Vulgar voicemails force debt collector to pay $1.5 million

[SpidermanTuba]

It doesn't matter. You were *wrong*, and to this day, you're still whining about how "unfairly" you were treated, even though it was 100% without a doubt YOUR FAULT. You are STILL trying to lay the blame elsewhere, instead of looking at who INITIATED the problem in the first place - YOURSELF.

I was wrong to not pay the debt in a timely manner. I did not deserve to be harassed at work. That happens to be against the law. I was wrong in being late with my payment. The collection agency was wrong in harassing me at work.

So.. Your creditor deserves to be punished and you don't?

What a load of shit. Speaks volumes about you as a person, too.

Did you have a letter stating that your employer does not allow personal calls at work? Did you send them a copy of this letter? Doubtful one even existed.

There is no debtor prison in the U.S.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Perhaps if Sky Dancer had taken the *responsible* road, and contacted them prior to them having to *find* her, things would not have progressed as they had, huh? Especially since bill collectors generally send a *few* letters prior to calling. She chose to ignore them.. She also CHOSE to ignore the initial letter they send stating specifically WHEN she is to start paying back her student loans, and those letters are generally dated more than 60 days IN ADVANCE.

She willfully chose to ignore them, and then started crying when they found her.

If the debt collector had chosen to follow the law, she would not have been harassed at work.

But corporations should not be bound by law, they should be above it.

Obviously, in your world individuals should not be bound by law,

I never made such a statement.

regardless of the fact that they're stealing money from corporations by agreeing to specific terms and then just changing their mind as they see fit.

Sky Dancer should have ended up in jail for theft.

Its not a crime in the U.S. to fail to repay a debt. What fucked up country do you live in?

 

[Sky Dancer]

I was wrong to not pay the debt in a timely manner. I did not deserve to be harassed at work. That happens to be against the law. I was wrong in being late with my payment. The collection agency was wrong in harassing me at work.

So.. Your creditor deserves to be punished and you don't?

What a load of shit. Speaks volumes about you as a person, too.

Did you have a letter stating that your employer does not allow personal calls at work? Did you send them a copy of this letter? Doubtful one even existed.

There is no debtor prison in the U.S.

They have been abolished since 1869. Perhaps dis thinks they ought to make a comeback and be retroactive.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

So the guy fighting for his country halfway around the world loses his home over $800 in unpaid homeowners dues, and this guy gets $1.5 million for having to endure being called a ******.

Sounds fair.

I'm not sure what the guy halfway around the world has to do with this case.

 

[del]

If Sky Dancer told them to not call her at work, then that means it is now known to the collector that it is not convenient to call her at work - so they must cease calling her at work.

if pigs had wings, they'd be birds.

the only reference sky dancer has made to them calling her at work is her bleating that she was *harrassed* at work. adults call this assuming facts not in evidence. i'm sure you call it winning.

This happened many years ago. What kind of facts do you need, del? A time machine?

i'm really not all that interested, but if you were wrongly harrassed, i doubt that you'd need a time machine to remember the pertinent facts. pretty simple, really, assuming it happened, which i have no doubt it did.

 

[del]

I was wrong to not pay the debt in a timely manner. I did not deserve to be harassed at work. That happens to be against the law. I was wrong in being late with my payment. The collection agency was wrong in harassing me at work.

So.. Your creditor deserves to be punished and you don't?

What a load of shit. Speaks volumes about you as a person, too.

Did you have a letter stating that your employer does not allow personal calls at work? Did you send them a copy of this letter? Doubtful one even existed.

There is no debtor prison in the U.S.

truly, you are the king of the non sequitor

 

[boedicca]

$50,000 for mental anguish? Over some messages on a machine? Hmmmm.

$1.5m in punitive damages? Hmmmmm.

While I totally agree with the actual verdict, the sums are just ludicrous.

Indeed. The proper remedy is for the company to fire the moron.

