Debt Collection Bills Advance in Western States

  • Email
  • Print
  • Printing Articles

    1. Click here to print!
    2. ...or print directly from your browser by choosing File > Print... from the menu or by pressing [Ctrl + P]. Our printer-friendly stylesheet will make sure extraneous website stuff isn't printed.
    3. You're done!

    Close this message.

  • Comments
  • RSS

Two bills in major Western U.S. states aimed at reining in debt collection practices have recently advanced in their respective legislative chambers. One targets debt buyers specifically while the other is designed to more tightly control debt collectors working for government clients.

In California, SB 233 passed out of a Senate committee last week and had several readings on the full chamber’s floor this week. The bill, also called the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, is the latest iteration of bills that have been introduced in each of the three most recent sessions of the state legislature.

Other efforts have been authored by Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), the sponsor of this year’s SB 233. Last year, his SB 890 passed the full Senate and made it through at least one Assembly committee before dying in another committee. The previous year, the bill never made it out of its first Senate committee.

Most significantly, the bill places a long list of requirements on purchasers of charged-off consumer debt that must be met before collection efforts can begin. Debt buyers must have in their possession proof that they are the sole owner of the debt, the account balance at chargeoff, date of default or last payment, name and address of both the creditor and debtor, and a complete chain of title on the account if bought and sold multiple times.

The next step for the bill will be a full Senate vote.

In Oregon, a bill that would restrict government debt collection contractors from using official letterhead – specifically, that of district attorneys, has passed that state’s Senate and has been referred to a committee, where it has already seen a hearing.

Oregon’s SB 525 allows district attorneys to use private debt collectors in their check diversion programs, but sets rules for the relationships. Specifically, it prohibits district attorney from allowing debt collection entity to use name, seal or letterhead of district attorney and makes the use of name, seal or letterhead of public official by debt collector an unlawful collection practice.

The editorial board of newspaper The Oregonian recently officially endorsed the bill.

The issue of bad check collection on behalf of district attorneys has gotten attention lately, specifically in Massachusetts.

 

  • Email
  • Print
  • Printing Articles

    1. Click here to print!
    2. ...or print directly from your browser by choosing File > Print... from the menu or by pressing [Ctrl + P]. Our printer-friendly stylesheet will make sure extraneous website stuff isn't printed.
    3. You're done!

    Close this message.

  • Comments
  • RSS

Posted in Charge-off, Collection Laws and Regulations, Debt Buying, Debt Collection, Featured Post, Municipal Receivables .

×
Subscribe to never miss important news and resources from insideARM.com:

Continuing the Discussion

We welcome and encourage readers to comment and engage in substantive exchanges over topics on insideARM.com. Users must always follow our Terms of Use. Also know that your comment will be deleted if you: use profanity, engage in any kind of hate speech, post an incoherent or irrelevant thought, make a point of targeting anyone, or do anything else we find unsavory. Your comment will be posted under your current Display Name, shown below. If you'd like to change your Display Name, you must update it on the My Profile page.

  • avatar todd bean says:

    “Most significantly, the bill places a long list of requirements on purchasers of charged-off consumer debt that must be met before collection efforts can begin. Debt buyers must have in their possession proof that they are the sole owner of the debt, the account balance at chargeoff, date of default or last payment, name and address of both the creditor and debtor, and a complete chain of title on the account if bought and sold multiple times.”

    In other words, everything that is always objected to in discovery and given the same insane objections of, as too broad, irrelevant, not likely to lead to admissible evidence and a host of others that are completely relevant.

    Again, as always, look in the mirror when you wonder about all this new legislation. A few months ago it was posted in the forum that if a debt buyer ever turned over the bill of sale that certain sellers would never do business with them.

    People simply have a right to evidence being used to sue them other than you owe it just pay it.

Leave a Reply