7 ms·

Winning a suit is one thing - collecting damages is something else.

by commandlinefan 6y ago

lotsofpulp 6y ago
The civil courts are pretty useless if your adversary has no funds and nothing to lose.
- setgree 6y ago
  Everyone has a credit score that can go down. (Is there a floor?) A record of a rent lawsuit is no good for anyone. I often wonder how people on the verge of eviction think about this kind of thing — whether it is salient or even understandable.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    I've lived most of my life without a credit card, never leased a car, never gave owning property much thought. Got some student loans when I was young, but that's about it for my credit history. This is all a result of me living responsibly within my means. Rental referrals are just about the only leverage that an ex-landlord would really have over me. You can duck collections pretty much forever if you don't need credit
    - thephyber 6y ago
      Weird flex. People who aren’t paying rent after the pandemic started likely aren’t doing it for fun. Most likely they are underemployed, hence collections will stack up. “Living within your means” assumes it is even possible to find employment and a handful of life/medical/mental/family stability that not everyone has. You seem to underestimate how much of modern life in the USA depends on credit. Electric, water, telephone, internet service require credit or suffer the costs and inconveniences of prepayment. Rental housing almost always requires credit checks in any desirable market. You also seem to assume that collections can never be converted into a lean on your assets or garnishment of your wages. And that doesn’t even begin to crack the strange and painful tactics debt collectors use on your family, employment, friends, and other social pressures.
    - ehavener 6y ago
      You're effectively paying a 1-5% tax on everything by not using a credit card.
    - filoleg 6y ago
      > I've lived most of my life without a credit card > This is all a result of me living responsibly within my means. Implying that not using credit cards is how one lives responsibly within their means is kinda weird and wrong. Yes, you can live irresponsibly with a credit card. You can also live responsibly with it too. And it will give you extra consumer purchase protection (in case of a fraud or a bad fair vendor), as well as 1-5% return on purchases. Some would argue that missing out on that 1-5% return and extra consumer protections is the irresponsible move. But either way, the whole "using credit cards means living irresponsibly and outside of their means" is absolutely nothing but a complete lack of understanding of how credit works.
      - klyrs 6y ago
        Yep, children of poverty are less fiscally literate and exhibit different cost-benefit analysis than folks raised in relative privilege. In my brief experience with credit cards, whatever 1-5% opportunity cost you think I'm paying is overwhelmed by the 20% interest rate if I forget to pay the bill. The preceeding is a statement about most of my life. I've gotten better at such stuff and my lifestyle has changed after grad school -- and since I didn't have credit cards while living below the poverty line and generally being a schlub, I didn't fuck up my credit, so a few months of having a credit card as a de facto adult earned me a near-perfect credit score when I needed it.
        filoleg 6y ago
        I get that financial literacy is an issue in underprivileged and low-income groups. But it doesn't take much brainpower or financial knowledge to treat your credit card like your debit card and not spend more than you have in your checking account. Functionally, a credit card would work exactly like your debit card or cash, except you would also be reaping all the benefits of credit cards and improved credit scores. But overall, I agree with your point about cost-benefit analysis and impulse control being difficult to overcome.
        klyrs 6y ago
        Anyway, my original comment responded to > I often wonder how people on the verge of eviction think about this kind of thing — whether it is salient or even understandable My answer is that people in those situations think about these things very differently than people who have never encountered them. Or, flip it -- if dings on your credit score are the worst speedbump that society has thrown in your path, you probably don't have the skills necessary to live broke. I didn't come for financial advice, but thanks
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - datavirtue 6y ago
    They will just pass a law that allows it to be removed or excluded from credit reports. Or the banks+credit agencies will collude to do it when it starts dipping too hard into credit card applications. #medicalbills
  - blaser-waffle 6y ago
