Page 1 of 3 [ 34 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

14 Aug 2011, 7:09 pm

http://www.mrcustodycoach.com/blog/illegal-child-support-debtors-prisons


http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:oPkv1D80XtsJ:www.washburnlaw.edu/wlj/42-1/articles/james-richard.pdf+kansas+debtors+prison&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjZyr7PHPaf2YlEiLqd2bRKrZKFwSNUIFDjfsm8prasqStE-eAll4irhy4NdzugHpGY-5oVQUwDpWpYhwY7JIcOqt--DLqCzgfDwdH5ArucYg1kMEkF5kNVEczx7XaYKfKC1C2b&sig=AHIEtbRjU6N913fQMc8o69T3xLi5gBTJLQ&pli=1


^

Page 7 wrote:
A. The Use of Civil Contempt to Imprison for Debt

As noted in Chadwick v. Janecka, civil contempt has often be-
come the charge of choice to imprison people who refuse to pay just
debts.69 A court attempting to compel compliance with any order
through the use of contempt can choose sanctions from any one of
three categories.70 First, the court can levy a determinate sanction; in
other words, a jail term with a fixed end.71 However, such a sanction
is a punitive, criminal sanction.72 The use of a criminal sanction re-
quires a criminal trial where the defendant is entitled to all the attend-
ant constitutional rights.73 Second, the court can order a coercive
sanction, like incarceration, until the prisoner conforms to the court
order as in Chadwick, or levying a daily fine until the contemnor com-
plies.74 Last, the court can assess a compensatory or remedial sanc-
tion, which usually takes the form of a fine paid to the plaintiff as a
remedy for losses because of the defendant’s refusal to obey the court
order.75
Technically, in cases like Chadwick’s that involve coercive orders
for child support or marital assets, the money owed is not a debt but a
“status obligation.”76 This distinction allows courts to enforce such
orders by imprisonment without running afoul of state constitutions or
statutes that prohibit imprisonment for debt.77 Such enforcement as-
sumes that the prisoner has the ability to comply with the court order
and is simply refusing to do so; that “he carries the keys to the jail in
his own pocket.”78 The problem with this remedy is that it is open-
ended, at least until a court determines the order has lost its coercive
effect.79 Under Pennsylvania law, as is true in all states, once the or-
der has lost its coercive effect and has become punitive, the prisoner
must be released or charged with criminal contempt.80 Unfortunately,
there is no bright-line definition of when that occurs, either at the
state or federal level.81


What are your thoughts on "modern" day debtors prisons?



number5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

14 Aug 2011, 9:23 pm

Unless I'm misunderstanding, it looks like he was in for fraud (hiding the money), not simply debt.

But in general, debtors prison is a bad idea. Especially today. Could you imagine how many people would be locked up? Just think of all the foreclosures and unpaid medical bills. Could help with unemployment though - I mean with half the country locked up :P



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

14 Aug 2011, 9:49 pm

number5 wrote:
Unless I'm misunderstanding, it looks like he was in for fraud (hiding the money), not simply debt.


He is locked up indefinitely because a judge thinks he is hiding the money. Not because he was found guilty of any crime simply because it was thought and the judge has the power, do you not see how this could be troublesome?

Quote:
But in general, debtors prison is a bad idea. Especially today. Could you imagine how many people would be locked up? Just think of all the foreclosures and unpaid medical bills. Could help with unemployment though - I mean with half the country locked up :P


EDIT: The quote from that case was meant to illustrate the process used in the first links case.



OrangeCloud
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 163
Location: West Midlands England

15 Aug 2011, 7:07 am

With the mountains of debt that will never be paid existing throughout the system, harsher and harsher backlashes against defaulters will be inevitable. This is nothing compared to what's coming.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

15 Aug 2011, 7:28 am

number5 wrote:
Unless I'm misunderstanding, it looks like he was in for fraud (hiding the money), not simply debt.

P


Exactly. A prison term would ensue if the person had the means of repaying the debut but was trying to evade the order to repay. If a person is truly broke, he will not be sent to prison just for being broke and in debt. The Law cannot squeeze blood from a stone.

ruveyn



number5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

15 Aug 2011, 8:40 am

ruveyn wrote:
number5 wrote:
Unless I'm misunderstanding, it looks like he was in for fraud (hiding the money), not simply debt.