 

[Sky Dancer]

if pigs had wings, they'd be birds.

the only reference sky dancer has made to them calling her at work is her bleating that she was *harrassed* at work. adults call this assuming facts not in evidence. i'm sure you call it winning.

This happened many years ago. What kind of facts do you need, del? A time machine?

i'm really not all that interested, but if you were wrongly harrassed, i doubt that you'd need a time machine to remember the pertinent facts. pretty simple, really, assuming it happened, which i have no doubt it did.

You're entitled to your doubts. I lived through this, you didn't. I put it behind me a long time ago.

I was only reminded of my past experience when I noticed I was cheering for the victim of a debt collector's harassment.

Take care.

 

[xsited1]

If the debt collector had chosen to follow the law, she would not have been harassed at work.

But corporations should not be bound by law, they should be above it.

Obviously, in your world individuals should not be bound by law,

I never made such a statement.

regardless of the fact that they're stealing money from corporations by agreeing to specific terms and then just changing their mind as they see fit.

Sky Dancer should have ended up in jail for theft.

Its not a crime in the U.S. to fail to repay a debt. What fucked up country do you live in?

It is a crime in the U.S. to fail to repay a debt. Most are handled in civil court, but some, like court-ordered child support or your taxes is a criminal offense and can land you in jail.

 

[California Girl]

What I have learned from this thread is to stop using personal examples to illustrate my view. Further, to cultivate patience with all posters, regardless of the content of the post.

Just wait till some asshole reminds you of your 'debt' in a year's time..... some posters here are obsessed about other posters personal circumstances.....

 

[SpidermanTuba]

$50,000 for mental anguish? Over some messages on a machine? Hmmmm.

$1.5m in punitive damages? Hmmmmm.

While I totally agree with the actual verdict, the sums are just ludicrous.

Indeed. The proper remedy is for the company to fire the moron.

Because it doesn't matter what the law says - its a corporation, they should be allowed to operate outside of it.

 

[California Girl]

Saying 'but for his actions - ie if he had paid his debt - it wouldn't have happened' is not "blaming the victim".....

Yes it is. It is in fact, textbook blaming the victim. Its like saying "if she hadn't dress like a tramp, she wouldn't have been raped"

Especially considering the fact the debt may not have even been valid!

If he wasn't in debt to them, they wouldn't have called him at all. Moron.

Didn't you say in another thread that you do not trust corporations? The debt is disputed by the plaintiff - why do you assume he is wrong and the collection agency is right?

Seems to me you place unlimited trust in the corporation - or at least, collection agencies. "If he wasn't in debt to them, they wouldn't have called him at all" - apparently collection agencies NEVER call people that don't actually owe the debt they claim they owe - debt collection agencies are infallible according to you!

Which bit of my original comment of "I agree with the verdict" is too complex for you?

If you try really, really hard.... you might just eventually post one post that has facts and not your wild assumptions. Seriously, you're making yourself look really stupid.

 

[Sky Dancer]

What I have learned from this thread is to stop using personal examples to illustrate my view. Further, to cultivate patience with all posters, regardless of the content of the post.

Just wait till some asshole reminds you of your 'debt' in a year's time..... some posters here are obsessed about other posters personal circumstances.....

True enough.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Saying 'but for his actions - ie if he had paid his debt - it wouldn't have happened' is not "blaming the victim".....

Yes it is. It is in fact, textbook blaming the victim. Its like saying "if she hadn't dress like a tramp, she wouldn't have been raped"

Especially considering the fact the debt may not have even been valid!

If he wasn't in debt to them, they wouldn't have called him at all. Moron.

Didn't you say in another thread that you do not trust corporations? The debt is disputed by the plaintiff - why do you assume he is wrong and the collection agency is right?

Seems to me you place unlimited trust in the corporation - or at least, collection agencies. "If he wasn't in debt to them, they wouldn't have called him at all" - apparently collection agencies NEVER call people that don't actually owe the debt they claim they owe - debt collection agencies are infallible according to you!

Which bit of my original comment of "I agree with the verdict" is too complex for you?