    There is an entire segment of the population that will never have good credit and probably never will. Punishing them via credit score isn't going to do anything. It won't get you your money back, and it'll just ensure we have a perpetual underclass to keep this cycle going. > I often wonder how people on the verge of eviction think about this kind of thing — whether it is salient or even understandable. If they're on the verge of eviction they're probably more worried about keeping heat, water, or food going. Landlords are an abstraction if your kid hasn't eaten in 2 days.
  - filoleg 6y ago
    >Everyone has a credit score that can go down Sure, but the issue is that the suing party isn't getting anything out of it. You sue for damages, the defendant has nothing, so their credit score goes down. That's fine, they get punished+the credit score decrease helps future landlords avoid the same situation with that tenant. But as a suing party, you get literally nothing out of it. The defendant's credit score going down doesn't help you personally one bit, you get no restitution or compensation.
kevin42 6y ago
Exactly. The renters are in a really bad situation as well. There's no way most of the people who couldn't or didn't pay rent for a year are going to have $20,000 to pay back rent, even if there's a judgement against them.
- ianai 6y ago
  Right and I’d be for society helping them with that sort of debt. But having a judgement against someone does open avenues for future, slow recovery.
  - sky_rw 6y ago
    Nothing is stopping you, a member of society, giving somebody $20,000 to help them with back rent.
    - munk-a 6y ago
      Relying on charity to make up for a lack of proper tax collection is a terrible thing for society in the long term. It's unsustainable and will just further wealth inequality. Also, most people, even most people on here, don't have 20k to throw around willy-nilly even if they have assets exceeding that amount.
    - mattnewton 6y ago
      I don't get your point?
      - DamnYuppie 6y ago
        I believe the point is that the OP is asking for everyone else to pay money for a cause they think is worthy, the comment you are responding to is that if they are that commit to the idea they can always pony up their own money.
        mattnewton 6y ago
        ah, thanks. Well, to that I'd say, if my money had anywhere near the impact of everyone's money pooled together I'd do it. Until then I'll keep advocating for public funds to be spent this way, and I assume OP would as well. If you lend each completely broke person $100 they are still about to be completely broke and your investment will be wiped out after a brief respite. But if you hand each bankrupt person $X,000 then many might be able to dig themselves out of the hole and remain productive members of society.
cletus 6y ago
This depends on your outlook. You can stress about this and spend a lot of your time chasing down someone for repayment. This is the wrong approach IMHO. Instead just sure in small claims court (limited to $5,000). This is done without lawyers. You simply present your lease agreement, bank statement and any relevant communications. Once you get that judgment give it to a collections agency and forget about it. The agency will take a percentage of anything they collect. Then just look at anything you get back as a bonus.
- RKearney 6y ago
  > Instead just sure in small claims court (limited to $5,000) Depends on your state. Here, small claims is limited to $25,000 with no limit for eviction suits.
- deberon 6y ago
  I tried suing a landlord in small claims court. Their lawyer just had the court move the case to civil court so they could bring representation. It's a broken system imo.
- Taylor_OD 6y ago
  Wouldnt that be like only 2-3 months of rent for most people?
  - cletus 6y ago
    In coastal cities, sure. But in a lot of parts of the country it’s not. Also, as others have noted, different jurisdictions may have higher limits. But to go to civil court to recover $20,000 just isn’t worth it. Your legal expenses will be significant and you face the prospect of losing or being unable to collect. So by limiting your potential damages you don’t incur litigation expenses, spend less time and stress on it and your net return may be similar. What’s better? $5,000 it costs you nothing to get a judgement for (other than a nominal filing fee) minus 10-20% for the collection agency or $20,000 you may need to spend $10-20K to litigate?
- ceejayoz 6y ago
mywittyname 6y ago
There's going to be predatory companies popping up who buy up rights to collect on these lawsuits for pennies on the dollar and proceed to <vulgar transitive verb> the tenants. This situation is going to play out over the next decade at least and it will be terrible for (almost) everyone involved. If you're renting and can afford to: pay your damn rent! In five years, you don't want to be staring down a judgement for a year of rent, plus interest, plus "collection" fees.

