The debtors signed an agreement and chose not to live up to that agreement, which provides for very specific recourse in the event of default. If more creditors choose to pursue that recourse to the full extent of the law debtors would take their debts more seriously.

Despite the general apathy most of this country seem to feel for repaying their debts right now, the problem, in my opinion, lies with the easy underwriting methods of the creditors, like Capital One. The question is not whether these debtors should be put in jail, but why these debtors were even debtors in the first place. I would bet they’ve had credit problems in the recent past and probably should not have been approved for the cards they have.

Smoking cigarettes posed a health risk and the government took a big step to curb there use through legislation and taxation. While the debt problem we face in this country may not be causing cancer, it is certainly disrupting lives to an extent we’ve not seen before. It may take the same intervention to bring about real change in this regard.

Debt collectors that get bench warrants en masse, like the one described in Sam’s post, are playing with fire in my opinion. There is an enormous potential for liability if you are causing people to be put in jail. Debt collectors better be sure all their i’s are dotted and t’s are crossed when obtaining these warrants.

I think people are crazy for not retaining legal council prior to becoming entangled in such a mess. But then, I get strange looks when I tell people I’m looking for a lawyer–their immediate assumption is that something has gone horribly wrong. No, but I want to be well armed in case there is a problem. I’m just being proactive. An unheard of concept these days–even among lawyers.

BTY, why wasn’t the mandatory binding arbitration clause used in those cases? I mean, if both parties were required to submit the dispute to arbitration (as is required nowadays), how can anyone wind up in jail?

Also, as recounted here too many times, Minnesota’s system of allowing suits to be initiated without being filed, coupled with certain collectors overly technical and strict interpretation of what constitutes an “Answer” so that even if a person calls and disputes the debt with them over the phone or sends a letter to them, they still go and get default judgments.

If the courts even took an extra moment a large number of these judgments would never come to be.

But as always the people losing out are the people with money or corporations and banks, its the people.