For many here in the Twin Cities and across the U.S., the sound of the telephone ringing carries with it a sense of dread.
It could be a debt collector seeking payment on a long-overdue bill.
Debt collection practices are controversial. Although federal law sets rules for collectors, there have been more than a few charges that very aggressive debt collectors have pushed the rules to the limit and, at times, stepped over the bounds of law.
The U.S. Supreme Court this week heard arguments over one contesting practice. The case involves an Alabama woman named Aleida Johnson who has a 10-year-old $1,879 debt to a retailer. The debt was subsequently purchased by a debt collector.
Alabama has a six-year statute of limitations on unpaid debts. Johnson filed for bankruptcy in 2014, but during the process the collector filed a claim to get the money-all creditor claims are generally considered valid under the bankruptcy code-even though Johnson was not legally required to make the debt good under state law.
Johnson's attorneys say the company's collection efforts violate the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by knowingly claiming a debt during bankruptcy proceedings where collection is barred by state time limitations.
The debt collector argues it is standard practice in the industry to keep up collection efforts, hoping the debtor voluntarily makes payment. They also claim bankruptcy law and the FDCPA are in conflict on the matter.
During Tuesday's arguments three of the four more liberal justices appeared to be sympathetic to Johnson. But Justice Stephen Breyer and the four more conservative justices questioned setting a precedent that might unduly limit the actions of collection agencies.
People should pay their debts if they are able. But there are reasons for limits on collections and the option of bankruptcy. The case seems clear to us. Alabama law sets a six-year limit on collecting a debt. And that's where the matter should end. The debt collector's claim appears to be be an attempt to get around consumer protections.
We can't say what the court will decide. Or whether their decision will make those calls come even more frequently.