Unpaid $68 dental bill costs woman her house

[heli]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g36yryrO0QTGGl9WdxAYA6hJjIWAD9E5GT580

Unpaid $68 dental bill dogs Utah homeowner

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — A Utah woman who lost title to her house over an unpaid $68 dental bill has been given a reprieve.

The Utah Court of Appeals ruled Capri Ramos is entitled to another opportunity to void the sale of her house at a county auction for $1,550.

The collection agency North American Recovery sued Ramos in 1995 over the dental bill.

She didn't contest the lawsuit, not realizing the consequences. Her house in the Salt Lake City suburb of Glendale was sold the next year to a group of investors.

On Thursday, the Utah Court of Appeals sent the case to 3rd District Court for a hearing on whether Ramos had proper notice of the sheriff's sale and whether the sale price was "grossly inadequate."

[Odin2005]

1. WTF? That is just wrong.

:grr:

[SammyWinstonJack]

2. ?

:wtf:

[KharmaTrain]

3. 1995???

There's gotta be a lot more to this story than the simple headline. It's one thing if someone had just lost their job, fell into the financial rabbit hole and the debt piled up so high that the $68 was a tipping point, but something that's been brewing for 10 years is a lot more complicated.

[babylonsister]

4. What's the matter with Utah? They also want to charge women

with murder for having miscarriages. :wtf:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7816150

Utah Women May Face Murder Charges After Miscarriages

[Leftist Agitator]

8. "What's the matter with Utah?"

Mormons.

[arthritisR_US]

32. yep. n/t

[ixion]

5. I had a client a few years back that took a couple thousand in software

deployed it, and then said they were bankrupt and couldn't pay me.

The software stayed in use, though.

I searched around in vain for an attorney or a collection agency, and was told the debt was too small.

This is a great example of the hypocrisy inherent in our system.

[Edweird]

15. Did you sue them?

[ixion]

24. that's just it: no one would take the case

I talked to both lawyers and collection agencies, and neither one was interested in "such a small amount"

This was for a nearly $2000.00 bill, mind you.

[Edweird]

28. I've sued (and won) in small claims.

It wasn't hard. A little time consuming, but worth it if only for vindication. I'd do it in heartbeat for $2,000.

[whistler162]

6. More on the story.... some one lied but who is the question.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/PersonalFinance/story?id=4896048&page=1

Was she notified/served by the Sheriff/Collection Agency/Properties Company or is there a connection between the three entities!

[Echo In Light]

7. Just one in a very long line of reasons that the US sucks on toast

[RKP5637]

9. Utah yet again. What a creepy place. n/t

[TwilightGardener]

10. While I think it was wrong to actually foreclose on her house instead of

putting a lien on it, how did this woman think she was going to get away with nothing but "intentions" to pay the rest of her bill, and then how did she miss being served a lawsuit (having been served one myself), and then how did she miss the sheriff's notice on her house? And then she continued to KNOWINGLY make mortgage payments on a house she didn't own for 10 years? WTF? The creditor and collections co. overreached, but she's a total dingbat.

[pitohui]

11. she's paid over $50K, she's not the dingbat here -- did u actually read the link?

it's obvious that she's telling the truth that she wasn't notified, because she paid over $50K on this house after the title was secretly transferred to the credit agency -- nobody would pay $50K on a house they didn't own if they knew they didn't own it

she may or may not be a "dingbat" for overlooking a final $68 payment on a dental bill in 1995 BUT there is way more here than this lady being a "dingbat"

she was clearly scammed out of her house thru some nefarious means

just because YOU were legally and properly notified when you were "served" doesn't mean that she was or that everyone is, i've personally known people who were NOT served and couldn't even find out which court the hearing was going to be held (these were forfeiture cases)

how did she "miss" the sheriff's notice on her house? seems like you're blaming the victim here, if i'm on that damn jury or i'm that damn judge, the fact that she continued to pay on the house for over a decade, in the amt of over $50K tells me who owns the house

there's some kind of skullduggery here, but let's not blame the fucking victim for having her house and more than a decade of work/payments stolen from her

there are dishonest process servers and incompetent process servers, and there are also collections people who are, let's face it, thieves and scammers -- i've been "served" papers for someone i don't know and never met, obv. a scam, what can i do but throw those papers in the trash w. a shrug???

outside law enforcement (NOT this county) needs to investigate this sheriff and this collections agency to see where the scam is or if it was a "deniable"/innocent mistake BUT the collections agency doesn't deserve one penny

the dentist has been paid off by the collections agency so he doesn't get $68

title of the house goes back to the lady

that's my ruling, and that's the decent thing to do, when i have evidence here that a lady has paid $50K on this house after the transfer

next time, the collections agency can put a lien on the house, not steal someone's house for less than $1500

really i think somebody should go to jail for this attempt at highway robbery but prob. too much time has passed

it is not illegal to be a dingbat or to lose track of one $68 final payment but it is illegal to steal someone's decade of work/investment in their home

they are trying to rob this lady of over $50K -- this is not about "dingbat" this is about fraud

