Forum
|
|
Forum
|
     | Saturday, April 08, 2000 - 11:43 pm  Since I see there are a lot of qualified people giving information on this board, I will put this query out there. First, I've been reading about the new BK laws congress passed and was wondering A) when are these laws going into effect and B) what are the changes going to entail (especially to chapter 7). I heard the laws are going to change in May or June and all I know about it is a means test will be given to all who file. So if I file later this month will the old laws apply to me? I'm your classic case of too much debt and no way out of it. Thanks for any help you can provide. Jeff.
|
| | Monday, April 10, 2000 - 10:07 am We've been through this several times now. They passed new legislation, but then it didn't become law. I don't know what the chances for this legislation are this time around.
|
| | Monday, April 10, 2000 - 10:10 am I just remembered having seen a bankruptcy lawyer's commercial a few weeks ago, referring to the upcoming changes. Voigtkampff???
|
| | Friday, April 28, 2000 - 10:51 pm Denise sent me a Washington Post article (thanks!), but the page has already moved. So here is the first paragraph: "An obscure provision of the Senate-passed version of the bankruptcy reform bill now pending in Congress could allow credit-card issuers and other lenders to tap some borrowers' retirement assets to pay off debts in the event of a bankruptcy." And here are a few excerpts: "They (critics) say it would invite credit-card issuers, banks and other lenders to write waivers into the fine print of cardholder agreements and loan documents so they could be used if borrowers declared bankruptcy." ... ""The fine print in consumer credit applications could routinely waive the applicant's retirement savings protections, and be a trap for the unwary consumer," she added." ... I have a HUGE aversion against fine print, the number 1 way to legally screw people. I'd appreciate any updates!
|
| | Friday, May 12, 2000 - 11:07 am Hatch Seeks Fewer Curbs On Debt Collectors "Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) has proposed amending bankruptcy legislation to allow debt collectors to use techniques that include telephone calls in the middle of the night, bogus threats of prosecution and hundreds of dollars in fees when consumers fail to make good on bounced checks within 30 days." Thanks, Denise!
|
| | Friday, May 12, 2000 - 05:58 pm This latest from Hatch is incredible. No words can adequately do justice to these politicians who are millionaires from our citizens--you, me, the people we work with, the insignificant little people that get crapped on by our wonderful big brother employers as we get reorganized, downsized and treated like&*^&. We loose our income, our houses, our credit, our cars and this is what they want to do? I should be angry, but why bother? this country is so $#@^%$% up and we just sit here and take this kind of garbage. And voting democrat just gets another crook in there who also is a millionaire and finds a way to skim from us working stiffs. Why don't they let those of us who agonized over declaring bankruptcy write the damn laws? It's the same rationale with priests counseling couples on their marriage! What a joke. You no play the game, you no make the rules. This is one time I hope Clinton does something good and stop this crap. I think I better go get my medicine and not care anymore.
|
| | Friday, May 12, 2000 - 09:06 pm Christine, I posted this article this a.m as well but did copy the whole story in case they moved the link. Here it is. I do not think it is as bad as it sounds,as one attorney said it was so outrageous that it may break the bill completely. Look at this Chairmans proposal! It is so out there that it may just blow the entire bill! To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52769-2000May11.html Hatch Seeks Fewer Curbs On Debt Collectors Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) has proposed amending bankruptcy legislation to allow debt collectors to use techniques that include telephone calls in the middle of the night, bogus threats of prosecution and hundreds of dollars in fees when consumers fail to make good on bounced checks within 30 days. The amendment would exempt debt collectors from the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when they are trying to collect on bounced checks that have been outstanding for 30 days or more after a bank has notified a consumer that there were insufficient funds in his or her account. The exemption would permit collectors to use techniques that are now outlawed when they push to collect tardy payments on credit-card balances or mortgages. Aides to Hatch say the amendment would make it clear that checks are not forms of credit, as is a credit card, and therefore should be covered by the debt-collection law only for a short period. Most courts have ruled that bounced checks qualify as debt under the act, a position supported by the Federal Trade Commission, which enforces the collection law. Many Democrats and Republicans oppose the Hatch amendment, which has not been publicly debated. Some lawmakers fear that Hatch's amendment could kill the bill outright by wrecking a delicate, hard-won compromise that the House and Senate have crafted in the past few weeks on consumer-protection provisions. One such provision would require that retailers and other creditors make it clear to consumers how quickly interest on debt accumulates over time. But the two sides remain at odds on several key issues. These include how valuable a home a bankruptcy filer should be allowed to keep and how courts should calculate whether a consumer can afford to repay some debt. Controversy over