Winning a suit is one thing - collecting damages is something else.

lotsofpulp 6y ago

The civil courts are pretty useless if your adversary has no funds and nothing to lose.

setgree 6y ago
Everyone has a credit score that can go down. (Is there a floor?) A record of a rent lawsuit is no good for anyone. I often wonder how people on the verge of eviction think about this kind of thing — whether it is salient or even understandable.
- klyrs 6y ago
  I've lived most of my life without a credit card, never leased a car, never gave owning property much thought. Got some student loans when I was young, but that's about it for my credit history. This is all a result of me living responsibly within my means. Rental referrals are just about the only leverage that an ex-landlord would really have over me. You can duck collections pretty much forever if you don't need credit
  - thephyber 6y ago
    Weird flex. People who aren’t paying rent after the pandemic started likely aren’t doing it for fun. Most likely they are underemployed, hence collections will stack up. “Living within your means” assumes it is even possible to find employment and a handful of life/medical/mental/family stability that not everyone has. You seem to underestimate how much of modern life in the USA depends on credit. Electric, water, telephone, internet service require credit or suffer the costs and inconveniences of prepayment. Rental housing almost always requires credit checks in any desirable market. You also seem to assume that collections can never be converted into a lean on your assets or garnishment of your wages. And that doesn’t even begin to crack the strange and painful tactics debt collectors use on your family, employment, friends, and other social pressures.
  - ehavener 6y ago
    You're effectively paying a 1-5% tax on everything by not using a credit card.
  - filoleg 6y ago
    > I've lived most of my life without a credit card > This is all a result of me living responsibly within my means. Implying that not using credit cards is how one lives responsibly within their means is kinda weird and wrong. Yes, you can live irresponsibly with a credit card. You can also live responsibly with it too. And it will give you extra consumer purchase protection (in case of a fraud or a bad fair vendor), as well as 1-5% return on purchases. Some would argue that missing out on that 1-5% return and extra consumer protections is the irresponsible move. But either way, the whole "using credit cards means living irresponsibly and outside of their means" is absolutely nothing but a complete lack of understanding of how credit works.
    - klyrs 6y ago
      Yep, children of poverty are less fiscally literate and exhibit different cost-benefit analysis than folks raised in relative privilege. In my brief experience with credit cards, whatever 1-5% opportunity cost you think I'm paying is overwhelmed by the 20% interest rate if I forget to pay the bill. The preceeding is a statement about most of my life. I've gotten better at such stuff and my lifestyle has changed after grad school -- and since I didn't have credit cards while living below the poverty line and generally being a schlub, I didn't fuck up my credit, so a few months of having a credit card as a de facto adult earned me a near-perfect credit score when I needed it.
      - filoleg 6y ago
        I get that financial literacy is an issue in underprivileged and low-income groups. But it doesn't take much brainpower or financial knowledge to treat your credit card like your debit card and not spend more than you have in your checking account. Functionally, a credit card would work exactly like your debit card or cash, except you would also be reaping all the benefits of credit cards and improved credit scores. But overall, I agree with your point about cost-benefit analysis and impulse control being difficult to overcome.
        klyrs 6y ago
        Anyway, my original comment responded to > I often wonder how people on the verge of eviction think about this kind of thing — whether it is salient or even understandable My answer is that people in those situations think about these things very differently than people who have never encountered them. Or, flip it -- if dings on your credit score are the worst speedbump that society has thrown in your path, you probably don't have the skills necessary to live broke. I didn't come for financial advice, but thanks
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- datavirtue 6y ago
  They will just pass a law that allows it to be removed or excluded from credit reports. Or the banks+credit agencies will collude to do it when it starts dipping too hard into credit card applications. #medicalbills
- blaser-waffle 6y ago
  There is an entire segment of the population that will never have good credit and probably never will. Punishing them via credit score isn't going to do anything. It won't get you your money back, and it'll just ensure we have a perpetual underclass to keep this cycle going. > I often wonder how people on the verge of eviction think about this kind of thing — whether it is salient or even understandable. If they're on the verge of eviction they're probably more worried about keeping heat, water, or food going. Landlords are an abstraction if your kid hasn't eaten in 2 days.
- filoleg 6y ago
  >Everyone has a credit score that can go down Sure, but the issue is that the suing party isn't getting anything out of it. You sue for damages, the defendant has nothing, so their credit score goes down. That's fine, they get punished+the credit score decrease helps future landlords avoid the same situation with that tenant. But as a suing party, you get literally nothing out of it. The defendant's credit score going down doesn't help you personally one bit, you get no restitution or compensation.