[TwilightGardener]

12. Bullshit. She fucking blew off her bill to the dentist. She didn't "overlook" it.

That said, her house shouldn't have been sold out from under her--maybe your reading comprehension is lacking today, because I already said that. But I maintain she's a dingbat. She knew the house had been sold and it wasn't hers, but she continued to make payments since 1998--where did she think her money was going all those years? And unless she NEVER picks up her mail, and NEVER picks up the phone when it rings, and NEVER answers the door, it's pretty fucking hard to miss things like collections notices and eviction notices and lawsuits and sheriff's sales. She missed ALL OF THOSE?? Just because something unfair happens to someone does not mean they aren't monumentally fucking clueless. This woman is barely a functioning adult. It's not "blaming the victim" to point out that all parties involved are dumb as dirt. Most of this could have been resolved in the 90's, with a few fucking phone calls and a check.

[druidity33]

13. where do you get your information?

Because it seems like you're making all of this bullshit up. The article linked is very SCANT, which means it mentions NOT ONE THING that you just said...

:shrug:

[TwilightGardener]

14. It was a four page article.

:shrug:

[Fumesucker]

16. The article linked in the OP is six sentences.. n/t

[TwilightGardener]

17. The article I read (not sure how I accessed it) had four pages, and

had a photo of this woman and her daughters sitting on the front steps. Talked about how she blamed the sheriff's office for using the wrong legal description on her notice (which is the reason she says she didn't know it was up for auction), that she paid her mortgage even after she knew the house wasn't hers, that normally the court would just put a lien on the property instead of seizing it for sale to recover the money. I have no idea where the full article went.

[liberalhistorian]

21. Well, as someone who was a real estate paralegal for several

years, I can tell you that that is not only more than possible, it has happened a lot more than you might think and will continue to happen. Those filing foreclosures are not infallible and, frankly, I wouldn't put it past some sheriffs and investors to be in cahoots like that. It's really not that hard to do. And there are banks who are now under fire and being sued for foreclosing on the wrong houses, or using wrong descriptions (I'm looking at you, Bank of America). I'm not saying that that's what happened here, that I automatically believe the woman, but I don't doubt for one second that it's possible and have, frankly, actually seen it happen more than once in my work.

And NO ONE continues to pay a mortgage for ten years knowing that they don't have title to the house. Period.

[tammywammy]

23. She learned of the title transfer in 1998 (her story), so 3 years she didn't know it was sold

but continues to make payments.

[liberalhistorian]

25. OK, now that I've read the longer article, it seems that there

are far more questions than answers and that goes for everyone involved, including the homeowner.

First of all, it is highly unusual for a home to be sold in satisfaction of a debt that is far, far smaller than the value of the home itself. And usually most creditors, especially in those situations and especially in regards to medical debt, simply put liens on the house. The order by the judge for the house to be sold, therefore, seems highly unusual and wrong to me. As even the head of the collection agency trade group said.

Second, I'm very curious about the actions of the property group that "purchased" the home, for all of $1,550. Other than supposedly serving her with an eviction notice back in 1998, what else have they done? They've done nothing further to evict her and haven't even tried to come to any kind of a rental agreement. If she were making the mortgage payments to them, then that would make more sense, since they'd be getting a lot more in rent than what they paid for the property. But she isn't making the mortgage payments to them, she's paying off the loan that the city gave her and her first husband to purchase the property. So, they're getting nothing from her in rent and nothing from the property. and they're having to pay property taxes (at least, I assume they would, as the legal owner?), but they did nothing to evict her for three years, between 1995 and '98? That seems very strange indeed.

And, now that I think about it, what about the property taxes? The article doesn't say anything about it, but someone had to have been paying it. If she paid the property taxes during the three years between the time it was sold and the time she discovered the sale, '95 through '98, then didn't Jarceff Properties, the alleged legal owner, get a break on that, since they didn't have to pay? Or did they pay the taxes as well and the county get double taxes during that time? And who's been paying the property taxes since then?

She claims that she had an agreement with the property group that, once she paid them the amount that they paid for the house, $1,550, they would revert the title back to her. She says she did pay them, but they then refused to revert title. Did she have a written agreement with them to that effect? Does she have evidence of payment to them? Having worked with many property groups and managers for those several years of being a real estate paralegal, I've seen some pretty unscrupulous ones doing unsavory, unethical shit, so I wouldn't put it past them to have pulled a fast one on her. But then again, without anything written, there's no way to tell. And you don't make that kind of arrangement with a business and not get it in writing, that's just dumb. Because then they can screw you six ways to Sunday and there's nothing you can do about it. She might very well have been naive or dumb enough not to get something in writing, who knows at this point.

