Debtors and Creditors - Module 1 of 5
Module 1: Debtors and Creditors
The Debtor-Creditor Landscape
Debt is a very important part
of our economy. Nearly every American owes some kind of debt to someone else.
These debts come in all shapes and sizes -- home mortgages, credit cards,
automobile loans or leases, apartment leases, medical bills, student loans and
taxes are all examples.
Consumer debt is a primary
engine of the United States economy. As of 2019, total debt in the United
States added up to almost $4 trillion in an annual economy of about $20 trillion.[1] Just credit card and other
revolving debt exceeded $1 trillion.[2] In 2018, Americans
borrowed about $88 billion to pay for healthcare alone.[3]
The largest percentage of debt
is held in home mortgages (about a third of total debt), followed by student
loans, credit cards, automobile loans and leases and medical debt. Medical debt
is the number one cause of bankruptcy.[4] To break that down
individually, the average American is about $12,000 in debt, corresponding to
about a quarter of the average income. The economy, both household and
national, runs well when debts get paid on time. When they are not paid on
time, litigation may result, and debtor-creditor law is engaged.
This course presents an
overview of the legal relationship between debtors and creditors. Specifically,
it is about what happens when a debtor-creditor relationship is established by
the parties and then broken by one of them. The course is not about how those
relationships are established - that is the purview of contract law and some other
laws, such as torts and taxation. The course is, for the most part, about
unsecured debt obligations. Secured obligations are covered by our video-course
on secured transactions.
In this module, we’ll overview
many of the laws that affect this area, including those coming from common law,
state law and federal law.
A debtor is a person or other legal entity who owes money or services
to another person or company. This party to whom the debt is owed is called the
creditor. The money or service that
the debtor owes to the creditor is called the debt or the obligation. A
debtor may also be referred to as the obligor
and the creditor, the obligee.
A debtor’s obligation can
arise from various circumstances, including loans, extensions of credit, taxes,
leases, medical bills and tort claims for damages. Debts can be written or oral,
and agreements can be express or implied, in accordance with contract
laws. Debts can also be created by law, as in taxation or when a defendant
loses a court case.
Debts can be secured by collateral,
such as a house or car, or they can be unsecured. Unsecured debts like credit
card debts, personal taxes and unsecured loans, can start as unsecured and
become secured through actions of law, as when an enforcement of judgment
action is filed, and a lien attached, or property seized to satisfy a judgment
debt.
Debtor-Creditor Law
The debtor-creditor
relationship consists of both rights and
duties. “Rights” describe what is
owed to the creditor, such as the right to repayment of a loan or the right of
a landlord to enter property if the rent is not paid. “Duties” describe the
required actions of the debtor, such as the duty to pay taxes or to repay loans.
However, those roles may be expanded under some state and federal statutes. For
example, under federal law, a creditor has the right to collect on a debt, but
has the duty to report accurate information to credit reporting agencies.
Likewise, a debtor has the duty to repay a debt, but has the right to live free
from telephone harassment in the collection efforts for that debt.
There are numerous federal and
state laws that deal with the rights and obligations of debtors and creditors.
These laws stretch back virtually to the beginning of money and trade, but
modern laws have become primarily concerned with consumer protection. They
touch other areas of the law as well, such as taxation and landlord-tenant law.
Debtor-Creditor law is civil in
nature, though criminal laws may be involved in cases involving certain kinds
of fraud. Being unable to pay a debt is not a criminal offense, although owing
money to the government in the form of unpaid fines or taxes can trigger
contempt charges that can land a person in jail. Still, the “debtors’ prisons”
of the eras of Charles Dickens and Daniel Defoe are relics of the past. Dickens
wrote three books in which protagonists went to prison because they could not
pay their debts. This era of law gave rise to such phrases as “the poorhouse.”
One famous debtor’s prison was called “Clink,” and gave rise to the phrase
“being thrown in the clink.”
Debtor’s prisons originated in
England in medieval times and were operating until the country passed the
Debtor’s Act in 1869.[5] Other countries around the
world followed suit, and the United States has never allowed formal debtor’s
prison.
Unlike tort and contract law,
most debtor-creditor law is statutory, state or federal. That is especially
true when it comes to protecting debtors from unfair collection practices, as in
the case of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.[6] However, there are a few
common law causes of action which can limit the collection process, even if
they are rarely used or successful. They typically operate where debtor and
credit law intersects the law of contracts and torts.
