Actractorguy: America's new debtor prison: Jail time being given to those who owe.
Debtors prisons were federally abolished in the United States in the 1800's, yet in certain states, they seem to be making a comeback. Out of Minnesota come disturbing reports of Americans being thrown in jail due to outstanding bills -- sometimes for as little as $85. The Star-Tribune of Minneapolis profiles a number of people who say their debts got them jailed, including Joy Uhlmeyer a 57-year-old patient care advocate who was pulled over on her way home from visiting her elderly mother and put in jail for a night for missing a court hearing about unpaid debt.
The Star-Tribune reviewed the state's court documents and found that arrests like Uhlmeyer's are up 60% in Minnesota over the past four years. And Minnesota isn't the only state where this is happening. It's a turn of events Ed Mierzwinski, consumer program director at advocacy group U.S. Public Interest Research Groups (or PIRG), calls a "very bad situation for consumers." Mierzwinski attributes the practice to "bottom-feeder debt collectors are very aggressive."People who are imprisoned for their debts are technically locked up for contempt of court after failing to appear for a hearing pertaining to their debt. It's a legal loophole that debt-collection companies are increasingly using. Here's how it works: First, the collections company files a lawsuit against the debtor, which requires them to appear in court. If the debtor doesn't show up, the creditor wins a default judgment against them. This allows them to ask the court to schedule another hearing at which the judge can go through the debtor's assets and determine if actions such as wage garnishments or bank account seizures can take place.
In 1833 the United States abolished Federal imprisonment for unpaid debts, and most states outlawed the practice around the same time. Before then, the use of debtor's prisons was widespread; signatories to the Declaration of Independence, James Wilson and Robert Morris were both later incarcerated, as were 2,000 New Yorkers annually by 1816. Henry Lee III, better known as Light-Horse Harry Lee, a Revolutionary War general, former governor of Virginia, and father of Robert E. Lee, was imprisoned for debt between 1808 and 1809. Sometimes, imprisonment would result from less than sixty cents' worth of debt.
Six states (Arkansas, Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, and Washington) allow debt collectors to seek arrest warrants for debtors in default if all other collection methods have failed. Whether a debtor will actually be prosecuted or not varies from state to state, county to county, and town to town. The individual is taken into custody and is typically required to submit financial documentation to the courts (to facilitate seizure of assets or wage garnishment), although in some cases the individual may be held indefinitely until a payment plan is reached or the debt is paid in full, especially if the individual is insolvent. Other states have outlawed this type of collection action (Tennessee and Oklahoma have ruled it unconstitutional). unless the court finds that the debtor actually possesses the means to pay—except in the case of child support obligations.
Most state constitutions, including Minnesota's, have clauses dating to the 1850s that expressly prohibit the jailing of people for their debts. Some people make the claim that it is unconstitutional in the United States to incarcerate someone solely for failing to pay a debt. However, there is little settled law on this matter and plenty of precedent for de facto debtors' prisons.
Check out link # 12 on wikipedia. Good read.
Thanks for that Tractor.
Im so glad that in my country we only have the public floggings and the stocks.
At the national level, the Federal Trade Commission began scrutinizing in July the use of arrest warrants in debt-collection lawsuits. An FTC spokesman declined to comment on whether the inquiry has led to formal investigations by the agency, which oversees the debt-collection industry and enforces a U.S. law that restricts how borrowers can be pursued for debts
There is a law that says if you can't pay your child support or alimony, you go to jail until the debt it paid. Can someone explain how someone can pay a debt while in jail?
Just curious
I am curious - doesn't the jailing have to do with the willful refusal to pay rather than the inability to pay? If one makes a good faith effort which is different than not paying by deceit and fraud or straight out refusal to pay......
GACryptic: Opinions -- no blasting, please!There is a law that says if you can't pay your child support or alimony, you go to jail until the debt it paid. Can someone explain how someone can pay a debt while in jail? Just curious
Must be a US thing because we don't have that here.
Wish we had better laws, though. Too many deadbeat parents running around out there.
gsmonks: Must be a US thing because we don't have that here.
Wish we had better laws, though. Too many deadbeat parents running around out there.
