Home > News > The $2,400 Debt That Wouldn’t Die

Comments 0 Comments

Eduardo Austin spent the summer of 2010 watching hundreds of dollars get sucked out of his paycheck every payday by the clerk’s office of the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia. Back in 2004, Discover card had won a $2,401 judgment against him for unpaid credit card bills. The money finally started coming out of his paycheck in June 2010. On Oct. 11 of that year, the final garnishment was taken — the payments totaled $3,312, to cover additional fees and interest. Austin assumed he was finally free of the debt. He wasn’t.

In April 2013, nearly three years later, another garnishment order appeared, indicating Austin owed $970 more. The court came for his paycheck again. The law firm acting as debt collector, Georgia-based Hanna & Associates, had filed a continuing garnishment affidavit for the right to collect additional interest on the Discover debt for an unexpected reason: the court clerk had been tardy in handing over the money.

In other words, Austin had paid the debt through his paycheck, but he owed even more because the court was too busy to pay the collection agency.

Austin decided that didn’t sound right to him, so he went to court to get the continuing garnishment reversed, a process called a “traverse.”

“I don’t like being bullied and I understand the logic that once someone pays a debt to zero, the other party can’t come back for more,” he said. He won, and a judge ordered the $277 taken from his paycheck returned.

When Is a Debt Fully Paid?

Austin wasn’t done fighting, however. He is the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit filed in February against Frederick J. Hanna & Associates that seeks class-action status, accusing the firm of trying to collect excessive interest from numerous debtors using continuing garnishment orders related to court delays, such as the one Austin faced.

Eduardo Austin

Eduardo Austin

Meanwhile, Hanna is also being sued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is accusing the firm of being a “debt collection lawsuit mill.” Austin is not a party to that lawsuit, filed last month, but his class-action case is getting considerable attention because of the CFPB case.

Many facts of Austin’s case are not in dispute. He did fail to pay his Discover bill, and Hanna lawyers were entitled to collect on behalf of Discover. Cicely Barber, the court clerk, confirmed the lengthy delay in transferring funds to Hanna. The disagreement stems from the continuing garnishment, and accrual of additional interest between 2010 and 2013, before Hanna obtained the garnishment funds.

Joseph Cooling, the managing partner with Hanna & Associates, said in an email that the $970 garnishment was legal under Georgia law.

“Post-judgment interest accrues in this fashion in every state in the country,” he said in an email. “The garnishment funds were paid into the court registry by Mr. Austin’s employer and we had no power to access those funds and the court refused to disburse them to us. Georgia law provides that interest continues to accrue while those funds sit in the court registry.”

Court delays are hardly rare. Cooling pointed to a 2008 story in the Atlanta Journal Constitution (note: it’s behind a paywall) highlighting a dramatic backlog in court garnishment disbursements blamed on the recession and a surge of unpaid bill lawsuits. The story explains that while bills remain unpaid, debtors are liable for additional interest, even if the funds are stuck in limbo because of a court backlog. No one wants to talk about how unbelievably incompetent this major American metropolitan county is and the impact it is having on consumers,” said Cooling. 

Barber explained that the court takes in somewhere in the area of 20,000 checks each month, and that the delays are the result of old technology.  “Prior to November 2013, there was a delay in issuing payments due to our outdated case management system that was purchased in 1999,” she said. “It simply was not capable to efficiently process the volume of garnishment checks the Courts received.  In November 2013, we converted to a new case management system that allows us to track and disburse funds more efficiently and timely.”

That likely offers little comfort to any of the parties involved in the Austin case.

“Despite our firm’s due diligence and exhaustive efforts to obtain the garnishment funds, it took a period of years for the court clerk to finally disburse the funds. In Georgia, we are completely at the mercy of the clerk as to when garnishment funds are paid out; and we have no power or remedy whatsoever in any form or fashion to access the funds,” Cooling said to Credit.com. “Post-judgment interest accrued during that time and our firm was entitled to collect it pursuant to Georgia law.”