kevin42 6y ago

Exactly. The renters are in a really bad situation as well. There's no way most of the people who couldn't or didn't pay rent for a year are going to have $20,000 to pay back rent, even if there's a judgement against them.

ianai 6y ago
Right and I’d be for society helping them with that sort of debt. But having a judgement against someone does open avenues for future, slow recovery.
- sky_rw 6y ago
  Nothing is stopping you, a member of society, giving somebody $20,000 to help them with back rent.
  - munk-a 6y ago
    Relying on charity to make up for a lack of proper tax collection is a terrible thing for society in the long term. It's unsustainable and will just further wealth inequality. Also, most people, even most people on here, don't have 20k to throw around willy-nilly even if they have assets exceeding that amount.
  - mattnewton 6y ago
    I don't get your point?
    - DamnYuppie 6y ago
      I believe the point is that the OP is asking for everyone else to pay money for a cause they think is worthy, the comment you are responding to is that if they are that commit to the idea they can always pony up their own money.
      - mattnewton 6y ago
        ah, thanks. Well, to that I'd say, if my money had anywhere near the impact of everyone's money pooled together I'd do it. Until then I'll keep advocating for public funds to be spent this way, and I assume OP would as well. If you lend each completely broke person $100 they are still about to be completely broke and your investment will be wiped out after a brief respite. But if you hand each bankrupt person $X,000 then many might be able to dig themselves out of the hole and remain productive members of society.

cletus 6y ago

This depends on your outlook. You can stress about this and spend a lot of your time chasing down someone for repayment. This is the wrong approach IMHO. Instead just sure in small claims court (limited to $5,000). This is done without lawyers. You simply present your lease agreement, bank statement and any relevant communications. Once you get that judgment give it to a collections agency and forget about it. The agency will take a percentage of anything they collect. Then just look at anything you get back as a bonus.

RKearney 6y ago
> Instead just sure in small claims court (limited to $5,000) Depends on your state. Here, small claims is limited to $25,000 with no limit for eviction suits.
deberon 6y ago
I tried suing a landlord in small claims court. Their lawyer just had the court move the case to civil court so they could bring representation. It's a broken system imo.
Taylor_OD 6y ago
Wouldnt that be like only 2-3 months of rent for most people?
- cletus 6y ago
  In coastal cities, sure. But in a lot of parts of the country it’s not. Also, as others have noted, different jurisdictions may have higher limits. But to go to civil court to recover $20,000 just isn’t worth it. Your legal expenses will be significant and you face the prospect of losing or being unable to collect. So by limiting your potential damages you don’t incur litigation expenses, spend less time and stress on it and your net return may be similar. What’s better? $5,000 it costs you nothing to get a judgement for (other than a nominal filing fee) minus 10-20% for the collection agency or $20,000 you may need to spend $10-20K to litigate?
ceejayoz 6y ago

mywittyname 6y ago

There's going to be predatory companies popping up who buy up rights to collect on these lawsuits for pennies on the dollar and proceed to <vulgar transitive verb> the tenants. This situation is going to play out over the next decade at least and it will be terrible for (almost) everyone involved. If you're renting and can afford to: pay your damn rent! In five years, you don't want to be staring down a judgement for a year of rent, plus interest, plus "collection" fees.