State attorneys general from New York to California and consumer watchdogs like the Better Business Bureau say the industry’s proceeds come at the direct expense of financially troubled Americans who are being fleeced of their last dollars with dubious promises.

Consumers rarely emerge from debt settlement programs with their credit card balances eliminated, these critics say, and many wind up worse off, with severely damaged credit, ceaseless threats from collection agents and lawsuits from creditors.

When I worked for debt collection law firms, it was not uncommon to hear from debtors advising that they were paying money to a debt settlement company. However, the debt settlement companies often were not paying any money to creditors or were making small settlement offers that they should have known wouldn’t be acceptable to the creditors.

Often, these debtors were paying monthly fees to the debt settlement places in the hopes that they’d eventually “save” enough money to offer a settlement. Most debtors were paying a significant monthly fee to the debt settlement agencies for collecting their monthly payments.

Unfortunately, debtors who were already in post-judgment collections and who were working sometimes ended up with garnishment orders because their judgments were not being paid. Debtors who were in pre-suit collections often ended up being taken to court because nothing was being paid on their bills.

While making payments might not keep a creditor from going to court, it hurts debtors when they are paying monthly fees to a debt settlement place that might not be doing much (or might not be able)  to protect the debtor.   The high fees charged by the debt settlement companies often end up being more than it would have cost for the debtor to hire an attorney to file bankruptcy, work out a resolution with creditors, or defend against a collection lawsuit.

a

Technorati Tags: collections, consumer protection, debt settlement, law

a

Technorati Tags: credit cards, debt collection, recession, refinancing

Also remember to never follow a family member while speaking to her on the cell phone, if she is driving while under the influence.

The Indiana Court of Appeals issued an opinion yesterday that holds that a mother following her drunken daughter while speaking to her on a cell phone could potentially create joint liability for the mother for any driving actions the daughter undertakes.

Further, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that the mother could encourage the daughter’s driving actions and/or distract her daughter by talking to her on the cell phone while she was driving drunk.

From Buchanan vs. Vowell, No. 49A02-0909-CV-873 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (PDF).

The allegations made by Jerry in his amended complaint show that Shannon agreed to enter into a concerted activity whereby Shannon would follow the drunken Candice and would direct and/or distract her by calling her on her cell phone. The allegations also show that Candice and Shannon conspired to leave the scene of an accident where serious injury to Jerry had occurred. Thus, like the passenger in Sanke, Shannon encouraged Candice’s tortious activity. It is possible that Shannon, like the passenger in Sanke, could be held jointly liable for Jerry’s injuries.

Furthermore, we note that Shannon owed a duty of reasonable care to those that shared the road with her, both motorists and pedestrians. See Claxton, 615 N.E.2d at 474. Shannon, as an individual, may have breached this duty by calling and distracting a person she knew was operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Thus, Shannon may be found liable for Jerry’s injuries even if she did not gratuitously assume a duty or act in concert with Candice.

a

Technorati Tags: cell phones, drunk driving, dui, DWI, Indiana, Indiana Court of Appeals, law

The immigration law has tightened up significantly since 1996 to the point where conviction of certain relatively minor crimes will result in automatic deportation under the Immigration laws.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Padilla vs. Kentucky, No. 08-651 (U.S. 3/31/2010), means that criminal lawyers will need to advise their clients regarding the effect a plea agreement may have on an immigrant’s ability to remain in the United States.

Writes Justice Stevens in Padilla v. Kentucky:

It is our responsibility under the Constitution to ensure that no criminal defendant—whether a citizen or not—is left to the “mercies of incompetent counsel.” Richardson, 397 U. S., at 771. To satisfy this responsibility, we now hold that counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation. Our longstanding Sixth Amendment precedents, the seriousness of deportation as a consequence of a criminal plea, and the concomitant impact of deportation on families living lawfully in this country demand no less.

Illinois already has a requirement similar to that now required by the Supreme Court, writes Chicago Criminal Law Blog author attorney Ava George Stewart.

a

Technorati Tags: criminal law, deportation, immigration, law, plea agreement, Supreme Court