No Debtor’s Prisons

As a student of the law, I think the Court of Appeals got the case of Button v. James correct; but as a creditor’s rights attorney (as we leg breakers call ourselves when we’re feeling righteous), I certainly appreciate Judge Goffinet’s efforts.

The matter was before the court on a proceeding supplemental to a judgment entered way back during the first term of the first Bush administration — possibly even before the towers fell. In 2001, a judgment was entered against Herman Button for a little under $2,000. On January 22, 2009, Button was asked to testify as to his income and assets.

The Court: So we’re here today for you to explain what you’re going to do to pay this off.

Mr. Button: I can’t.

The Court: Okay, but you’re going to.

Mr. Button: I can’t do it.

The Court: Okay, Mr. Button.

Mr. Button: Yes, Ma’am.

The Court: For some reason we’re not communicating. Alright, you’re not hearing me for some reason. I am telling you that, yes, you will. You’re going to tell me how you’re going to go about doing that. And I’m not going to accept I cannot, and if the next words out of your mouth are I cannot, Mr. Button, then you’ll set with Mr. Glenn at the Sheriff’s Department until you find a way that, yes, you can. So what kind of payments can you make to pay this down?

Mr. Button: Five dollars ($5.00) a month.

The Court: Five dollars ($5.00) a month is—I’m going to be an old woman before this is ever paid off.

Mr. Button: That’s what I can afford, ma’am. I live on social security disability. I’ve got to pay my rent and my lights and my gas.

The Court: I’m going to order you pay twenty-five dollars ($25.00) a month until this is paid off. I’m going to show that we are to come back March 12, at 1 o’clock, at which time Miss James is going to tell me that she has already received fifty dollars ($50.00) towards this. Okay.

Mr. Button: Yeah.

The Court: Good luck to you, Mr. Button.

The court of appeals overturned the court’s order and, based purely on the record described by the court, that was entirely appropriate. There are no debtor’s prisons, and you can’t hold someone in contempt for failing to apply exempt assets to a judgment.

However, in a lot of these cases, context means a lot — as a practical matter for the judge if not in a strictly legal sense. I can’t speak as to Mr. Button because I have no idea of his situation. But, in a lot of these smaller courts in particular, the judges know the people involved and remember a fair number of even the relatively minor cases. It would not be unusual if a defendant had been in and out of court for the past 8 years proclaiming poverty and not making a bit of effort to satisfy the debt. It would also not be unusual if the debtor whose only admitted source of income was disability was, by outward appearances anyway, able bodied. In those circumstances, it would not take much more to make a judge surly than, say, evidence that the debtor was spending $100 per month or more on a pack-a-day cigarette habit or getting in trouble in other cases after drinking at a bar somewhere.

Again, I have no idea of Mr. Button’s particular situation, but none of these things I have described are all that unusual in collections cases. And, if the creditor — one Ms. James in this case — was not represented by counsel, I can see where a judge might go a bit beyond what the law strictly allows in terms of trying to help get the judgment paid.

Oh, and the Court of Appeals did not address (because it really didn’t have to) Mr. Button’s argument that he could not be compelled to make another appearance “absent a change in his circumstances.” I think that’s just wrong. One of the primary purposes of these proceedings is to obtain evidence about those circumstances. Some debtors, as it turns out, are not religious about reporting favorable changes in their circumstances to their creditors.