P


Exactly. A prison term would ensue if the person had the means of repaying the debut but was trying to evade the order to repay. If a person is truly broke, he will not be sent to prison just for being broke and in debt. The Law cannot squeeze blood from a stone.

ruveyn


Right. It's not unlike situations where people work off the books and claim government benefits. It's fraudulent.

In bankruptcy, all assets need to be brought to the table (some might be exempt, like retirement plans) and the court decides what you may legally keep as you are officially declared broke. Once you're broke, that's it. You start over from scratch. It would be illegal to hide assets here too. That, you could get jail time for because it's fraud.

I must also disagree with OrangeCloud. Bankruptcy is almost commonplace these days. So many people have been affected by hardship in one form or another that if anything, the stigma of bankruptcy has been significantly reduced. 10 years ago if you had a bankruptcy on your credit report, it was almost impossible to get any sort of loan. Now, you just need a social security number and a paystub and you can get a loan pretty easily (not a mortgage today, but 5 years ago sure). In any case, backlashes on the individual have been reduced.

That's not to say there isn't a cost to this trend. Fees and rates are up as the banks scramble to make up for some of their losses. The integrity of the whole credit system has taken a hit.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

15 Aug 2011, 11:24 am

Getting sent to prison for not paying your debts is about the dumbest thing that can happen these days.

There's no excuse for not supporting your children. Deadbeat dads don't deserve freedom. If you're married, stay married and make it work. If you have a job, any job, send those payments if it's an unavoidable situation (things happen, but there's no excuse for broken marriages, either). If you're not married, don't have sex, wrap it in a sack if you do, and stop making babies you can't pay for!

You can't get out of student loans. If you have a good education, then you're prepared to live a productive life. SO GET TO WORK!! !

If you're squirreling away assets while making regularly scheduled payments to creditors and you have enough in liquid assets to pay off your debts when trouble hits, why not pay them off? In a downturn, sure you need accumulated assets to survive. But if things are looking ugly and you see you can't make payments from your income, that's a pretty dangerous sign of worse things to come. Pay off your creditors and keep your income. It's as simple as that.

I've heard a lot of stories about bankruptcy proceedings. One person filed bankruptcy and soon after won a lawsuit for well over $250,000. She wasn't poor to begin with, but a lot of people will go through bankruptcy for things beyond their control, such as dealing with a spouse who has experienced substantial business losses that affects joint marital assets and liabilities, and these don't go away just because you get a divorce. Someone might be perfectly ok with surrendering a house but not ok being liable for an upside-down-debt that goes unresolved after foreclosure sale. But in THIS case, she only had to deal with some $50,000 of debt, and she was in the ideal position to pay it off. But instead, she wanted to keep ALL of her reward. So when her lawyer wouldn't tell her what she wanted to hear, she let the case be dismissed and proceeded to find a lawyer to file for her in a different federal court district. Within minutes of filing the petition, the Trustee in the case directly contacts the lawyer and asks if he knows who his client is and whether he is sure he wants to continue. The lawyer says no and asks for clarification. The trustee explains what's going on, and the lawyer manages to get himself removed from the case.

Time passes.

The client then finds a lawyer who WILL take her case. Not only will the court refuse to discharge her debt--they end up taking ALL of her money and her case ended up in criminal court with her spending a few years in prison.

Most bankruptcy proceedings aren't that dramatic. I know of another case in which a paralegal overlooked a $50,000 deposit on a bank statement. Rather than fire her on the spot, the lawyer just prayed the judge wouldn't notice.

Well, the judge noticed. When it was explained that the money was a lawsuit award that got left out of the petition by mistake, he still ruled that most of the money had to go to unsecured creditors. Later on, the paralegal and the lawyer talked over how they could have made such a huge mistake when the client should have been able to keep nearly all her money. It turns out that they both had asked on several occasions whether she had any money coming from a lawsuit, and the same had been noted on several different petition schedules. The client flat-out didn't tell them about the money, and by effectively being dishonest she lost her money. In contrast to the other story, she wasn't really trying to HIDE anything, whereas the woman sitting in jail was.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

15 Aug 2011, 12:35 pm

I see a signal difference between a court imprisoning a person because he wilfully fails to comply with a lawful order of the court and imprisoning a person who cannot satisfy a judgement.

A person who wilfully fails to comply with execution procedures being taken against him has no one to blame but himself for his position, and can secure his release by complying with the order to cooperate with the process. This is, I believe, an appropriate use of punitive jurisdiction.

