Vulgar voicemails force debt collector to pay $1.5 million

[California Girl]

Wow, spinelesstubby seems to be on quite tear over the validity of the debt.

I guess he thinks it would've been ok to harass this guy and call him a ****** as long as the debt was vaild. I mean, why else would it matter to him?

Is he obsessing over the validity of the debt? Can't say I'd noticed.

 

[del]

Wow, spinelesstubby seems to be on quite tear over the validity of the debt.

I guess he thinks it would've been ok to harass this guy and call him a ****** as long as the debt was vaild. I mean, why else would it matter to him?

Is he obsessing over the validity of the debt? Can't say I'd noticed.

wait till he finds out the debt collector is a subsidiary of BP

 

[Anguille]

Eight calls. Yea, that must have been hell for him. What I find impressive is that anyone thinks this is reasonable.

You agree with the court's decision as fair and reasonable. You don't like the amount. Why?

You don't have to pay it, this corporation does and they ought to know better. They deserve to pay through the nose. The voice mails were not only vulgar, but racist and harassing.

It's not about who pays, it is about what is 'fair and reasonable'. The decision was, the amount is ludicrous. $1.5m for a few insulting calls - seriously? I find that offensive. People see this kind of shit as a money tree and it is not. Particularly when, but for his own actions, it would not have happened.

No doubt this wasn't the first time they harassed someone. In any case, the guy will probably have to hire a dept collector to get his money anyway.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Wow, spinelesstubby seems to be on quite tear over the validity of the debt.

I guess he thinks it would've been ok to harass this guy and call him a ****** as long as the debt was vaild. I mean, why else would it matter to him?

Is he obsessing over the validity of the debt? Can't say I'd noticed.

Hey CaliGirl - Why do you assume the debt was valid?

Hey CaliGirl - Why do you assume the debt was valid?

Hey CaliGirl - Why do you assume the debt was valid?

Proving CaliGirl will never admit when she's wrong ... yet again.

 

[Sky Dancer]

spiderman are those signs to caligirl made out of oil?

 

[manifold]

Call me crazy, but I don't care if the debt was valid and he owed them $100,000. What they did would still be out of line. I guess Tubby feels differently.

 

[Anguille]

what part of agreeing with the verdict continues to elude you?

i think an ablebodied person parking in a handicapped space is a heinous act, but i also am not calling for the death penalty for doing it.

proportionality: it's not just for art school, skippy.

By what measure are you determining "proportionality" ? What's the point of punitive damages that aren't big enough to actually hurt a company?


I'm not really sure how you equate paying a fine with the death penalty, either, that seems a bit off.

well then if $1.5MM doesn't put them out of business, what's the point, right?

should we cut out the offender's tongue?

Perhaps they should be put out of business.

 

[Sky Dancer]

By what measure are you determining "proportionality" ? What's the point of punitive damages that aren't big enough to actually hurt a company?


I'm not really sure how you equate paying a fine with the death penalty, either, that seems a bit off.

well then if $1.5MM doesn't put them out of business, what's the point, right?

should we cut out the offender's tongue?

Perhaps they should be put out of business.

Certainly, they got the message to behave in a more business like manner or face the consequences.

 

[Anguille]

I found you a new avatar. You can thank me later:

OK.

Back to the conversation.

Why is it ridiculous?

Do you know how much money the offending company makes a year? Because I don't. I'm guessing the judge or jury would have had access to this information though, when they were deciding what amount should be paid in punitive damages. Punitive damages are meant to punish - if they aren't high enough to actually hurt a company - they aren't punishing, are they?

For one, it shouldn't matter how much the company makes. We need to find out if this is a common practice at ACT. If it is, I might be able to buy the big payout. However, from a quick google search of the company, it appears to be a solid and legitimate company, and the employee who did this was probably fired. I seriously doubt any company in this day and age would condone such behavior. My hunch is that this is a rogue employee who operated under the radar and was fired as a result. It happens. So why should the guy who claims to have paid his bill (which I seriously doubt) get $1.5 million??? That's just ridiculous IMO.

There was an interesting investigation recently done by one of the network shows, maybe Dateline. It turns out that deceitful and abusive practices are commonplace and part of company policy in many of these types of businesses. They also go after debts that are nonexistent or were paid off already because the rules are so lax or aren't enforced.

 

[Anguille]

I seriously doubt any company in this day and age would condone such behavior. My hunch is that this is a rogue employee who operated under the radar and was fired as a result.

Well heck, your hunches and generalizations are certainly much more important in this case than the jury and judge who actually sat through the trial and got to see the evidence presented by both sides.

It happens. So why should the guy who claims to have paid his bill (which I seriously doubt) get $1.5 million??? That's just ridiculous IMO.

More of your serious doubts. What do you even base that on? A "serious doubt" What the fuck does that mean? How do you know he didn't already pay his bill? I got a collection notice a few years back for a debt that was paid several years prior - I sent them a copy of the canceled check - they dropped the charge. Collection agencies - believe it or not - are not infallible and can make mistakes and go after people who have already paid.

You appear to have "serious doubt" that the guy already paid it while also "seriously doubting" that a collection company would ever condone the harassment of debtors - seems to me like you just assume companies always do right and individuals always do wrong.

The same thing happened to a friend of mine a few years ago. She ended up just paying them the money, it wasn't a large amount, because she didn't have time to figure out how to get the documentation they demanded. Then after she paid off the dept for the second time, she started getting calls from another dept collector!! For the same dept she had paid twice!

 

[Nik]

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.

His suffering was worth $50k. Punitive damages are to punish the defendant, not to reward the plaintiff. And the reason they are given to the plaintiff is to give an incentive to carry out these type of suits.