If you try really, really hard.... you might just eventually post one post that has facts and not your wild assumptions. Seriously, you're making yourself look really stupid.

Why do you assume the debt was valid?

 

[Sky Dancer]

Yes it is. It is in fact, textbook blaming the victim. Its like saying "if she hadn't dress like a tramp, she wouldn't have been raped"

Especially considering the fact the debt may not have even been valid!



Didn't you say in another thread that you do not trust corporations? The debt is disputed by the plaintiff - why do you assume he is wrong and the collection agency is right?

Seems to me you place unlimited trust in the corporation - or at least, collection agencies. "If he wasn't in debt to them, they wouldn't have called him at all" - apparently collection agencies NEVER call people that don't actually owe the debt they claim they owe - debt collection agencies are infallible according to you!

Which bit of my original comment of "I agree with the verdict" is too complex for you?

If you try really, really hard.... you might just eventually post one post that has facts and not your wild assumptions. Seriously, you're making yourself look really stupid.

Why do you assume the debt was valid?

? The debtor was black?

 

[manifold]

So the guy fighting for his country halfway around the world loses his home over $800 in unpaid homeowners dues, and this guy gets $1.5 million for having to endure being called a ******.

Sounds fair.

I'm not sure what the guy halfway around the world has to do with this case.

They are both cases of unpaid debts with decidedly different outcomes.

I thought that would've been obvious, but it's not the first time I've overestimated the mental capacity of an internet nitwit.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

So the guy fighting for his country halfway around the world loses his home over $800 in unpaid homeowners dues, and this guy gets $1.5 million for having to endure being called a ******.

Sounds fair.

I'm not sure what the guy halfway around the world has to do with this case.

They are both cases of unpaid debts with decidedly different outcomes.

Why do you assume the plaintiff's debt was valid?

And are you aware that the basis of the jury award was violation of the fair debt collection act - and not any debt that was owed? The supposed debt owed is not relevant. The example presented of a debt owed from around the world didn't include a violation of the law by the debt collector, so I still fail to see the relevance.

Though if a debt collector were to harass a soldier serving his country on foreign land with racial slurs, he can be assured of sympathy with any jury and he would probably get a large award.

 

[Nik]

$50,000 for mental anguish? Over some messages on a machine? Hmmmm.

$1.5m in punitive damages? Hmmmmm.

While I totally agree with the actual verdict, the sums are just ludicrous.

Indeed. The proper remedy is for the company to fire the moron.

Right. Because companies shouldn't have any incentives to follow the law. If they break the law, well....they just have to be told not to do it again, and shouldn't face any punishment.

This kind of crap is why companies break the law constantly, and get away with it.

 

[California Girl]

$50,000 for mental anguish? Over some messages on a machine? Hmmmm.

$1.5m in punitive damages? Hmmmmm.

While I totally agree with the actual verdict, the sums are just ludicrous.

Indeed. The proper remedy is for the company to fire the moron.

Right. Because companies shouldn't have any incentives to follow the law. If they break the law, well....they just have to be told not to do it again, and shouldn't face any punishment.

This kind of crap is why companies break the law constantly, and get away with it.

No, the proper outcome would have been the $50,000 for the 'pain and suffering' and maybe a $250,000 for punitive damages. I wouldn't have had an objective if they'd been fined $5m if the $5m had to go to a race relations charity or some other reasonable and related cause. I just don't happen to agree that this guy's 'suffering' was worth $1.5m.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

No, the proper outcome would have been the $50,000 for the 'pain and suffering' and maybe a $250,000 for punitive damages.

How the fuck would you know? You base this on what? You're own thin air guess, or did you sit on the jury?

I wouldn't have had an objective if they'd been fined $5m if the $5m had to go to a race relations charity or some other reasonable and related cause. I just don't happen to agree that this guy's 'suffering' was worth $1.5m.

His suffering isn't worth 1.5 mil and that's not what the court held. Punitive damages go to plaintiffs. That's the law. I fail to see why you don't want the law upheld.