Can a creditor was gets a judgment for an unpaid credit card balance put a lien on a vehicle owned by the debtor? Just wondering if this could happen........
So Discover got a judgment against you? What CA took you to court? When did the judgement happen? Do you have a checking/saving account? They usually will take that first if available, then of course lien on your real estate, then the vehicles... IF you have not gotten a judgement make yourself judgement proof now: )
Depends on your state's vehicle exemption for judgments, compared with your equity in the car. Generally, cars aren't worth going after. Unless you own a late model luxury car outright.
Generally you are allowed an amount for a vehicle, and as stated above, the "excess" equity can be subject to a lien. If your question is; "will they take my car?", the answer is no.
Here from what I have been told the exemption is 1500. In the news recently there was a few JDB's that got judgements on the debtors and removed quite a few cars. If I remember correctly they owners also had LOANS on the cars. It was a big news item and the AG went after the JDB's, although they are still doing the same ol' same ol'. I do believe they would come after anything they could even just to harass you so you would give them something!
I have to disagree on this, as it has been done here in Massachusetts http://www.boston.com/news/specials/debt/part1_main/http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/08/03/abuses_spur_vows_to_protect_debtors/
That violates every provision under UCC Art. 9 in terms of priority if the car is financed. In any event, the person handed the car over (albeit in violation of the strict foreclosure provisions of Art. 9).
As Apex aptly stated, "That violates every provision under UCC Art. 9 in terms of priority if the car is financed. In any event, the person handed the car over (albeit in violation of the strict foreclosure provisions of Art. 9)." A creditor cannot"take a prior creditors collateral, and prior means "priority position" in this sentence. (Unless the creditor has agreed to the seizure and secured their position.)
That was only ONE situation. There was a daily series on this,a good read and lots of info,and it got a lot of air time as well. As you read you can see quite a few JDB and CA"s that were behind it all. Unfortunately while one CA got fined 70K they are still doing whatever they want.
I know, but it happens, and they also very easily take your car if there is no financing on it. At least here in Mass. they do. It really is a bad situation : (
Right, but it is being done.: ( Thing is it does happen and it is just a lot of hassle,getting a lawyer and going to court to get your vehicle back. Same as when a creditor serves sewer service and gets a judgment against you, or takes money out of your account. They will do whatever,and most people let them as they have no money to fight back. I also have found NACA lawyers only take contingency cases if they think they can win big. It really is a bad situation for the consumer that does not have money behind them to hire a good lawyer.
Well you must have read all the Globe articles then,and know how there are quite a few very ruthless CA's and JDB's here. So are you in or from Mass? I have found that AG office does not do much unless there is some big publicity associated with helping the consumer.After the publicity last year,and them fining several CA's, it is all under the rug again and the consumers here are really getting #$%^&*
Not trying to be nasty here but, do you honestly expect an attorney to take a case which will yield very little money? That isn't fair to the lawyer if you do. Now, I know there are many abuses in the debt collection industry (I see them every day) but, we can't expect attorney's to go bankrupt taking technical type violation cases that yield 1k tops. Better administrative enforcement is key and stronger legislation is needed. But, we can't just enact and enforce laws which completely eradicate debt collection. It is needed and not all debt collectors violate the law. I honestly don't know what the answer is but, laying it in the laps of private attorney's isn't it (not saying that is what you're saying). I do think more needs to be done by way of regulating debt purchasing and subsequent enforcement of assignment rights however, and again, I don't know how that could be accomplished.
Apex, you're entirely correct (again), and the true correction lies in education, and the consumer knowing their rights. History is full of these stories. The techniques of a bully are the same whether a collection agency, or the kid on the playground. They both must be dealt with by standing up and saying "No". Considering this is happening in MA, you'd think there would be enough budding AG office attorneys for one of them to take this type of case on.
I have never had a lawyer work on contingency,but I do expect them to take a case if paid. What I have found is there is not much money in going after violations, so the NACA lawyers I have known like to deal in the clas action suits, and justly so. This however leaves a lot of people out on a limb. ESPECIALLY if they cannot pay up front for the lawyer's service. True,and that us why I have always gone pro se on the little suits.Still the consumer that cannot fight back, well these are the ones that are really having a hard time. They get screwed, I see it everytime I go to court. I am usually the ONLY one that even shows up in court. I have felt good two times in the past when there were a few people that really did not know what was going on, and I helped them and they got their case dismissed with prejudice. (This was Palisades and Cavalry) IME I have found that unless you have some money behind you to pay a lawyer, the NACA lawyers do not help you or take contingency cases here in Massachusetts, although people have told me they have gotten lawyers to take their cases on contingency. All of my cases have been winners so far, except that damn NAF case. Now here is where I had fought so hard NOT to get that arbitration to award to plaintiff, and it did, and now I am faced with probably a judgement to the tune of four times what the OC was. I am not about to ignore this and am doing everything I can to get this taken care of, BUT if I didn't have money to do so, I can see the writing on the wall. This is where I feel badly for other people, as if this darn thing goes to court,and they award the judgement of 40K well it is not going to ruin me, it may to a lot of people, and this is where something really needs to be done. In other words, they are not going to be able to take my vehicles (as I have locked gates) hahhahaha, and I also have a lawyer or two to get them back if this happens. I think this is where the JDB's have it easy as they really prey on the helpless.I know once I get two more cases done I will be finished, and then I am going to start full time helping others. Woofer
I recall the Boston Globe story. A few things going on there, that make that situation the exception rather than the rule. 1. Massachusetts has a $700 vehicle exemption. The majority of cars will bring more than that at an auction. 2. In all the cases studied, the debtor owned the car outright. The car was not financed. 3. Big city political corruption. The constables were in bed with some tow truck operators. They were making money on the side seizing cars. If I recall, they weren't selling the cars, but impounding them to coerce the debtor to pay the debt. I don't frequent this board often, but read hundreds of debtor stories on other boards. I can't recall many situations where a judgment creditor has seized a car, unsecured by a loan. Not saying it isn't done, just in most situations it cost the creditor money, and doesn't get the debt satisfied.