 

[Si modo]

$1.5 million IS quite a jackpot. I should only be so lucky as to have someone spew hate on my voicemail!!!!

Really? You'd have someone spew hate in your voice mail if the price was right? I wouldn't.

Sure. I would definitely endure a few minutes of hateful ranting for 1.5 million dollars!

Me too.

Hmmm. I should give Shogun and JenyE my cell phone number.

 

[Nik]

Seriously?

Yes, seriously.

seriously entertaining.

tell it to the numerous people doing time for tax evasion, failure to pay child support etc. i'm sure they'll be thrilled to know they're not really in prison.

Tax evasion isn't a failure to pay a debt. Its willful evasion of paying taxes. If you just don't pay, you won't go to jail.

Also you don't go to jail for not paying child support. You go to jail for willfully avoiding paying.

As was correctly stated, there is no debtors prison in the US.

 

[Nik]

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.

A bunch of shit irrelevant to the point.

It's a fact that both cases involved an alleged upaid debt.

It's a fact that in one case the alleged debtor lost his home.

It's a fact that in the other case the alleged debtor was awarded $1.5million by a jury.

It's also a fact apparently that my pointing this out got your panties in a huge twist.

Have a nice day twatstick

Its also a fact that the alleged debtors 1.5 m judgment had nothing to do with any debt he owed, it had to do with actions of a debt collection company.

Two completely separate cases.

 

[del]

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.

A bunch of shit irrelevant to the point.

It's a fact that both cases involved an alleged upaid debt.

It's a fact that in one case the alleged debtor lost his home.

It's a fact that in the other case the alleged debtor was awarded $1.5million by a jury.

It's also a fact apparently that my pointing this out got your panties in a huge twist.

Have a nice day twatstick

Its also a fact that the alleged debtors 1.5 m judgment had nothing to do with any debt he owed, it had to do with actions of a debt collection company.

Two completely separate cases.

i'm glad you're back. we were running low on people completely devoid of humor.

 

[Nik]

A bunch of shit irrelevant to the point.

It's a fact that both cases involved an alleged upaid debt.

It's a fact that in one case the alleged debtor lost his home.

It's a fact that in the other case the alleged debtor was awarded $1.5million by a jury.

It's also a fact apparently that my pointing this out got your panties in a huge twist.

Have a nice day twatstick

Its also a fact that the alleged debtors 1.5 m judgment had nothing to do with any debt he owed, it had to do with actions of a debt collection company.

Two completely separate cases.

i'm glad you're back. we were running low on people completely devoid of humor.

Oh, del-boy. Its so good to see one again.

See there's a difference between being devoid of humor and recognizing that you aren't actually funny and in reality are just a tool.

By the way...you don't remember me incessantly mocking you for the really stupid shit you said? I guess its only humorous to you if its not about you, eh?

 

[del]

Its also a fact that the alleged debtors 1.5 m judgment had nothing to do with any debt he owed, it had to do with actions of a debt collection company.

Two completely separate cases.

i'm glad you're back. we were running low on people completely devoid of humor.

Oh, del-boy. Its so good to see one again.

See there's a difference between being devoid of humor and recognizing that you aren't actually funny and in reality are just a tool.

By the way...you don't remember me incessantly mocking you for the really stupid shit you said? I guess its only humorous to you if its not about you, eh?

i remember your incessant attempts to mock me if that's what you mean.

so what you're telling me is that you're not devoid of humor but just not funny and a tool?

got it, thanks. it seems like a distinction without a difference to me, fwiw.

 

[Nik]

i'm glad you're back. we were running low on people completely devoid of humor.

Oh, del-boy. Its so good to see one again.

See there's a difference between being devoid of humor and recognizing that you aren't actually funny and in reality are just a tool.

By the way...you don't remember me incessantly mocking you for the really stupid shit you said? I guess its only humorous to you if its not about you, eh?

i remember your incessant attempts to mock me if that's what you mean.

so what you're telling me is that you're not devoid of humor but just not funny and a tool?

got it, thanks. it seems like a distinction without a difference to me, fwiw.

Man...I've given you this much time to come up with intelligent insults and all you can do is call me what I just called you?

Sad. But, on a lighter note, I can't tell you how shocked I am that you don't find humor funny when its directed at you. I'm shocked, just shocked, that you don't have that kind of perspective.

By the way...in a sense you actually remind me of Delboy Troltter. In the sense that you are both terribly incompetent. He is at least lovable tho. You are just a sour old grouch.

 

[del]

Oh, del-boy. Its so good to see one again.

See there's a difference between being devoid of humor and recognizing that you aren't actually funny and in reality are just a tool.

By the way...you don't remember me incessantly mocking you for the really stupid shit you said? I guess its only humorous to you if its not about you, eh?

i remember your incessant attempts to mock me if that's what you mean.

so what you're telling me is that you're not devoid of humor but just not funny and a tool?

got it, thanks. it seems like a distinction without a difference to me, fwiw.

Man...I've given you this much time to come up with intelligent insults and all you can do is call me what I just called you?

Sad. But, on a lighter note, I can't tell you how shocked I am that you don't find humor funny when its directed at you. I'm shocked, just shocked, that you don't have that kind of perspective.

By the way...in a sense you actually remind me of Delboy Troltter. In the sense that you are both terribly incompetent. He is at least lovable tho. You are just a sour old grouch.

why would i want to insult you?

if you'd let me know when you direct humor at me, i'd be happy to oblige you with a titter or perhaps even a guffaw. by your own admission you're not funny, so my usual method of identifying humor directed at me and others (i laugh) is inoperative in your case.

maybe a colored font like magenta orblue would be helpful?

i'll leave it in your competent, yet unfunny, hands to decide.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

$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.

point well taken.