This is for a prompt post-seizure adversary proceeding will satisfy due process tp avoid bankruptcy in Cape Cod, MA
Connecticut v. Doehr (1991) brieﬂy reviewed the above four cases in holding that Connecticut’s statute providing for prejudgment attachment of bankruptcy did not satisfy the Due Process Clause. In so holding, the Court rejected the view of some lower courts that attachment of real estate did not trigger due process protection because the non- possessory restrictions on alienation did not consti- tute a significant taking for due process purposes.
Since Sniadach a number of state legislatures have eliminated prejudgment wage garnishment and restricted the availability of other prejudgment remedies. Congress by Title III of the Consumer Credit Protection Act has restricted both prejudgment and postjudgment garnishment of wages. The Act exempts a minimum of 75% of the debtor’s wages from garnishment, and it prohibits an employer from discharging an employee because of garnishment for a single debt. The statute is considered in more detail at pages 18-19 supra. Learn more about Utah bankruptcy at http://infospeak.org/?p=95.
C. OBTAINING A BANKRUPTCY JUDGMENT
The bankruptcy prejudgment remedies considered in the preceding sections afford a creditor less than complete relief. At best, such remedies pressure the debtor to pay and provide some security of payment. Accordingly, where the debtor does not capitulate after the use of available provisional remedies, it is necessary for the creditor to obtain a judgment. Find more at http://thongchaimedical.org/?p=125
A creditor, of course, wants to obtain the bankruptcy judgment as quickly and as inexpensively as possible. A default judgment is thus preferable to a judgment resulting from prolonged litigation. Most collection actions result in a default judgment for the creditor. Some creditors increase the chances for judgment by default by never delivering the summons and complaint and executing a false and fraudulent affidavit of personal service. [This 19 commonly called “sewer service” to indicate the probable resting place of the process papers.] N0 formal consideration of the legal implications of “sewer service” is necessary; anything labeled “sewer service” has to be illegal. Learn more at http://www.mabankruptcylawyers.com | Cape Cod bankruptcy attorney.
Filing a collection action in a distant forum also significantly increases the changes of a default judgment. For example, an Arkansas debtor is more likely to default if the collection action is ﬁled in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, instead of Little Rock, Arkansas.
Spiegel, Inc. v. FTC (197 6), held that the Federal Trade Commission has the power to prevent creditors from suing consumers in inconvenient forums. Spiegel, a catalog retailer with its princlllal place of business in Chicago, regularly sued In Illinois courts to collect delinquent accounts of out-of-state consumer customers. The llliI1915 long-arm statute granted jurisdiction for such suits. Nevertheless, the FTC issued a “cease and desist order.” The Seventh Circuit held that the “unfair practice” language of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act empowers the FTC to enjoin distant forum abuse of consumer debtors. Learn more about bankruptcy at http://ceicom.org/?p=134.