It is difficult for Dumb Bob to see how someone could be freeloading if they were paying someone 27% interest. If the terms of a loan are the primary reason for the default, blame certainly can't be totally put to the stupidity and greed of the borrower, can it? Is that how it works? I mean if you don't pay back your loan, I pay more? Isn't it more likely that banks charge what the market will accept? Assignment is a vital aspect of modern business, that's true. The problem is abuse. This is no different from arbitration which is also a vital aspect of modern business. Do you really think you can sell your obligation to pay your debt?
He WASN'T paying. He DIDN'T pay as agreed - whatever the rate was that he agreed to - which is why the judgment was entered. Had he paid it as agreed, we wouldn't be having the discussion. The terms of the loan aren't the REASON for the default. The REASON for the default is that someone failed to pay AS HE AGREED when he took the loan. The TERMS didn't make a decision; the borrower did. When you or I borrow money, part of the cost (rate, fees) of borrowing includes risk management and mitigation. Not for our specific loan, per se, but for the percentage of ALL loans that the bank makes. They plan that a certain percentage of their loans will go into default, and to cover those losses, they charge more money elsewhere. Yes, part of that risk for others (who default) is paid for by people like me and (assuming that you pay your debts on time) you. It doesn't matter if your defaulted loan is reassigned elevendy billion times. If you borrowed it, then you owe it, no matter WHOM you owe. I wasn't referring to this specifically. I was just explaining that, as long as a contract allows for it, both rights AND obligations can be transferrable to other parties as part of standard business law.
Don't mean to hijack here but just recently (about two weeks ago) I got a notice that my checking account was frozen ($2000!) and my wages had also been garnished by a judgement against me from an attorney I owed approx $4200. The thing is, I was making monthly payments to him and he took me to court without my knowledge and got the judgement when I was already making payments. He's got my checking account seized for $4200 and also my wages garnished for $4200. I don't see how he can do both and besides, I was making payments. I have hired an attorney to try and get it vacated but I'm not holding my breath.
So what you are saying is that he didn't serve you but said he did and got a default? Did you go into the court and look at what the service docs say? Who swore under oath that they served you?
1. A lot of people seem unclear where they agreed to the specific rate they are being charged. 2. The rate can materially affect their ability to pay as agreed. Terms can make the decision for the borrower. Obviously at some point you can say that the borrower decided to take on the risk by taking out the loan but that's a bit different. I think they charge as much as they can get people to pay, the losses and costs you speak of are there only as a floor which they won't want to go under because they won't make a profit. It's silly to assume they will lower rates if fewer people default. Why should they if you are still willing to pay the higher rate? Assignment itself, just like arbitration itself, isn't the abuse I was talking about. I didn't argue against either as a rule, that was the original poster. Actually, it can be difficult to write in terms not to allow assignment. Even if you say assignment isn't allowed, it might still be allowed.
You can't be sued and have a judgment entered against you without being served with notice, which gives you the opportunity to defend yourself. If you were, then either: (1) whomever sued you LIED to the court and provided false information that they served you with notice, which means you can have the judgement set aside and the civil action starts all over (2) you did not notify the party with any address changes, they DID serve you (e.g., by USPS mail), and you didn't receive the notice. If (2), then you WERE notified. Based on your explanation, the situation is more likely to be (1), which means you should be able to request that the judgment be set aside. They will then restart the civil action against you.
How is one party "unclear to the specific rate"? Does the contract say "You agree to pay us monthly payments for a period of time that we'll pull out of our butt, and and you agree that we can decide to charge you an interest rate based on which way the wind is blowing each month?" Among other things, the entire point of a legal contract is to identify the rights of one party and the obligations of another party. If the borrower chooses to NOT read the contract, that's his fault for signing it. If the borrower "doesn't understand" or is "unclear" about ANY part of the contract, it's his responsibilty to NOT sign it until he's had someone review it who DOES UNDERSTAND or IS CLEAR about it. To sign a contract, default on it, then try to blame someone or something else because you "didn't understand it" is nonsense. Sorry, no Victicrat excuses allowed. The time for a borrower to decide if he can repay a contractual obligation is BEFORE he agrees to the terms and takes the benefit. Signing a contract that creates a financial obligation that you are unsure about is foolish, and is NOT the fault of the lender OR the "terms". In short, if he can't repay the debt due to the rate "materially affecting his ability to pay as agreed", then he should NOT have obligated himself and taken the loan. No, it's not different. It's EXACTLY what we're talking about. If you agree to contractual terms that define your repayment under usual terms (e.g., paying as agreed), as well as the terms IF YOU DEFAULT, then you ARE aware of ALL the terms at the time you're making the decision to take the loan in the first place. Placing blame on the TERMS that YOU agreed to is BS. It's not the "terms" fault - it's YOUR fault for agreeing to them. You obviously don't understand risk managment, and I don't have the time or energy to educate you. I'm sure your local community college has a few courses that would cover the subject. Yes, the general purpose of a bank - as well as ANY type of for-profit business, is to make a profit. But they don't just price things as high as they like. You see, there's a little thing called "competition", and if they overprice their product, consumers will go elsewhere. Part of managing risk is to build in enough to cover your losses when the projected/expected number of defaults occur (based on statistical analysis), but not to price your product or service SO high as to drive consumers to another company. I disagree. It's not difficult to write ANYTHING into ANY contract, just so long as you don't atttempt to do a few things (e.g., obligate one party to commit an act that is in violation with the law, etc.). A business contract has to have two things to be enforceable: 1. An agreement 2. Consideration Beyond that, whatever terms/obligations/conditions are contained within the contract are what defines the performance due and the obligation of each party. If assignment of rights and/or obligations is included in the contract, then so be it. A court does not say "While the contract specifically stipulates that party "B" COULD NOT transfer his obligations to a third party, we think that's not fair, so we're going to pretend it wasn't in the contract." Courts rarely get involved in FAIRNESS of a contract. That's not their job. They simply ensure that nothing illegal occurred, as well as ensuring that each party is held to their rights and/or obligations under the contract.