the Hatch amendment could further hinder progress on the bill. Opponents, such as Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes (D-Md.), argue that the exemption would be unfair to consumers. In a recent letter denouncing the Hatch amendment, Sarbanes noted that it would permit "unfettered collection activities" as well as legal action not only against criminals who forge checks "but also against the consumer whose checks have been forged." The debt-collection law "protects consumers from invasion of privacy, harassment, false or deceptive representations, unfair or abusive collection methods and illegal fees," Sarbanes wrote in the letter to Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees bankruptcy legislation. "It does not prevent the collection of a valid debt," Sarbanes wrote. Leahy, on Sarbanes' behalf, has in turn objected to Hatch's amendment, warning it could torpedo the bill. Aides to Hatch say that 30-day-old bounced checks need to be exempted from the debt-collection law because many consumers unfairly hide behind the act to delay or refuse paying money owed. Margot Saunders, managing attorney at the National Consumer Law Center, a nonprofit law firm that represents low-income people on consumer issues, said few people abuse the law and that even with the 30-day grace period there is ample room for abuse by creditors. She cited cases in Utah where people have written checks for less than $25 and have been threatened with criminal or civil prosecution unless they paid several hundred dollars in fees to the debt collectors, a practice she said federal courts have found to be excessive and illegal. Saunders said there are many times when consumers bounce checks for reasons beyond their control, such as having relied on a deposit that bounced or having been robbed by a fraudulent check writer. And there are other cases where debt collectors go after the owner of the account even though a check forger, not the owner, wrote the check that bounced, she said. In such instances, she said, the debt-collection law is used to block such actions. The Senate passed its bankruptcy bill in February, and the House passed similar legislation last year. Both bills would generally make it harder for consumers to wipe out debt through bankruptcy. But complicated parliamentary rules have so far enabled opponents of the bill to block the House and Senate from convening a conference to reconcile differences between the two bills. In the meantime, lawmakers have been working behind the scenes to craft a compromise that both chambers could approve and send to the president once parliamentary roadblocks are removed. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and other Republican leaders yesterday afternoon asked their staffs to reconcile the two bills by early next week. If an agreement can be reached on the issues, then the leaders will work to remove the parliamentary holdups on the legislation. Retailers and credit-card companies are pushing for the legislation to plug what they see as loopholes in current law that permit consumers who could pay off some of their debt to get off the hook completely when they run into trouble. Consumer groups, several Democrats and the White House have argued that the bills are overly harsh to consumers. They argue the legislation should contain stronger consumer protections to counter the credit industry's aggressive marketing techniques, which bill opponents say bear a large responsibility for getting Americans in over their heads in debt.
|
| | Monday, May 15, 2000 - 01:07 pm Can anybody see what is going on here??? Our ELECTED OFFICIALS want to take us back to the dark ages. Why don't they just create DEBTORS prisons again? I know what? Let's do what they do in Islam, cut off digits that will stop those crazy debtors and make them pay their bills! You can't squeeze blood from a stone and Orrin Hatch should be ashamed of himself. If this is about bad check writers, fine. But these heartless, big business Republicans (I am a registered Republican, though VERY liberal on matters such as these) ARE SCUM. No wonder they are scared when men like McCain propose banning soft money contributions from industry and individuals alike. I am voting for Gore if these money grubbing scumbag Republican right wing wacko Congressmen don't stop these shenanigans. They don't care about PRIVACY they only care about making it easier for Big Business to be draconian. Also, aren't the Republicans the FAMILY VALUES party? How can you amend the BK laws to the effect they propose and help poor families that, sadly, may get down on their luck (lay offs, business failures and the like). PLEASE ENOUGH OF THIS NONSENSE.
|
| | Monday, May 15, 2000 - 07:43 pm "No wonder they are scared when men like McCain propose banning soft money contributions from industry and individuals alike." That's the bottom line. They're all in it for power and money. I really don't see a BIG difference between the various parties, I can't imagine being a member of ANY party myself. But then again, it's Clinton's vetos that kept previous BK "reforms" from becoming a scary reality for the disadvantaged and less fortunate Americans.
|
| | Tuesday, May 16, 2000 - 02:17 am It's not just right wing scumbag republicans. It's all the politicians--another euphemism for millionaires we send to Washington to continue their elitism. Family values is a code for doing what I say not what I do. The world is full of hypocrites and politicians are the worst. To quote George Wallace (which in itself is an oxymoron)"there's not a dime's bit of difference between the two parties"--sad but very true.
|
Credit Forum CreditCourt Forum 2003 Credit Suit CreditFactors Order Credit Reports |