Only for work and grocery store. If a person doesn't pay child support, they shouldn't be out for a night on the town. Pay for your kids and not expect to offload responsibilities.

I have been a practicing attorney in Virginia since 1995 and have extensive experience in consumer debt collection. I urge the subcommittee/committee members to vote against HB 444 as currently written. While I appreciate the goal of protecting consumers in the collection process, the proposed adoption of the Uniform Act is an unfortunate attempt to have a one-size-fits-all approach to varying types of consumer debt for which all the requirements do not necessarily make sense or apply. In addition, it conflicts with not only longstanding existing court rules and procedures in Virginia but also is inconsistent with similar consumer protections already in place under the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and related federal regulations such as Regulation F. This is a crucial issue because federal courts have held that attorney debt collectors can be held liable for violating the FDCPA even if the debt collector actions were taken to comply with inconsistent provisions of state law. Here are just a few examples of specific issues: 1) the FCDPA already requires disclosure of initial debt balance in a 30-day "Validation Notice." There is no need to provide similar and in some cases conflicting information later in the collection process that can cause confusion for the consumer. 2) the proposed legislation would require significant additional case-specific information to be included on the Complaint (in addition to generic information to be provided on a separate notice prepared by the state). In GDC practice, there is no space (and not enough space) to include that information on the Warrant in Debt, thus basically converting GDC debt collection to a more formal pleadings practice similar to a Circuit Court Complaint. 3) It would require listing on the Warrant in Debt the consumer's address listed in the creditor's records. However, the address on the Warrant in Debt must be the address for service of process, which can be different from the last known address in the creditor's records (e.g., due to the consumer moving). 4) It would require listing the "outstanding balance" on the Complaint but that term is defined as the debt owed "at the time of default". The Complaint must instead list the current balance being sued for, which is often different from the amount due at default due to, for instance, subsequent creditor-imposed late fees and other collection costs allowed by contract, subsequent consumer payments applied to the debt balance, or subsequent principal debt continuing to accrue atter the initial default (such as monthly HOA/Condo dues that continue to accrue when the consumer remains the lot/unit owner). 5) It would require listing the creditor's account number on the Warrant in Debt but not all creditors use an account number. 6) Several of the generic disclosures that would be required to be included on a separate state-prepared form would not be applicable to all debt collection cases or circumstances, and thus can cause confusion to the consumer and expose the attorney debt collector to potential FDCPA claims. 7) the legislation exempts from applicability debt that is "secured by real or personal property" but there are often some amounts included in the total debt balance that are not secured by the deed of trust or other recorded lien. This exemption should instead read "secured in whole or in part by real or personal property." Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members of the Subcommittee, I’m Eshaan Kawlra with the Pew Charitable Trusts, and I’m testifying in support of HB 444. Our research on debt collection lawsuits shows that consumers around the country often don’t understand who is suing them or what they’re being sued for, especially when lawsuits are brought by third-parties (which happens in roughly half of all cases filed in Virginia). HB 444 provides a simple fix to alleviate this confusion, making it more likely that consumers can resolve their cases if they are inaccurate or enter a payment plan they can afford. Further, HB 444 recognizes that most consumers don’t have lawyers, and puts the onus on courts to review plaintiff documentation to ensure filings are sufficient before entering default judgments.

Please see the Uniform Law Commission's attached support letter for HB 444. Thank you for your consideration of the bill.

I am a lawyer who lives in Mechanicsville (Hanover County) and practices in the City of Richmond. My comments to HB444 are constructive, offered only to avoid confusion or correct errors (either as to Virginia law or transcription of the Model Act). I suggest the following edits: Line 66: “before default” should be changed to “the date of default” REASON: This change conforms to the Model Act. Line 78: “charge of” should be changed to “charge off” REASON: typo Line 78: “before default” should be changed to “after default” REASON: This change conforms to the Model Act. Line 81: Add “a copy of” to the end of the line, so that it reads “shall attach to the complaint or amended complaint a copy of” REASON: This avoids the issue of requiring “original” documents in an age when photocopies, scans, and electronic documents are ubiquitous. Line 98: “at least 20 years” should be changed to “at least 10 years” REASON: This change is needed to reflect current Virginia law. Line 124: “at least 20 years” should be changed to “at least 10 years” REASON: This change is needed to reflect current Virginia law. Finally, Lines 59-60 are confusing. These lines require a complaint to state “Each name and address of the consumer in the records of the creditor at the time of charge off…” Does this mean the complaint must state every name variation it has in its file, plus all old addresses? “Record” has an extremely broad definition, so if a creditor pulls a credit report, does that credit report become a record of the creditor, thus requiring the creditor to regurgitate all aliases and married names and all past addresses and potential addresses of the consumer? Much confusion could be avoided by requiring only the full name and last known address of the consumer as reflected in the creditor’s records. Thank you for your consideration.

