Couple Sues Sheriff, County for $10 million over Debt Collection
A couple in Oregon has filed a lawsuit against a county in the state and its sheriff over debt collection efforts made by the law enforcement official for a debt backed by state and federal agencies. The couple is seeking $10 million.
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court on March 15 by plaintiffs Bruce and Vanesse Hampton of Enterprise, Ore., claims that Wallowa County and Sheriff Fred Steen are guilty of inflicting emotional distress, intentional interference with economic relations, defamation, invasion of privacy, wrongful initiations of civil proceedings, violation of the Oregon Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and negligence, according to local paper The Observer.
The suit claims that Steen, both as a resident of Wallowa County and in his office as sheriff, conspired with rancher Lloyd Trackwell in his efforts to collect a debt from the Hamptons and wrongfully interfered with plaintiffs’ contractual relationship between the Hamptons and the United States Department of Agriculture, the United States Natural Resource Conservation Service and the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board.
The Hamptons are seeking a jury trial.
There was no detail on what the county and sheriff were alleged to have done to become the targets of the suit.
In the current climate of focus on the ARM industry’s use of the courts to enforce legal contracts, we think this it’s pretty interesting that potentially frivolous suits like this ($10 million? Come on.) citing debt collection violations don’t get more attention from the media. Any idea why?
I have two guesses as to why it isn’t getting the media attention. One, it is not taking place in a large metropolitan area, such as if it was in say Portland, OR or Seattle, WA. Second, they are sueing the Sheriff and County, not a huge debt collection company like say NCO. The other question I think needs to be asked is who thought it a good idea to bring this suit forward under Oregon RICO act? Isn’t the idea behind this kind of law based that the underlying activity itself is illegal to begin with? So what they claim is that debt collection in itself is illegal, and the sheriff is a big ring master of debt collection in that county. Oh something like that maybe. I don’t know, maybe we are really all in one giant consipracy theory, just going through the motions.
So, i clicked the link, and read the local news report. Who did they owe, how much, and for what? So far sounds like $10MM in sour grapes. To answer the author’s answer, why isn’t this in the news? Hard to say. Perhaps the sheriff’s efforts were legitimate, and the press doesn’t want to expose ‘fraud’ that debtors perpetrate? Just saying.
Terrible article and worse job reporting. The bulk of the piece merely paraphrases the story from The Observer, and the last paragraph–a silly, cynical jibe–belongs in an editorial, not a news item. A little research, like reading the Complaint (Case 2:12-cv-00470-SU Filed 03/15/12) which easily can be found online, would avoid senseless statements, such as “There was no detail on what the county and sheriff were alleged to have done to become the targets of the suit.” Indeed, the Complaint contains a plethora of details about the conduct of the county and sheriff. The author of this article should have checked his sources more carefully.