But a person who, in full compliance, demonstrates no capacity to satisfy a debt does not expose himself to imprisonment. The court will leave the plaintiff with an empty judgement, and the debtor free to go.


_________________
--James


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,500
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

15 Aug 2011, 12:39 pm

i just hope I can't go to prison for possibly not being able to pay back college loans.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

15 Aug 2011, 12:55 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
i just hope I can't go to prison for possibly not being able to pay back college loans.

The good news is you aren't going to prison. There are ways of handling student loan debt, though. What they CAN do, however, is if you have some kind of professional license credentialed through a particular institutional degree program, like teachers, for example, they CAN revoke your license. I've let my license expire and that has no bearing on what I do now anyway. But if I'm still delinquent on my loans, they get a judgment against me, and I try to reapply, they can deny me a license and I'll never be able to get another teaching job.

I don't know if this would ever happen, but I wonder if that would affect you going back to school. Say I wanted to get my doctorate so I could teach in a university and get better pay. Would failure to pay student loans invalidate my master's degree? You can have loans deferred for going back to school, but they might want you to be in good standing first.

So, yeah, they can make your life miserable. But they can't send you to prison. If you have the ability to pay your debts, pay them. If you've really tried and are facing dire circumstances, file bankruptcy. But whatever you do, don't hide assets or show the least little bit of dishonesty. The single best thing you can do right now is just not incur any debt at all.



YippySkippy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,986

15 Aug 2011, 1:14 pm

Quote:
You can't get out of student loans. If you have a good education, then you're prepared to live a productive life.


So not true. In the good ol' days, a college degree guaranteed a good job and a good life. That is definitely not the case anymore. Many, many college grads are serving up burgers or flat-out unemployed.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

15 Aug 2011, 3:28 pm

YippySkippy wrote:
Quote:
You can't get out of student loans. If you have a good education, then you're prepared to live a productive life.


So not true. In the good ol' days, a college degree guaranteed a good job and a good life. That is definitely not the case anymore. Many, many college grads are serving up burgers or flat-out unemployed.

It IS true. I said you're prepared to live a productive life. I said nothing about the actual product!! !

What college DOESN'T teach is the importance of personal initiative. People want too much to BELONG to somebody. Which is fine. But what do you do when all the easy and high-paying jobs are already taken? Start your OWN freakin' business and hire/fire whoever you want!



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

15 Aug 2011, 7:47 pm

@Angel

No one proved in trial that he was withholding money, the judge simply decided he was and had him imprisoned indefinitely.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

15 Aug 2011, 9:41 pm

ikorack wrote:
@Angel

No one proved in trial that he was withholding money, the judge simply decided he was and had him imprisoned indefinitely.


The judge must have had some evidence. And the only indefinite sentence a judge can impose is imprisonment for contempt of court. In which case the prisoner can purge himself of contempt by obeying the judge and going free.

ruveyn



blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

15 Aug 2011, 10:00 pm

I'm guessing that there is more to the story than we've seen here. Potentially more than exists in court documents.

I don't get the impression that this happens very frequently. If I'm wrong, someone point me to a total count.

If the judge has the option of making him report to prison whenever he's not working, that might be a more effective measure.

There is some evidence that recidivism of repeat offenders is decreased when the punishment inconveniences them rather than takes away their liberty. The logic seems to be that a guy who knows he's up for 3 years in prison pretty much has the option of just dropping everything.

To hell with the job, the apartment, car payments, girlfriend, pets - that all just goes away.

A guy who finds out that he has to do 4 days at county, on the other hand, has to explain that to his boss and his girlfriend, knows that his pets will go hungry, knows that he might get into more crap with his landlord because lost wages mean he might not make rent on time, etc.



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

16 Aug 2011, 7:45 am

ruveyn wrote:
ikorack wrote:
@Angel

No one proved in trial that he was withholding money, the judge simply decided he was and had him imprisoned indefinitely.


The judge must have had some evidence. And the only indefinite sentence a judge can impose is imprisonment for contempt of court. In which case the prisoner can purge himself of contempt by obeying the judge and going free.

ruveyn


The judge must be right isn't much of an answer. The judge is not required to have evidence, there is no oversight. The problem is he can impose imprisonment for contempt of court with no trial and no requirement to prove the prisoner is actually capable of complying.