NYT: Creditors Make Illegal Demands on Active-Duty Soldiers

[Hissyspit]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/28/national/28military.html?hp&ex=1111986000&en=5ce813cec2d46fe3&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=login

March 28, 2005
Some Creditors Make Illegal Demands on Active-Duty Soldiers
By DIANA B. HENRIQUES

gt. John J. Savage III, an Army reservist, was about to climb onto a troop transport plane for a flight to Iraq from Fayetteville, N.C., when his wife called with alarming news: "They're foreclosing on our house."

Sergeant Savage recalled, "There was not a thing I could do; I had to jump on the plane and boil for 22 hours."

He had reason to be angry. A longstanding federal law strictly limits the ability of his mortgage company and other lenders to foreclose against active-duty service members.

But Sergeant Savage's experience was not unusual. Though statistics are scarce, court records and interviews with military and civilian lawyers suggest that Americans heading off to war are sometimes facing distracting and demoralizing demands from financial companies trying to collect on obligations that, by law, they cannot enforce.

MORE AT LINKE

[fujiyama]

1. Fuckers

That's all I can say. What a bunch of real ass holes. These same companies all donate millions to pukes and they do their bidding and unfortunately some of our guys do it too (Hey BiDINO are ya listening?).

Appauling. These credit card/financial institutions are getting away with whatever they want with the full protection of this government.

[alittlelark]

6. You took the word out of my mouth.

and did good with it.

[Hissyspit]

2. Similar WaPost article at this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1345554

[depakid]

3. I know how Congress can put a stop to that quick

Any creditor who initiates an illegal foreclosure proceeding forfiets their note. No exceptions. If the file indicates they acted they recklesly or knowingly, then hit them with treble damages.

That's the only way the bean counters will look at it and say it isn't worth it. Otherwise, they'll get enough unwary or ignorant people to make it look good from a business perspective.

It also creates the financial means for servicemen and women to hire an attorney.

[lenidog]

4. The problem is that he is away in Iraq

or he could easily fight these SOBs. THe holder of the note has to get a legal document proving that he is not a member of the military and is not on actice duty overseas. If they can't then it ends right there.

[wellst0nev0ter]

5. S.AMDT.16 For The Moral Bankruptcy Bill

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To protect servicemembers and veterans from means testing in bankruptcy, to disallow certain claims by lenders charging usurious interest rates to servicemembers, and to allow servicemembers to exempt property based on the law of the State of their premilitary residence.

Result: Amendment SA 16 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 38 - 58

Of course the Repuke flaghuggers voted unanimously against the amendment, but lets examine the DUMBOCRAT turncoats:

Baucus (D-MT)
Biden (D-DE)
Byrd (D-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Nelson (D-NE)

makes me wanna :puke:

[Erika]

7. Bush's America

He and his chickenhawk brothers never were anything other than elitists.

[paineinthearse]

8. Little-Known Legislation

From the same story:

The relief act provides a broad spectrum of protections to service members, their spouses and their dependents. The interest rate on debts incurred before enlistment, for example, must be capped at 6 percent if military duty has reduced a service member's family income. The law also protects service members from repossession or foreclosure without a court order. It allows them to terminate any real estate lease when their military orders require them to do so. And it forbids judges from holding service members in default on any legal matter unless the court has first appointed a lawyer to protect their interests. The law is an updated version of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act, which was adopted on the eve of World War II and remained largely unchanged through the Persian Gulf war of 1991. But in July 2001, a federal court ruled that service members could sue violators of the relief act for damages. And the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 prompted Congress to take up a long-deferred Pentagon proposal to update the old act. The revised statute, clearer and more protective than the old one, was signed into law in December 2003.

Any bets how soon the rethugs move to repeal this law?