In a lot of threads at this forum, there is plenty of room for debate between parties, but I figure the following issue should get bipartisan support for resolution. http://www.theatlantic.com/business...oldiers-struggling-to-pay-their-bills/375090/ Well, here is a clever new business strategy: Offer service members around the country and around the world financing for their appliances, furniture, and electronics, and then, when they fall behind on their loans, sue them in courts they can't get to to represent themselves. Turns out: effective! Also: legal. These are the conclusions of a new report jointly published by ProPublica and The Washington Post that looks at the financial "innovation" of USA Discounters and two other companies, Freedom Furniture and Electronics and Military Credit Services, that sell goods to service members on credit and then, if they fall behind, go after them in Virginia courts, regardless of where the service members are based. Together the three companies have filed 35,000 lawsuits in a little under a decade. As Paul Kiel of ProPublica explains: "The federal Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, or SCRA, was designed to give active-duty members of the armed forces every opportunity to defend themselves against lawsuits. But the law has a loophole; it doesn't address where plaintiffs can sue. That's allowed USA Discounters to sue out-of-state borrowers in Virginia, where companies can file suit as long as some aspect of the business was transacted in the state. For service members who don't appear in Virginia, a lawyer is appointed on their behalf. 'But,' Kiel writes, 'the law does not specify what that lawyer must do.' ProPublica found that in each of the 11 cases it examined, the same lawyer was selected as the defendant's representative, and he seems to have made minimal efforts on his clients' behalf. USA Discounters denied any 'business relationship" with the attorney.'" So, long story short, attempts have been made to protect service members from unethical businesses that take into account the challenges that military members face by being stationed overseas. Unfortunately, the laws have left open some loopholes that need closing. It surprises me that neither party has come forward with legislation to further resolve this. Politicians in the state of Virginia definitely need to take some initiative on this.
So even if they show up what difference is it going to make? They either paid their bill or didn't fulfill the contract. Their presence is not going to change that fact is it? Tell them to grow up and not live outside of their means and this will not be an issue.
Companies like this set up business next to military installations and prey on their financial naivete. Armed with judgments, creditors can attempt to garnish borrowers' wages or bank accounts.
The issue is representation. The law is supposed to provide a reliable lawyer if needed. A proper lawyer can negotiate much better terms than one who is complicit with the creditor. So, their own presence isn't the issue. The presence of a decent lawyer is.
Welcome to the world of grown-ups where you will find people trying to take advantage of you. - - - Updated - - - What is preventing them from hiring a lawyer to represent them?
So, you don't see any difference in an enlisted person's situation vs. a civilian's? - - - Updated - - - I guess that depends on their responsibilities. Focusing on a lawsuit isn't going to be a high priority for someone in a FOB.
Nope, do you? If I get a bunch of rent-to-own furniture and don't pay the bill I am in the same boat as the military guy. Sure I can show up by my presence isn't going to get me out of the financial trouble I am in, is it? I either fulfilled my contract obligations or I didn't. - - - Updated - - - Well that is kind of their responsibility now isn't it? If they don't want to focus on the trouble they are in then I have no sympathy for them.
Ok... well, I guess I was wrong in my assumption in the OP. Then again, this forum does seem to be rather sociopathic at times.
You should rename this thread to, "How certain military members screw over business by not paying their bills and forcing business to take them to court".
Are you familiar with how debt settlements work? If so, then you should understand the importance of having a competent lawyer present during them. As far as the situation of an enlisted member overseas vs. a civilian here goes, the fact that you don't see a difference speaks volumes. I'm guessing you don't have any military friends or family members.
Actually, this is not new and this applies to non service members as well. however, this law only covers debt prior to military servie. If a service member encurs debt while on active duty, then this act does not apply generally.
I'm trying to see the issue here, but the issue primarily doesn't seem to be having representation, but not paying your bills. What exactly are the companies doing that is unethical? extending credit to lower enlisted? Just a couple of observations from my time in service: If the companies get a bad reputation with dealing with military members unfairly, the Post Commander can ban personnel on the post with doing business with the company. Almost every post I've been to had a list of nightclubs, used car places, ect...that people assigned to the base are prohibited from dealing with. Places near military bases that have a military customer base almost always have a POC in the chain of command, particularly for lower enlisted, so if they are late on a car payment or rental agreement, the company will go to the chain of command. Young military people are often not good money managers because for those that are right out of high school, this is the first time with money. A lot more money than can be earned by flipping burgers, so not really having experience with handling money, they get themselves in trouble.
This has been going on years. As Herkdriver said many businesses specifically target military members with their predatory policies. Military installations even have blacklists that prohibit servicemembers from doing business with many of these places. Many of their targets are the brand new people who just came into a decent amount of money (for an 18 year old) who wants to go out and buy a lot of nice things. Military wages are public everybody knows how much the military makes. These places know exactly how the market themselves to where it seems like a good deal. And a naive 18 year old private likely doesn't know that he can't afford that brand new Mustang or 80" flat screen tv. It's gotten so bad to where NCO's and Officers even as high as Commanders have had to go to these places with their soldiers and deal with it. I've had to personally do this with my 1st Sgt and one of my Privates. I do understand that this is the grown up world and people need to take responsibility for themselves and everybody is fair game to predatory practices like this, the military isn't excluded. However, we also take care of our own. And telling a business owner whose entire establishment is kept afloat by military suckers that one stroke of a pen would prohibit most of his customers from being allowed to come back under the penalty of UCMJ is enough to make most people give our kids their money back. But word to the wise and the younger military crowd. If the place is close by the base and it says "Special Military Financing Available!" or something along those lines then you likely don't want to shop there without asking somebody with some tenure first. Some of those places are legit, many are not...Common sense to most people, not always so for an 18 year old kid who never had any money before.
Quick question, how are people screwing over businesses when businesses set up their model based upon trying to get people to fall behind on their payments?
