Do you believe anyone has the right to sue for debt? Think about it before you reply the obvious. You would not lend the money in the first place if you were not sure it would be repaid. Don't you think the world would be a better place with this law?

As I recall, we can already sue to collect on debts. Have I missed the point here?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. I think a lender should be able to sue to recover their loan. Is this what you mean, or are you talking about declaring bankruptcy?

???

I think the world (or at least the US) would be a better place if the people weren't willing to sue at the drop of a hat. I am against the passing of laws that are as frivilous as this.
as for suing for debt? who is suing? it is a bank? They would hand the debt over to a collection agency if they can't get the money. is it a credit card or a student loan? same thing. is it between people? meaning I loan Alex $500 and he never gives it back to me, do I sue him? no, simply because I don't want to perpetuate the cycle. however, I am not most people. do I heckle and or mock him and have him give me $5 or $10 here and there? you bet. basically, if it is an institution, then they hand it over to agencies whose entire purpose is getting money for debt. this debt or non-repayment of it goes on your finanical record which follows you around for many years, basically you(the debter) lose. if it is individual people, then it is a matter of trust between friends. if the friend betrays the trust (he has the money and doesn't pay you) then you don't have a friend. and again you (the debter) lose. the loaner also loses in this case.

but basically, if you have a debt and you have the money to repay or make payments on the debt and you simply aren't paying it, then you should be made to pay it. if you have a debt and you don't have the money to pay it, then no amount of court action should make you pay it. this includes if the money is tied up in medical or simply living expenses.

actually, i have "lent" people money knowing full well that i would never see it again.

i'm not really sure what your question is, though, so that's all i can say.

Yes, you should be able to sue for debt (what exactly does this mean, just loans, or back pay, non-payment of rent, etc.) But, I believe the loser should be responsible for the legal fees of the winner to some degree. That would seriously cut down on frivoluous lawsuits.

I do not feel it's possible to sue for debt with the current bankruptcy laws in place. I feel it should be harder to declare bankruptcy. And, furthermore, while I'm on my soapbox, I feel that the credit companies are offering way too much credit to everyone in the first place (one woman collected the offers she got for a year and she was offered 2.5 million dollars in credit! ridiculous!). That said, I feel that people should be able to sue for debt, but only after negotiating in good faith with the people who owe. And if the people owe can only afford $5 a month for the rest of their lives, and that will repay the debt, than the person owed the money should have to accept it and not be able to sue.

I'm not sure what law you're proposing. You want to pass a law that says anyone has the right to sue for debt? In practice, how would that be different than what we have now?

It's not clear to me exactly what the question is asking... If you have a contract stating that I owe you money, and I'm not paying it, that seems to me to be grounds for a suit. Maybe I do not understand "the way things are"...

What kind of a biased, leading survey is this?? Surveys should be phrased in a completely neutral way to get honest responses. I know I have trouble with this sometimes, but at least I try! :)

Sue for debt. Remember the debtor's prisons?? Undoubtedly you don't. They USED to sue for debt and throw people in jail until they paid. Yeah, that makes TONS of sense. The whole reason loans have higher interest rates depending on the type of loan is because they realize that not everybody can repay the loan! Ever study the Asian financial crisis? What, should we sue them all now?

I also agree with Jody - I often lend money without expecting to see it back, but am pleasantly surprised if it is. Suing has gotten way out of control.

jjg: I agree that the person taking the loan has responsibility to repay it. I was stuck with huge loans when I got divorced and I scrimped and starved to repay it, despite many friends saying I should just declare bankruptcy. But say I got injured or something and still had to care for my son. I think in those situations the person should have a final fallback of bankruptcy, and be able to be 'absolved', with of course all the penalties to credit line that go with it. To now throw that person into jail seems counterproductive. If you sued for money, obviously you wouldn't get anything if the person doesn't have it in the first place :)

Do they have the right? Yes. Would the world be a better place if they could not? For debtors, yes. For creditors, no.

If you take a loan of any sort then you are stating that you will pay it back. The taker of the loan is responsible. If you can't pay it back then don't take it. I do think that it is irresponsible for credit card companies to float large loans to those who can't afford to pay them back, but that doesn't remove the debtor's responsibility.

Lisashea: I agree. There should be a final fallback. I just don't feel that the loan agency should bear the full responsibility of the loan. A lawsuit for a bad loan results in a court enforced payment structure which matches the person's ability to pay to their debt. It's much like one of the forms of bankruptcy. Usually the debtor comes out in a better situation. This is why creditors don't sue, they harrass people with phone calls. They don't want a judge to impose a payment schedule.

Jeez, this isn't an actual question, it's a plea to agree with the surveyor's opinion, which I don't. Options would have been nice, as would a more neutral wording.

Yes.

also you would not lend the money in the first place if you didn't have it to lend--
you shouldn't write a survey question and argue it in the question itself!! put your comments in the comment section with the rest of us!! i don't necessarily think another law is the answer to all our questions!!!

Debt used to be shameful. It should be again.

seven, I don't understand you, what is this word "shameful"?

I think you can never be sure money will be repaid. You can think you're sure, you can have someone's name on a piece of paper, but if they won't pay, whatcha gonna do? I'm perfectly happy with the right to sue for debt. I agree that tossing someone in jail is a stupid way to punish debtors, but I'm perfectly happy with a court-ordered payment-plan.

if you sue that costs money....why would you put yourself deeper in debt to take care of an older one?? I dont' think I've heard of this "law you're refering too, but "when in Rome....

i really am not sure what the heck you are asking.

If you give me something on loan, and we document that you gave it to me on loan and that I have to give it back at some point, you should be entitled to take whatever action is necessary to get it back once the established deadline is passed. But the agreement has to be mutual, and if I made an agreement without my knowing you can bet I won't make the same mistake twice.

No.