*****Please read the 2 posts below and give your opinion in 250 words each.****
The case of Henson, Ricky, et al. v. Santander Consumer USA, et al., Docket No. 16-349
Cited as 582 U.S. _ 2017. Decided June 12, 2017
What come into play between these company, fall under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, [1] allowing private lawsuits and heavy fines created to stop cunning practice of debt collectors, 15 U.S C. § 1692a (6).[2] “a debt owed or due to another”[3] Henson, the petitioner acquired a loan from CitiFinancial Auto to buy cars and then later defaulted on the loans, Santander Consumer Id. respondent purchased the defaulted loan from CitiFinancial and sought to collect, the petitioners believe Santander violated the collection Act. under the district court and Fourth Circuit court stated, “Santander didn’t qualify as a debt collector” Santander sometimes did not attempt to collect debts “owed from another” [4] but collect debt only from the ones it purchased and owned. [5]
Henson, and petitioners debated on the statute’s plain meaning of the word “owed” [6] a past participle of the verb “to owe,” which they interpret to have a different meaning in statute. petitioners contend that their interpretation best further the Act’s. perceived purposes. the final decision in this case has not been determined yet, both side have an argument able fight. Congress has not address this issues at hand, whether a third party such as Santander is legally with its rights to collect from the petitioners, or are the petitioners within their rights, some circuit courts have gone in favor of Santander. [7]
This argument must first be decided among the district court and Fourth Circuit and then on to the final decision of the United States Supreme Court. [8] a deciding issue is whether Santander’s conduct falls within the Fair-Debt Collection Practices Act. statutory language as to define the term “debt collector” [9] to allow anyone who “regularly collect or attempts to collect, a debt owed or due to another.” [10] 15 U.S. C. § 1692a (6). [11]
When all said and done, I believe that if a person or anyone of legal age, sign a written contract, then it became a legal tender a debt owed. if you later default on the loan, the debt is still owed and must be repaid, laws are constantly changing, what once had no merits, today it has merit, I don’t agree with this method because the third party add extra fees and taxes to the account, the first loan originator should just write the account off to IRS and not sell, in business there are risk one must take, prepare yourselves for the unexpected. if you borrow keep in mind the creditors want their money too.
In the decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, in argument between the two the court held “that a company may collect debts it purchased without triggering the statutory definition of “debt collector” in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FCDPA). [12]
Second Post:
Virginia v. Leblanc
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), a state prisoner is eligible for federal habeas relief if the underlying state court merits ruling was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law” as determined by this Court. [1]
The question presented is whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the state court’s ruling involved an unreasonable application of this Court’s holding.[2]
On July 6, 1999, respondent Dennis LeBlanc raped a 62year-old woman. He was 16 at the time. In 2003, a state trial court sentenced him to life in prison for his crimes. In the 1990’s, Virginia had, for felony offenders, abolished parole that followed a traditional framework. [3] As a form of replacement, Virginia enacted its so-called “geriatric release” program, which allows older inmates to receive conditional release under some circumstances.[4]
While the court decided that even though he is still young that he should be allowed some eventual freedom. He should be allowed to have the opportunity to be somewhat free since his violation was at the age of 16. The court has denied because they feel that he is not old enough for being able to go out in the real world and behave.
“Any person serving a sentence imposed upon a conviction for a felony offense . . . (i) who has reached the age of sixty-five or older and who has served at least five years of the sentence imposed or (ii) who has reached the age of sixty or older and who has served at least ten years of the sentence imposed may petition the Parole Board for conditional release.”[5]
By the way it sounds as if this was his only offense. He was 16 at the time of this offense and I feel that even though he might do it again, we should give him the benefit of the doubt and give him the release that he needs to be able to adjust to his new adventure. But, even though he has grown to the current jail system, it might be hard to adjust to this new life. He has been there for quite a while.
The court even said, “to deny geriatric release deprives juvenile non-homicide offenders a meaningful opportunity to seek parole and that juveniles cannot seek geriatric release until they have spent at least four decades in.” [6] In this case, I feel that it should be given some sort of extension and given him a release that should be carefully watched and maybe in some sort of house that he would have to have stay in and be carefully monitored be watched over and be carefully monitored.
With this case even though they have not finished with it that I feel they should have at least given an opportunity.