Applicable Torts
Before consumer protection and
debtor protection statutes were created, it was difficult for a debtor to respond
against creditor bad behavior like persistent phone calls, home visits and the
like. Debtors through the years have responded to this behavior by filing
lawsuits against obnoxious creditors under several tort theories, including defamation,
invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Defamation is a
tort that means making false statements
about another that are damaging to reputation. If the defamatory statement is printed
or broadcast over media, it is called libel. Otherwise, it is called it is slander[7].
An example of this tort in the
debt collection process could be publishing a notice in a newspaper that a
person owes a debt when, in fact, there is no debt, or when the amount of the
debt is incorrect. Truth is a defense to this tort, so there is no cause of
action, for instance, for publicizing a true debt. In addition, an element of
this tort is damages, so a plaintiff would have to prove that the false
information caused some kind of damage to succeed.
Invasion of privacy has several
applications, including public disclosure of private facts, wrongful intrusion,
misappropriation of a person’s name or likeness and casting a person in a false
light.[8] This tort can be used if
collection practices are egregious.[9] Unlike defamation,
invasion of privacy can apply where true information is released. Actual
damages are also required of this tort, such as loss of business.
Invasion of privacy is
sometimes alleged where the creditor has contacted the debtor’s place of
employment and informed the employer of the debt. While a creditor may contact
an employer of a debtor for legitimate purposes, such as effecting a wage
garnishment and to confirm information provided by the debtor, courts have
found that egregious behavior, such as multiple harassing contacts can amount
to invasion of privacy.
Courts have also found for the
debtor in invasion of privacy cases where the creditor has contacted the
debtor’s neighbors, published the debt in a local newspaper or posted a notice
of the debt at the debtor’s place of employment.
Invasion of privacy for
intrusion on the solitude of the debtor can apply when debt collection efforts
rise to the level of harassment. For example, a creditor or debt collector may
not camp out in front of the debtor’s house, constantly knock on the door,
constantly phone, follow the debtor around, harass the debtor’s family and so
on. Debtors who are experiencing that sort of harassment may seek a restraining
order.
Beyond invasion of privacy, extreme
harassment can constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress,
which can bring compensatory and punitive damages. This means the plaintiff acts outrageously with the intention of
causing the defendant to suffer severe emotional distress.[10] This
may include, for example, the collector threatening physical harm to a
plaintiff or threats of financial harms that are outlandish or unrealistic. For
example, threatening to sue if the debtor doesn’t pay a debt is legal, but
threatening to “make it so that you’ll never get a loan or job in this town
again” may constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress. The
behavior must be so severe that “it could be expected to adversely affect
mental health.” It may also take the form of behavior that seems
designed to disrupt the debtor’s life rather than realistically trying to
collect a debt.
This cause of action is
difficult to prove in many jurisdictions, often requiring “actual damages” as
an element of the tort. These damages may be proved by medical bills from a
psychotherapist who could testify that the harassment caused the debtor to seek
therapy.
While these common law causes
of action remain available to harassed debtors, many state and federal consumer
protection laws also provide their own civil actions against creditors and debt
collectors, with some statutes pre-empting or rendering unnecessary these
common law torts.
Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors
Sometimes, debtors may agree
to give something to creditors in exchange for some relaxation of collection
efforts. For example, the debtor might give an unsecured creditor a security
interest in his car in exchange for the creditor’s agreement to stop collection
actions for three months.
On common type of transfer of
property interests for the benefit of creditors is the “assignment for the benefit
of the creditors.”[11] The debtor assigns the
title to a piece of property to a trustee for a liquidation sale for the
benefit of debtors.
For example, assume Bob is a
debtor who owns a building. Bob owes money to multiple creditors and is having
trouble paying all of them on schedule. Bob could assign or transfer ownership
of the building under these laws to Nancy, who is then put in the legal
position of a trustee. Nancy would then be tasked with selling the building and
distributing the proceeds of the sale to the creditors. In doing so, she is
required to follow the same state fiduciary laws as any other trustee. The
process is very similar to the creation of a trust and is often governed by a
state’s trust laws.[12]
The concept works similarly to
a bankruptcy proceeding, but is simpler, applies only to the building and does
not require court supervision. Of course, unlike a bankruptcy filing, this
maneuver does nothing to stop other collection efforts. Still, the assignment
can be used as a way to avoid bankruptcy if the debtor’s financial life can be
helped with these simpler transactions.[13]
After the sale of the
property, the trustee must distribute the proceeds from the sale in order of legal
priority. This is usually in the order that the debts were created. If the
trustee favors some creditors over others in a manner to which they are not
legally entitled, that may constitute a fraudulent conveyance, and it may be
unwound by a court.