Austin’s lawyer, Steven Koval, said Hanna’s argument is “a bunch of baloney.”

“It doesn’t pass the smell test,” Koval said. “My reaction when I saw the case was ‘This can’t be right. It’s just unfair.’” Once Austin paid the money, there wasn’t anything more he could do to satisfy the debt, Koval said. “It’s not his fault they didn’t get paid, it’s their fault.”

Despite Cooling’s assertion that Hanna was “at the mercy of the clerk” for disbursement of the funds, Koval said Hanna should have taken legal action against the court to compel payment.

The class-action case filed by Koval alleges violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Part of that case has already been dismissed, but a federal magistrate recommended on July 10 that at least one claim be allowed to proceed, finding that Koval and Austin have a chance to win their argument that Hanna attempted to collect a debt “not expressly authorized by agreement or permitted by law.”

Final ruling on Hanna’s motion to dismiss is still pending.

“Our firm completely denies any wrong-doing whatsoever,” Cooling said, “and at all times our firm has completely complied with all provisions of Georgia garnishment statutes as set forth under the Georgia code, as interpreted by the Georgia Court of Appeals, and within the spirit of the Georgia Professional Rules of Conduct for attorneys in the practice of law.”

The CFPB Takes Aim

Meanwhile, the CFPB case means Hanna will be arguing about its debt collection efforts on two legal fronts. The consumer agency, in a lawsuit announced July 14, is accusing the firm of mass-producing lawsuits that have not been appropriately reviewed by legal staff.

“The Hanna firm relies on deception and faulty evidence to drag consumers to court and collect millions,” CFPB Director Richard Cordray said while announcing the lawsuit. “We believe they are taking advantage of consumers’ lack of legal expertise to intimidate them into paying debts they may not even owe.”

The CFPB says Hanna filed 350,000 lawsuits between 2009 and 2013, but dismissed 40,000 of those cases “because it cannot substantiate its allegations.”

Hanna responded to the lawsuit by saying that it has spent a year cooperating with CFPB investigators and was “completely surprised” by the filing.

“We strongly deny the allegations of the complaint and, moreover, the overall mischaracterization of our law firm as a ’mill’ or ’factory,’” the firm’s statement read. “Our law firm takes great pride in its commitment to compliance with all consumer protection laws and takes great pains every day to ensure compliance with state civil procedure and evidentiary laws, step by step. At all times, our firm has faithfully followed the long-established legal rules and due process guidelines set forth under Georgia law and the long line of established federal judicial precedent with regard to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.”

Among the legal arguments Hanna intends to pursue: That the CFPB should not be allowed to regulate the practice of law. Complaints against law firms should be handled by the state bar association, the firm maintains.

“The CFPB case against our law firm raises very serious constitutional questions for lawyers practicing law in every area of law throughout the entire country.  It is not just about debt collection; and it is a very slippery slope,” Cooling said.  “The federal government is attempting to regulate the practice of law, as well as the process by which lawyers exercise their professional legal judgment, literally down to how many minutes it might take an experienced lawyer to make a legal decision or judgment. That is a very concerning proposition for lawyers everywhere.”

Hanna is no stranger to legal attention from regulators; nor is it a stranger to winning such cases. In 2010, the Georgia Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit filed by the state’s Office of Consumer Affairs on behalf of complaining consumers because it found the firm was exempt from the state’s Fair Business Practices Act. The judges ruled consumers must seek redress in the state bar association or the Federal Trade Commission.

For consumers with unpaid debts, the lesson from Austin’s case is simple: Bad debts have a bad habit of coming back to life, even a decade later. Consumers can’t assume they are paid in full until they receive paperwork saying they are. Even then, it’s important to hold on to that paperwork.

This is the first in a series of articles about people struggling with debt collection. If you have a story for the Debt Collection Files, write to Bob Sullivan at Bob (at) credit (dot) com.

More on Managing Debt:

Image: iStock

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Credit.com receives compensation for the financial products and services advertised on this site if our users apply for and sign up for any of them.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team