lawsuit) but things have changed. You also have to take into account that most people are timid and fear the court process. That was a discussion recently regarding a Minnesota lawsuit and the debtor being scared to do a meet and confer with the creditor attorney.

There is still a moral question and those who listen to Dave Ramsey tend to be those who morally believe that if they owe the debt, they should pay it. There is nothing right or wrong and as I have said, each person has to answer moral questions on their own based on their own moral beliefs.

Finally, I do wish I had known the information on this board and/or Dave Ramsey prior for doing a Ch. 7 BK in 2005. I might have followed a different path but in the end, I probably would have settled the debt. In fact, I have paid on some debts discharged in BK (which is legal and my right) based on how the organization treated me during and after BK.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave is a very  moral man and also very religious.  If you listen to him on a regular you will see what I mean.  I had to stop listening to him a few years back because I felt he was giving bad advise at times and I would be yelling at my ipod at work and people would think I was crazy.

 

As for the moral part, i to would like to pay my bills, I can't not at this time, so I need to fight and keep the monster away from the door.  

 

I never had to fight like this, I didn't want to lose my job, it just happened.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a friend who is highly religious,  very moral and rather wealthy.  When he heard that I sometimes post on this board, he said, "So your group tries to get people out of paying what they owe?"  I said, "What  we try to do is get the collection industry to follow the law.  Creditors have rights, but so do debtors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a friend who is highly religious,  very moral and rather wealthy.  When he heard that I sometimes post on this board, he said, "So your group tries to get people out of paying what they owe?"  I said, "What  we try to do is get the collection industry to follow the law.  Creditors have rights, but so do debtors. 

 

Has he read Deuteronomy 15:1-2?  Did you mention to him all the cases that:

 

1.  People have already paid, but the debt collectors come calling anyway (such as OCs losing track)

2.  Debt collectors mismatching names and accounts and call on the wrong person

3.  Debt collectors playing tricks to keep people perpetually in debt with no escape

4.  Debt collectors collecting after 7 years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has he read Deuteronomy 15:1-2?  Did you mention to him all the cases that:

 

1.  People have already paid, but the debt collectors come calling anyway (such as OCs losing track)

2.  Debt collectors mismatching names and accounts and call on the wrong person

3.  Debt collectors playing tricks to keep people perpetually in debt with no escape

4.  Debt collectors collecting after 7 years

 

Yes, I pointed all that out and more. But with some people you cannot reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I pointed all that out and more. But with some people you cannot reason.

Oh yeah.  There are many such people around.

 

Give him a last remark "It's a good thing you are not in the debt collection business, because it sounds like you could likely be working over the edge of the law, and end up with lots of violations, and be sued, especially from the people that don't owe."

 

Don't partner with such people in ANY business venture.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always wonder if those spouting the immorality of "getting out of paying your debts" believe BK is immoral.

 

A person filing BK is doing so under the highest law of the land:

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
...
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
...

 

To force people to pay their debts we need to amend the CotUS to bar BK. It would apply to individuals and corporations.

 

Fraud is immoral and should be condemned. Whether perpetrated by a collector or an alleged debtor. Being accused of immorality while following and actively enforcing the the law and without any rational justification for the accusation would be amusing if it were not sadly due to ignorance of the accuser.

 

Aggressively fighting debt collectors is sort of like an unorganized and informal BK. The creditors that did not destroy evidence to cover up their fraud and kept good records are likely to prevail in obtaining a judgment. Well over 80% of the time the litigious creditor gets a default judgment with little to no evidence at all. I would consider that immoral.

 

Apparently big banks are completely incapable of immoral behavior. That being the case, apparently lying in the court record is not immoral as long as you happen to be a big bank. The things so called moral people often believe and spout off regarding debt tend to shock my sense of morality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are talking about the Year of the Jubilee and that was every 50 years.

I am talking about forgiving debts every 7 years.  It's not about reports being removed in 7 years, either (as it is applied today).  It's closer to bankruptcy than to tradelines.

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.