Just finished a research on this: The jailing is for CONTEMPT OF COURT, not the monetary ruling. If not working or broke, the parent can file a hardship writ. In any event, every effort must be made to show that there is no INTENT TO NOT PAY--that is what becomes the contempt, not the actual inability to pay. Also, contrary to a popular belief, the two parents CANNOT have a "side" agreement--in other words, many people believe that, in order to get at least some amount, the woman (humor me for a minute) can agree to take less. Well, she can, but the state can enforce the ruling anyway, and, get this, the parent can take the money agreed upon, and then take the other back to court, and the "agreement" will not be recognized. In fact, the state can, and will, attach the original amount with no regard to the amount he already paid. Get your ducks in a row, folks. It's pretty sticky.
There is a law that says if you can't pay your child support or alimony, you go to jail until the debt it paid. Can someone explain how someone can pay a debt while in jail?
Just curious
This payment is a MUST! and they should have thought about that before they quit paying his child support. Child support is based on income, so there is no reason a personal should not pay their child support. Period. Now other debts, that another issue.
outdoorgirlsun: This payment is a MUST! and they should have thought about that before they quit paying his child support. Child support is based on income, so there is no reason a personal should not pay their child support. Period. Now other debts, that another issue.
Sorry but that's a load of crap, what happens when he loses his job, 50% drop in salary... Men all over the world have been abused by family law systems for too long.... How many mothers get locked up for PAS, or breach of access orders... NONE in europe and about the same in the states.......When circumstances change, allowances must be made
blarneykite: Sorry but that's a load of crap, what happens when he loses his job, 50% drop in salary... Men all over the world have been abused by family law systems for too long.... How many mothers get locked up for PAS, or breach of access orders... NONE in europe and about the same in the states.......When circumstances change, allowances must be made
Same thing that happens when he gives up his job so he doesnt have to pay maintenance, he goes back to court and has the payment lowered to match his new income.
bodleingGreater Manchester, England UK13,810 posts
GACryptic: Opinions -- no blasting, please!
There is a law that says if you can't pay your child support or alimony, you go to jail until the debt it paid. Can someone explain how someone can pay a debt while in jail?
Just curious
Or in the uk, your tv licence.
"THE BBC and Home Office faced sustained criticism after the Prison Service revealed yesterday that 845 people were jailed last year for not having a television licence."
outdoorgirlsun: This payment is a MUST! and they should have thought about that before they quit paying his child support. Child support is based on income, so there is no reason a personal should not pay their child support. Period. Now other debts, that another issue.
Actractorguy: As with any debt once a person ceases to be then the debt is either paid with proceeds from the estate or wiped out. But until that fateful day your on the hook for what you owe.
That is correct{everyone has an estate..regarless of how meager}it follows you to the end.If there is no assets the creditor does not get paid.Certain debts will not be collected anyway.Each state in the US has a little item called "statute of limitations" and it varies from state to state.If you have an unsecured debt the way people will force you to pay prior to the expiration of the "statute of limitations" is to force you into court and if they win the court will grant a judgement.Judgements are usually good for a certain amount of time depending on the particular state statute.Of course if you have no assets to levy then the judgement is not worth the paper it is written on and the judgement holder would not be able to collect on the judgement.Judgements that run out according to the statute can normally be renewed according to statute.On the other hand you have secured debts such as home mortgages and depending on the state were talking about they will have a method to foreclouse and get their debt satisfied.Some states are set up to "judicially" foreclouse and other states have what is in essence a trustee foreclousure method.The easiest type of debt to collect on is secured debt.Unsecured debtors are at the bottom of the totem pole.So if you want to be judgment free don`t own anything in your name.No tickee ...no laundry.....
outdoorgirlsun: This payment is a MUST! and they should have thought about that before they quit paying his child support. Child support is based on income, so there is no reason a personal should not pay their child support. Period. Now other debts, that another issue.
I have seen this happen in more than one state: the non-custodial parent is at a hearing. He (let's say it's a he, for now) is told an amount to pay, and his answer/comment is "Your honor, that's more than I make at my job", to which the judge says, "That's your problem. Get another job". It is not based on income, in every instance, otherwise guys not working or just getting unemployment or making minimum wage would be off the hook. Not to change the subject, but in some alimony cases (California, i.e.) the amount MUST be to a degree that keeps the ex in a lifestyle he/she was accustomed to while married. Well, what if they were millionaires and now everything is tanked? Do you know what the answer is? I do. It doesn't matter if he has to live under a bridge and starve, or live with his mother or in a dirty old hotel room, he has to keep her in the chips, no matter what. Same with child-support. His misfortune is not a consideration.
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
PAT IN FULL....