Grandmother-in-Law's Debt

[The Dali Lama]

What is the name of your state? Texas

I'll make this as short as I can while trying not to omit details....

My wife's grandmother is in a nursing home. She is schizophrenic, senile, and basically unable to care for herself. My wife has "Medical Power of Attorney" for her grandmother, which. if I am correct, means that she can make health care decisions for her grandmother.

The grandmother owes collectors, mostly small stuff like magazine subscriptions and fake sweepstakes that I believe she was duped into getting into. I think it's kind of fitting that theese companies send out deceptive marketing letters to crazy old ladies and get nothing for it, but it has become annoying.

I don't know why the agencies think that we will pay her debts, but they do and they keep calling..... well, their machines do. I tried explaining the situation, and sometimes they say "OK, we'll make note of that and close the account." Even if they spoke to her she'd have no idea what they were talking about. I don't see any point in giving them the number at the nursing home. Grandmother is basically just waiting to die.

I don't know how to stop the calls. The grandmother is on a fixed income and can't pay. We're certainly not going to pay. Any advice about resolving this situation would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you. The Lama

Note about my frustration with this:
Recently I've been andwering the phone, putting it on speaker, and just setting it down when I recognize that it's a collection agency. Most of them wait several minutes before hanging up, repeatedly saying "hello" in various tones.
I started doing this when a man called and refused to tell me his name. He would only say that he was from "TCR." When I asked him what TCR stood for he said "Thomas Charles Robert" in a smug tone. That really pissed me off because I knew he was lying.

 

[JETX]

I don't know how to stop the calls.

Since you are not the debtor, you really have NO rights to force them to stop. Your best option is to simply tell them "No one here by that name" and hang up.
Don't open a conversation with them... as there is nothing you can say that will force them to stop if they don't want to.

 

[The Dali Lama]

I have tried your suggestion. I have pled ignorance of the whole situation. They still call. I have come to recognize some of their voices beacuse of their frequency of calls.

There is no recourse for a company calling repeatedly to MY house for someone who does not live here? For calling when I have told them that that person doesn't live here?


Thanks. The Lama

 

[las365]

It sounds as if the collectors may be violating the fair debt collection practices act.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact.htm

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/credit/fdc.shtm

Contact your state Attorney General's office, keep a log of the calls, look into how to take the collectors to small claims court.

p.s. how does one post a url as a link here?

 

[JETX]

It sounds as if the collectors may be violating the fair debt collection practices act.

What a load of crap!!
Do you even know what the FDCPA is??

Rather than make stupid statements and provide a link to the entire code... how about your telling us the SPECIFIC violation of the FDCPA you contend applies???

 

[Chien]

By saying that “he tried explaining the situation”, the OP implies that debts were discussed.

Sect. 805(b), pertaining to third party disclosures provides:
Except as provided in section 804, without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector, or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, or as reasonably necessary to effectuate a postjudgment judicial remedy, a debt collector may not communicate, in connection with the collection of any debt, with any person other than a consumer, his attorney, a consumer reporting agency if otherwise permitted by law, the creditor, the attorney of the creditor, or the attorney of the debt collector.

Sect. 804, pertaining to acquisition of location information provides:
Any debt collector communicating with any person other than the consumer for the purpose of acquiring location information about the consumer shall --
(1) identify himself, state that he is confirming or correcting location information concerning the consumer, and, only if expressly requested, identify his employer;
(2) not state that such consumer owes any debt;
(3) not communicate with any such person more than once unless requested to do so by such person or unless the debt collector reasonably believes that the earlier response of such person is erroneous or incomplete and that such person now has correct or complete location information;

Sect. 806, pertaining to harassment and abuse provides:
A debt collector may not engage in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:
(5) Causing a telephone to ring or engaging any person in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called number.
(6) Except as provided in section 804, the placement of telephone calls without meaningful disclosure of the caller's identity.

The FDCPA gives rights to other than the debtor to be free of annoying, repetitious calls and rights to the debtor to not be subjected to third party disclosure. While we don’t fully know what took place from the OP’s single post, it would seem reasonable to surmise that third party disclosures took place (or the collector was lying when he said he “understood and would close the account”). If the first call is argued to be for location acquisition, there should have been no discussion of the debt.
We don’t know at what point the collector refused to disclose his employer, when requested to do so, and we don’t know if it was reasonable to think that the OP’s statements were erroneous or incomplete (804(3)) but, after the Nth call, it should have been clear that the information was not going to change. Besides, 10 to 1 they were using predictive dialers and had simply never deleted the number, but they continued to call, and, whether they believed him or not, that’s a potential violation of 806(5).
I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the member to speculate that there may have been violations.

Edit: I'll go one step further. If Grandmother's condition is as described and Mrs. OP has "Medical Power of Attorney", it wouldn't surprise me if she also has authority to send a cease and desist letter to the CA. Does anyone know of authority one way or the other?

 

[JETX]

By saying that “he tried explaining the situation”, the OP implies that debts were discussed.

Gee... one idiot trying unsuccessfully to argue another idiots errors....

Edit: I'll go one step further. If Grandmother's condition is as described and Mrs. OP has "Medical Power of Attorney", it wouldn't surprise me if she also has authority to send a cease and desist letter to the CA. Does anyone know of authority one way or the other?

Yep.... I know as an 'authority'... you are an idiot. A medical POA has NOTHING to do with financial... and does not bring rights to a C&D letter.

 

[TigerD]

Gee... one idiot trying unsuccessfully to argue another idiots errors....