What a freakin' mess, all the way around. Too many questions for everyone, not enough answers.

[tammywammy]

30. Hey, I agree there's a lot of questions around this whole situations

Hopefully more news articles come out about it.

[liberalhistorian]

33. She had to continue to make the payments no matter what

because it was a city loan and not a bank or mortgage lender mortgage.

That's yet another thing that puzzles me about this. The city would have normally, with these kinds of loans, have had some kind of a lien attached to the home until the city-backed loan was paid off. It would have been listed on the title documents, which should have been pulled before it was ordered to be sold and as part of the title transfer process. And when a person or group purchases a property, liens and loans on that property need to be paid off prior to the transfer of title. But there's no indication of that here, at least not from the article.

That's yet another thing that's puzzling about the very strange order by the judge to sell the home for a debt much smaller than the value of the home, and without a lien being attached to it by the creditor. Usually, for such debts, the judge will order a "debtor's examination", which means the debtor has to appear in court to answer questions regarding assets and liabilities. There's no indication here that any such exam was ordered or took place. The original judge is looking mighty strange here, too, as is everyone involved, including, of course, the woman.

[tammywammy]

20. The article linked in post 6 is 4 pages long. n/t

[liberalhistorian]

18. Where are you getting that? 'Cause the article at the link

is less than half a page total and gives little information.

And I reiterate yet again a major belief of mine, which is that the Fair Credit Reporting Act needs to be changed so that medical and dental bills CANNOT be reported on credit reports and the regulations on their collections must be significantly tightened. No medical creditor should be permitted to put a lien on a house or other major asset, period.

[TwilightGardener]

19. See post right above yours--I somehow read a longer article--not sure

what I clicked on.

[liberalhistorian]

22. OK, I see now that post 6 has a link to an ABC

News business story, that must be what you're referring to.

[truedelphi]

29. You havr never dealt with the subset of Mormons who set up these types of

Scams. In these tyes of cases, there is a whole group of people who are in the scam together, and even judges get bought off.

A recent "Dateline" or "48 Hours" had one show featuring the scam of a group of Mormons who went to Fiji and set up an "adoption agency" and took little kids from very poor families in Fiji.

The parents of the little kids were told that their chidlren were being fostered out to families in the USA, in order for the children to get a decent education. But they were not being told that they would never see their children again.

It was only when some of the American adopting families experienced how their adoptive children would be shrieking away night after night, crying for their families, that they investigated. (Part of the reason they investigated into the kids' backgrounds was they had been told their children were orphans. But what orphan screams night after night to be returned to its parents?)

In the end, some American families made a point of "sharing" their adopted child with the blood parents in Fiji. And some parents returned the kids to the blood parents.

And back in Fiji, one father had been suing for his child to be returned, but teh judge was paid to say that this father had never done any paperwork.

Meanwhile back in Utah, the judge that overheard the case, which included all the chilling testimony of the adopting American parents, gave the offending Mormons only a slap on the wrist.

Probation and a small fine.

[TwilightGardener]

31. Well, I've lived in Utah, and can't say I've experienced anything bad

because of the Mormons. Although I heard some bad stuff from other military stationed there--like how it was difficult to purchase a decent home or property in Utah as a non-Mormon, because the Mormons give each other "deals" and want to keep non-Mormons out of their neighborhoods. The Mormons I knew personally wouldn't have done that, they were nice. So...hard to say.

[liberalhistorian]

26. As far as the mortgage goes, according to the longer article,

it wasn't actually to a bank or mortgage company, it was to the city for a first-time homeowners loan to her and her first husband. Those loans have to be repaid whether you have the house or not, it's a bit different than what we think of as a mortgage.

Secondly, many, many people have "intentions" to pay small medical bills like that, but often they slip by the wayside for a variety of reasons. Most judges don't order a house to be sold for such a small debt, especially when there's no lien filed first against the house, so that, right there, is a very unusual step. I've been in the legal field a long time and that's the first I've heard of that, like others in the article said. Most collection agencies, also, will not bother with such a small amount, since it costs more to file and collect than it's worth, and most will contact you many times before even attempting to go to court or just putting it on your credit. But not all of them do, many can be quite aggressive, so that suddenly they're taking major assets, or trying to, before you even know what's happening. It just depends on the agency. 'Course I happen to believe that the FCRA should be changed to forbid the reporting of medical bills on credit reports entirely, they're different from "regular" bills.

[warm regards]

27. 1995...?

I don't understand. Couldn't she have set up a payment plan?

$4.53 per year seems doable.