You haven't seen some credit card agreements, apparently. Many that I've received lately involve some multi-tiered variable rate that can change without your foreknowledge and are indexed on data that is not common to the everyday (i.e. non Wall st.) individual. Consequently, those "invitations" quickly become shredder food, but I can certainly understand why and how the specific rate could be a mystery to the unsophisticated consumer. For many unsophisticated consumers, using the weather would be a better indicator on which to base the interest because at least the weather is something available to most consumers (sophisticated or otherwise). Agreed. Caveat emptor. But the process or system is broken somewhere along the way. Either we aren't giving our citizens (i.e. the unsophisticated consumers) the information and education they need to know in order to tell a good deal from a bad one. Or we're not imposing enough restrictions on the lenders to prevent them from abusing their power (i.e. they know more about how the game is played than the consumer). I'd prefer improving the education but that's a topic for another forum, perhaps. Yes and no. There are some legal terms and conditions that the lay person might think they understand because they sound familiar but, in a legal context, have a different meaning. So it's possible (if not common) for a consumer to think that they understand the terms when, in fact, they don't. For example, the arbitration clause sounds reasonable until you look at the statistics and dig a little deeper to find out what a sham it really is. Judges and courts are supported by your tax dollars while the NAF is supported by banks and creditors. They don't, for some reason, mention that in their disclosure statements. You mean like the current lending "crisis?" Where people wanted to believe they could afford a home went to people who wanted them to believe that (the mortgage brokers) and based on the "best-case scenarios" everyone thought they came out a winner? Who's fault was that? The borrowers who they could afford a house but couldn't? Or the lenders and brokers who knew the borrowers couldn't but sold them a loan anyway? Credit card companies are no different. They know (in fact their business model is based on the fact) that a certain percentage won't pay their bills on time (i.e. in accordance with the agreement) and that has fueled the credit card industry boom. Is this legal? Apparently. To me, however, if you know better but do it anyway (e.g. the banks) then you are responsible for what happens, more-so than someone who doesn't know any better (even if they should). It's a con and, in a sense, entrapment. It might be good for business (as the multi-billion dollar profits attest) but it's bad for the economy to have it artificially inflated by credit and it's bad for the society for its citizens to have a negative net-worth. We'll be seeing how bad in the coming years, I fear, when all these indebted people retire or lose their jobs to overseas workers (which, after all is good for business, right?) and have nothing but the other indebted citizens to support them. You can say "they should have known better" all you want, but that is of little solace when the riot for food and shelter.