Yep.... I know as an 'authority'... you are an idiot. A medical POA has NOTHING to do with financial... and does not bring rights to a C&D letter.

While I agree with most of your analysis JETX, there really is no call for calling Chien names.

MY 2 cents:
The OP has been playing games with the CA and the collectors are playing games back.

While there is an FDCPA violation for failing to disclose the company -- the OP is never going to be able to act on it, so it seems pointless to debate that.

The OP is the point of contact for the grandmother. who has multiple collections. And all of those collections can change companies every six months if there is no progress. Therefore it stands to reason that until the OP grows up and handles this in a responsible manner, he is going to continue creating a situation that will frustrate himself.

This is what he should do:
1. Advise the CA that his grandmother is hospitalized and not expected to recover and he does not have authority to handle her financial affairs.
2. Inform them that she is not able to take calls and provide the number to the facility's business office.
3. Request that his number be marked as an incorrect number.
4. Do all of the above without threatening, yelling, getting snippy and above all stand and remember to smile while talking to them.
5. Be prepared to have the same discussion with each CA at least twice and talk to a new CA every six months or so as the accounts are transfered.
6. I apologize for the morbidity of the following: When your grandmother passes, get copies of the death certificate out to every CA that calls.

DC

 

[Chien]

Thank you for the defense, DC. Aside from the fact that I’m inclined to agree with your analysis, as much as anything, my response was a reaction to the ad hominem attack on the junior member.

JETX has been posting for 7 years and the junior member less than a month. But, unlike some fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants members who have come and gone, the junior member has made some thoughtful and cogent comments on other forums, without parroting what was written before. If the member realized that he was “required (?)” to cite chapter and verse or suffer derision, when adding to JETX’s observations, I suspect he could have.

Moreover, while I don’t dispute the distinctions made by the senior member, I don’t find the junior member’s observations have been refuted or mine either. Others besides the debtor can be affected by the requirements of the FDCPA, and to imply a limitation such as the original response did is a logical and factual fallacy. Unlike you, I’m waiting for a relevant analysis.

The junior member stated that collectors may be violating the fair debt collection practices act. “May” is used to indicate a certain measure of likelihood or possibility. The ad hominem attacks fail to address either the member’s speculation or my points.

Beyond that, JETX and most of the rest of us make efforts to literally provide the contents of a referenced Act, statute or citation, but it is not always practical, and URLs are provided. Look at your own signature, and JETX is numbered among us.. Is the information useful? We hope so. Are the means expedient? Yes. Does it warrant personal condemnation? I hope not or we’re all damned.

As for my own “edit”, suffice it to say that I recognize the difference between a full POA and a “Medical POA”, but I put the speculation out for discussion as an academic question, because I thought the OP’s to be a unique condition and one that I had never had reason to contemplate. I wondered if anyone had confronted it before. If a debtor becomes too incompetent to execute a legally binding full POA, will any more limited POA already in existence be sufficient to confer rights granted under the FDCPA. The FDCPA is, after all, a “consumer protection” statute, and it would not surprise me if one vested with powers to act in the consumer’s interest in other respects were not deemed to have these powers as well, if there were no individual or entity with comparable rights and the consumer now lacks the power to confer them. I can think of contrary argument was well. I think it’s interesting to consider who, if any individual or entity, could act on the consumer’s behalf. I still have neither the answer nor the authority requested.

(Finally, I automatically deduct points for gratuitous derision, the unnecessary use of capitalization, and adults using smilies, so you may have to work your way out of a hole, before any post warrants my further consideration. Ad hominem attacks are puerile and beneath the level to which this forum should aspire.)

 

[The Dali Lama]

Thanks for your replies.
We have gotten 3 calls since I posted this and I have started a log of the calls. Company name, date, and caller. Each time we have told the caller that we have no authority to pay her debts or discuss them, and that she cannot receive calls where she is at.

They have discussed the debts with me.....amount, company, etc. I say "they," but I cannot tell you which company at this point, as these conversations took place before I started logging the calls. What happens if they do discuss the debts? Should I start recording the calls? If I do, do I have to tell them that the call is being recorded?

DebtCollector:
I have only been harsh with one caller, and it was when he was being a smarta$$ (TCR).
Could you please tell me what you mean by saying that I should grow up? I have been patient, and I am now seeking advice from people in the legal profession. From my perspective, it seems that the companies that keep calling me, despite my having already explained that there's nothing for me to do regarding the matter, are the ones who should grow up. Respectfully, are you an attorney? If not I really don't need your advice.


I suppose that I can get some satisfaction in kowing that their efforts to collect the debt(s) are uselss and a waste of their time too.

Thanks again, The Dali Lama


Edit: The reason that I am creating a log of calls is so that I can include it if I do contact the State Attorney General's office.

 

[longsally111]

why not this?

Here is a thought: Change your phone number to an unlisted number. Take any correspondence that is sent and stamp it return to sender, person does not live here and go on with your life. You are not legally Liable. Why should you have to speak with them, make logs, record calls, etc????? Just do it and I promise you, you will feel better afterwards.

 

[The Dali Lama]

Well, I think I might have said something that they listened to.....

BCR, the main one currently causing the problem, has taken my number off of their calling list (for now.) When one of the collectors called I read them the log that I've been making and told them that I was reporting the company and naming all of the collectors in a letter to the TX Attorney General. The machine called one more time with a message to call a phone number. I called the number and the representative said that I was removed from their list and that after it updated (names removed/added every 24 hours) that I would receive no more calls.

It has now been almost a full business day with no calls. I'm just afraid it won't last.

The Dali Lama

 

[las365]

Good for you! I hope it lasts.