contractor bankruptcy

Fine points of the law (bankruptcy version)
Contractor steals customer's $39k. Customer has contractor arrested, wins judgment, collects $25k immediate restitution. Then, another judge forces rip-ee to give it all back. That's the law. (Thief had filed for bankruptcy and by law couldn't be forced to pay out any more money to individual creditors, and the second judge said rip-ee's having thief arrested was basically extorting that $25k payout.) (Bonus: Rip-ee also has to pay thief's legal fees!) Associated Press via MSNBC
     Posted By: Chuck - Tue Sep 23, 2008
     Category:





Comments
(In)Justice at work again, I see. :roll:
Posted by KW in Dallas, TX on 09/23/08 at 10:21 AM
Hmm. As outrageous as the ruling sounds, I'm not sure I believe the customer's claim that he never received the notice of the contractor's bankruptcy filing in the mail. Bankruptcy is always unfair to the creditor left without their money, but that's just the way it is. Imagine if it was a credit card company trying to arrest someone who owed them money, after the person had filed bankruptcy.
Posted by Alex on 09/23/08 at 10:54 AM
The fact the customer has to pay the contractor's legal fees just seems like pouring salt on the wound: jerk salt.
Posted by kingmonkey in Athens, Ontario on 09/23/08 at 12:31 PM
It may sound like a double stadard but I think it's entirely different if Visa doesn't get their money versus if an individual doesn't get paid back.
Posted by Jules in Connecticut on 09/23/08 at 12:56 PM
>>I think it's entirely different if Visa doesn't get their money versus if an individual doesn't get paid back<<

It's different because Visa can afford to take the loss. But from a legal point of view, that's irrelevant.
Posted by Alex on 09/23/08 at 03:12 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.