Every credit card offer includes disclosure at some point before you accept the card (or allows for cancellation shortly therafter). Every card includes a specific description of your rate (e.g., fixed or variable based on X). They also CLEARLY identify the default rates (e.g., a specific rate or variable plus Y percent). Finally, with nearly EVERY card offer I've received, they include something to the effect of "Your rate and the terms of this offer are subject to change at any time". If you sign on the dotted line and use the card, you have made the conscious decision to put yourself in a situation where, if you CAN'T make the payments in the future, the company WILL increase you to the default rate. To me, this is not (as you think) "multi-tiered variable rate that can change without your foreknowledge and are indexed on data that is not common to the everyday individual". To me, this is a consumer defaulting on his obligations, then complaining becuase he's being held to the contractual agreement that HE AGREED TO. And, as I said before and plain as day, if you don't UNDERSTAND IT or if you're NOT SURE, then DON'T TAKE THE LOAN! FWIW: As long as you don't default (not pay on time), you can REFUSE to accept any future changes in the terms of the agreement, CANCEL the card, and pay off the balance AT THE TERMS IN EFFECT at the time you cancel. I (now) have excellent credit and a spotless payment history for my entire report, with history going back 10+ years (it wasn't always that way, but I learned). Even though I had great credit, I had one major credit card company try to jack my rates FOR NO APPARENT REASON, out of nowhere, and without being able to provide me with satisfactory reason. So I REFUSED the change in terms, closed the account, and (now almost two years later) continue to pay the balances off at the THEN rates and terms (the ones in effect BEFORE they tried to screw me). However, IF YOU DEFAULT on a debt, everything changes. You CAN'T refuse a change in terms (e.g., refuse the default interest rate). Nonsense. The biggest factor is: consumers who DON'T read the terms, but simply "wing it". I can't speak for everybody, but if I don't understand something, I'm sure as hell NOT going to sign a contract or accept a credit card. If I do, it's MY fault, not someone or something else's fault. The problem is a consumer making the conscious decision to sign a contract or accept a loan that he doesn't understand. Sorry, but ONLY the consumer knows whether or not he understands something, and it's up to him to make the decision to NOT accept the loan or NOT sign a contract. Life her in the United States is regulated to DEATH. We don't need MORE government intervention and MORE goverment regulations. Why do I need the goverment to impose restrictions or regulation when I, the ultimate decision maker with regard to my finances, can restrict or regulate EVERYTHING by choosing to NOT accept a loan that I don't understand or that I don't like. I'm sorry, but it's not the goverment's job to think for me. It's my job to (a) understand what I'm getting myself into or (b) don't do it. That's what I've said all along here. But it's the CONSUMER'S job to improve their own education about financial decisions. If you don't have the ability to understand an OPTIONAL contractual agreement that is presented to you, then you have three decisions: 1. Get educated so that you DO understand it BEFORE you do it. 2. Find someone who DOES understand it that you TRUST to look out for YOU. 3. Don't do it. If the layperson relies upon his or her own understanding, it's not the lender's fault if the layperson is wrong. This whole attitude about the consumer being "wronged" when the consumer made the OPTIONAL decision to enter into a contract WITHOUT understanding the consequences is bull$hit. If you can afford to sign a mortage loan contract that obligates you to repay hundreds of thousands of dollars, you can damn sure afford to spend a few hundred bucks to hire an attorney to look the documents over and explain them to you. If you can't, you have no business buying the house to begin with. The most important part about his supposed "lending crisis" that you're missing is that the very same entity (our liberal legislature) that is trying to blame the lenders for this problem are the very same people that all but mandated the lenders TO lend to these people. What most people (including yourself, apparently) either do not know or refuse to acknowledge is the fact that the variable rate home mortage was created, essentially, because our goverment forced the lenders to make home mortgages available to low income and minorities - groups that otherwise would not meet the requiements for a standard loan. Years back, the federal government basically forced the lenders to make it easier for those who could NOT purchase a home (e.g., low income, urban areas, minorities, etc.) to "loosen" things up so more people could achieve the American dream. The lenders did exactly what the goverment TOLD them to do. But since investors knew that these loans would have a higher rate of default and foreclosure, they did NOT want to invest their money with such a low rate of return and high risk of losing it. In order to offer home loans to groups of people with a HIGHER rate of default/foreclosure, the lenders HAD to provide investors with an incentive to invest, and the variable APR mortage was born. The investors knew that, even if MORE loans went into default, they were less likely to lose their investment because more $ was being collected on those who did NOT default. In short, the lenders had two choices: 1. Charge higher rates to attract investors 2. Close up shop Using a credit card is an OPTION, not a REQUIRMENT. Buying a house is an OPTION, not a REQUIREMENT. Signing a contract obligating you to pay back a debt at specific terms is an OPTION, not a REQUIREMENT. ALL debt is OPTIONAL. No one can FORCE you to accept a loan. You don't HAVE to use a credit card. If you do, you are making a CHOICE. I see no difference between the two, because BOTH had the opportunity to say, "Gee, I don't understand this. I'd better not sign this contract until I understand it or until I find an impartial party to explain it to me." Sorry, I don't accept the Victicrat attitude. Entrapment only applies to criminal offenses, not civil law. With regard to lending, a lender is making an OFFER. The ONLY way a consumer can become contractually obligated to that offer is to AGREE to it. It's an OPTION, not a REQUIREMENT. Ignorance of the law is not a defense in criminal law. As far as I'm concerned, it should be no different in this situation, because either: You UNDERSTAND something or You DON'T DO IT. We're not talking long division here. If you haven't figured it out yet, I have little sympathy for people who make conscious decisions to obligate themselves to doing something when they don't understand it. It's not everybody else's responsibility to bail out people who make stupid decisions.
I got a call from my Bank on a Friday evening telling me that my checking account had been frozen. I looked on case.net for Missouri and there was a court date there and an entry of a judgement against my checking account and to garnich my wages. I have lived at the same address for 8 years. If I was served by mail, I did not receive it. Anyway, my lawyer is on it.
Does Missouri allow original service by mail without any good reason? A quick look suggests to me that it doesn't, although I'd find out if I were you. And I'd still go down to the court and ask to see the case, and I'd look and see who swore out an oath that they served you or your kin.