If there is a shortfall in
that not all debts are paid completely, the remaining debts are still owed to
the various creditors. Unlike a bankruptcy proceeding, there is usually no
discharge of remaining debt after liquidation of the property. Any attempt by
the debtor or trustee to discharge an unpaid debt under a common law assignment
may be considered a fraudulent conveyance.
States that allow this kind of
action generally do not require that the creditors approve the assignment, sale
and distribution. On the other hand, the entire process is sometimes considered
unnecessary, since the debtor can just sell the property and distribute the
funds itself. Still, it is a solution that is available to debtors that may
provide some organization and process to satisfying an array of debts.
Assignments for the benefit of
creditors are now regulated in most states, while in others, they are governed
solely by common law rules.[14] In some states, debtors
may choose between “common law” assignments and “statutory” assignments.
Differences between “common
law” assignments and “statutory” assignments include:
-- Most
state statutes do not allow the trustee to determine preferences among the
creditors, while the common law does allow this. This means that, under most
state laws, the trustee has virtually no control over which creditors get paid
when. State law governs the order of payment. Secured creditors and employees owed unpaid
wages generally get paid first, and then payments to unsecured creditors are distributed
proportionately.
-- Virtually
all state statutes require recording the assignment, filing schedules of assets
and liabilities, bonds to be secured by the trustees and notice to the
creditors.[15]
-- Some
state laws allow the discharge of a debt in the case of a shortfall. Some
commentators feel that this kind of law is unconstitutional, because it seems
to usurp bankruptcy laws. Bankruptcy law is exclusively reserved for the US
Congress by the Constitution.[16] However, the Supreme
Court has determined that debt discharge may be allowed without interfering with
federal powers of bankruptcy law[17].
Creditors, though, do have one
way of making sure that the sale proceeds are distributed fairly: They can try
to force the debtor into involuntary bankruptcy, or threaten to do so if they
perceive unfair conduct by the debtor or trustee. Because of that possibility,
any debtor who chooses to assign property needs to make sure that the process
is fair to all parties.
Workouts
Debtors and creditors are
always free to modify their debt terms by agreement. In the case of one debtor
with multiple creditors, there are several types of agreements that can be
negotiated, all with an eye towards avoiding bankruptcy. These are called workouts. A workout is a written
contract between a debtor and multiple creditors. Workouts, allowable under
common and state debtor-creditor laws, are controlled by contract law. They
require the participation of two or more creditors because of contract
consideration requirements.
The first type of workout
between a debtor and multiple creditors is called a composition. This is an agreement between a debtor and two or more
creditors that each creditor will take less than the full amount owed in
settlement of the debt. The second type of workout is an extension, where the time to pay the debts is extended for a
specified period.
One problem that can arise
with workouts, especially under common law, is where not all creditors participate
in the process. This is tantamount to a secret agreement or “preference,” which
may not be allowed under debtor-creditor law. In that case, a creditor who is
not party to the workout can void the agreement. Again, any unhappy creditors
can force the debtor into involuntary bankruptcy, so it is in everybody’s best
interests to keep all agreements above board.
In our next module, we’ll work
through the litany of state law concepts that define debtor-creditor law.
[3] Gallup survey, Jan.- Feb. 2019. Reported at USA Today April 2, 2019; http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/americans-borrowed-usd88-billion-for-health-expenses-in-2018.html
[4] The Motley Fool, citing a Comet Finance study published Feb. 2018; https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/02/15/its-official-most-americans-are-currently-in-debt.aspx
[12] Bankruptcy and Related Law in a Nutshell, 9th Ed. (2107), in general pp. 461-472.West Academic Publishing.
[14] See General Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors, G. L. Berman (4th ed.) for a complete state-by-state analysis.
[15] See, ex. Florida S. Chap 727.; California Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 493.101-494.060 and Secs. 1800-1802.
[17] Johnsonv. Starr, 287 U.S. 527 (1933); International Shoe Co. v. Pinkus, 278 U.S. 261 (1929) Int'l Shoe Co.v. Pinkus, 278 U.S. 261 (1929)