debtthrowaway

The system as it currently exists is prejudiced towards debt collectors. They're allowed to use professional litigators in a venue designed for laymen, and those litigators are allowed to get default judgments even if they don't know the particulars of the case and they often don't, as they're almost always (placeholder, mercenary) lawyers hired for trial day. They can sue for money they don't have the rights to, serve the case documents to literally anyone, lie to the court that it was you, and if you don't find out about it within 30 days of judgment being entered, you're SOL. Even if you find out, the judge will likely deny your defense, unless it's airtight and meritorious, or presented by an attorney (who do not seem to take small claims cases).

The only thing keeping this industry from raining down a torrent of borderline fraudulent cases (or at least procedurally-suspect cases) is probably the fact that the public would close these loopholes if they knew they existed. They rely on the sentiment that they're just going after deadbeats with legitimate grievances, instead of sticking their hands into the pockets of two-and-a-half generations of underpaid workers who are perennially hit with economic crises.

Ironically, the statute of limitations (on debts, not FDCPA claims) is part of what encourages this bad behavior; debt buyers would rather file on time and ask for forgiveness of their procedural oversight, than file past the statute of limitations and hand the alleged debtor a prima facie meritorious defense. The problem is that judges let them get away with it. And so goes the legitimacy of the rule of law for a vast swathe of the nation, for the sake of a few Benjamins paid out to people who didn't even own the debt in the first place. But then, they did get away with it with houses 20 years ago.

I'm currently dealing with a small claims debt collection case (so, admittedly, way less serious and devastating than a criminal trial for a felony). The debt collector and their attorney habitually engage in "sewer service", and in my case, never actually served me. They say they did, at an address I and no one I know has lived at for years, to someone that they say is me (the "me" that's half-a-foot taller and 30 pounds lighter). Completely different county from where I currently live and work, too.

State laws say that the case should be dismissed, and that the debt collector can refile and actually serve me. Not a single attorney I've talked to (if they'll talk to me at all) has said that a judge will actually do that, though. Screw what the law says; evidently, they have the leeway - and generally do rule - to simply say that showing up to defend against the case cures the service issues.

It's all been a bit of a revelation. I call bullshit on judges who say that their hands are tied by the law. What's actually happened is that quasi-legal judicial norms have developed over time, and what they're afraid to go against are those. It is, of course, pure happenstance that they feel obligated to throw the book at criminal defendants pleading sympathy (because otherwise they'd be getting in the way of the careers of fellow legal professionals, the prosecutors) while ignoring civil defendants begging for their constitutional right to due process be affirmed (because otherwise they'd be getting in the way of the livelihood of fellow legal professionals, the debt collectors).