Comments Document

See attached Memo of Support. This trade association representing over 600 members in the greater credit industry supports HB 444.

Speaking on my own behalf and not the Charlottesville Planning Commission, though I would note that I was an individually named defendant in White v Charlottesville et al which successfully overturned the Charlottesville zoning code for a time, creating a tremendous burden on the public and some small anxiety for me personally. I understand Delegate Simon is working on updated language to introduce reasonable standing guidance for locality wide rezonings like we are increasingly seeing. It is best practice to be comprehensive and accurate in regulating land use and the current litigation free for all is a powerful financial and procedural disincentive to properly maintain code to meet changing public needs. There is a necessary bias to avoid the most litigious areas. It is increasingly understood that every zoning action will likely face a lawsuit, which may explain all of the sheds and fence requests we have seen in Charlottesville in recent years. Please do what you can to support the ability of localities to maintain good code. If we cannot maintain good code, we should not have it. Thank you, Lyle Solla-Yates Charlottesville, Virginia

The City of Falls Church supports HB447 to clarify third-party standing in litigation. This is consistent with the City Council's Adopted Legislative Positions.

Thank you for allowing me to testify here today in support of HB1401 on behalf of the County. HB1401 proposes a small but important technical change to VA Code on Eminent Domain. A bill passed last year made various amendments to this code, including the requirements for conveying information to property owners in the event of a Certificate of Take; with the intent of ensuring the property owners were fairly and clearly informed of property impacts. The issue is that one of the provisions requires the information to be presented in a “plat, drawing or plan” and following a strict literal interpretation of the law requires a condemnor to provide the information in only one of these document formats. Each format is best suited to convey different property and project information and when putting it into a different document type, makes the information more difficult to understand. This creates instances where following the letter of the law conflicts with the intent of the law. In addition, this adds complications in the recordation of plats because they contain information typically included. HB1401 simply clarifies that the condemnor may provide the information in one or more plat, drawing, or plans, and removes a technical barrier in the process while preserving the intent of the code. Thank you for your consideration.

As a lawyer, I oppose this bill because limiting the life of a general district court judgment to 10 years, with no ability to extend it, is unfair to judgment creditors, many of which are small businesses that provided services for which they were not paid. The cumulative effect of statutes that protect more and more debtor assets from the effect of judgments is to make judgments harder to collect, requiring more time to collect them. Last year, for instance, the General Assembly passed the Medical Debt Protection Act, which will prohibit ALL garnishment of medical debt beginning in July. This year, the GA is considering a bill that will protect other debtors from bank garnishments by exempting a large amount in their accounts. Many other exemptions and protections already exist for debtors who, for whatever reason, did not pay their bills. If a creditor has a judgment against a self-employed debtor no longer concerned about wage or bank garnishment, collection options are extremely limited. Due to restrictions on enforcement of liens against real property and, in the case of medical debt, even the placement of liens on personal property, a judgment may not be paid until the debtor voluntarily sells or refinances a home. Limiting the ability of a creditor to extend the judgment beyond 10 years eliminates even that slim chance of recovery and further reduces the value of judgments. A big difference exists between legislation that protects debtors against unfair credit practices, unfair trade practices, misleading debt collectors, etc. and legislation that amounts to little more than helping debtors evade their creditors and just debts. Judgment creditors often are NOT big lenders and debt buyers but instead are your constituent business owners who provide services to other of your constituents.