Wash Post: Credit Card Penalties, Fees Bury Debtors

Credit Card Penalties, Fees Bury Debtors Senate Nears Action On Bankruptcy Curbs
By Kathleen Day and Caroline E. Mayer Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, March 6, 2005; Page A01
For more than two years, special-education teacher Fatemeh Hosseini worked a second job to keep up with the $2,000 in monthly payments she collectively sent to five banks to try to pay $25,000 in credit card debt.
Even though she had not used the cards to buy anything more, her debt had nearly doubled to $49,574 by the time the Sunnyvale, Calif., resident filed for bankruptcy last June. That is because Hosseini's payments sometimes were tardy, triggering late fees ranging from $25 to $50 and doubling interest rates to nearly 30 percent. When the additional costs pushed her balance over her credit limit, the credit card companies added more penalties.
"I was really trying hard to make minimum payments," said Hosseini, whose financial problems began in the late 1990s when her husband left her and their three children. "All of my salary was going to the credit card companies, but there was no change in the balances because of that interest and those penalties."
Punitive charges -- penalty fees and sharply higher interest rates after a payment is late -- compound the problems of many financially strapped consumers, sometimes making it impossible for them to dig their way out of debt and pushing them into bankruptcy.
The Senate is to vote as soon as this week on a bill that would make it harder for individuals to wipe out debt through bankruptcy. The Senate last week voted down several amendments intended to curb excessive fees and other practices that critics of the industry say are abusive. House leaders say they will act soon after that, and President Bush has said he supports the bill.
Bankruptcy experts say that too often, by the time an individual has filed for bankruptcy or is hauled into court by creditors, he or she has repaid an amount equal to their original credit card debt plus double-digit interest, but still owes hundreds or thousands of dollars because of penalties.
"How is it that the person who wants to do right ends up so worse off?" Cleveland Municipal Judge Robert J. Triozzi said last fall when he ruled against Discover in the company's breach-of-contract suit against another struggling credit cardholder, Ruth M. Owens.
Owens tried for six years to pay off a $1,900 balance on her Discover card, sending the credit company a total of $3,492 in monthly payments from 1997 to 2003. Yet her balance grew to $5,564.28, even though, like Hosseini, she never used the card to buy anything more. Of that total, over-limit penalty fees alone were $1,158.
Triozzi denied Discover's claim, calling its attempt to collect more money from Owens "unconscionable."
The bankruptcy measure now being debated in Congress has been sought for nearly eight years by the credit card industry. Twice in that time, versions of it have passed both the House and Senate. Once, President Bill Clinton refused to sign it, saying it was unfair, and once the House reversed its vote after Democrats attached an amendment that would prevent individuals such as anti-abortion protesters from using bankruptcy as a shield against court-imposed fines.
Credit-card companies and most congressional Republicans say current law needs to be changed to prevent abuse and make more people repay at least part of their debt. Consumer-advocacy groups and many Democrats say people who seek bankruptcy protection do so mostly because they have fallen on hard times through illness, divorce or job loss. They also argue that current law has strong provisions that judges can use to weed out those who abuse the system.
Opponents also argue that the legislation is unfair because it ignores loopholes that would allow rich debtors to shield millions of dollars during bankruptcy through expensive homes and complex trusts, while ignoring the need for more disclosure to cardholders about rates and fees and curbs on what they say is irresponsible behavior by the credit card industry. The Republican majority, along with a few Democrats, has voted down dozens of proposed amendments to the bill, including one that would make it easier for the elderly to protect their homes in bankruptcy and another that would require credit card companies to tell customers how much extra interest they would pay over time by making only minimum payments.
No one knows how many consumers get caught in the spiral of "negative amortization," which is what regulators call it when a consumer makes payments but balances continue to grow because of penalty costs. The problem is widespread enough to worry federal bank regulators, who say nearly all major credit card issuers engage in the practice.
Two years ago regulators adopted a policy that will require credit card companies to set monthly minimum payments high enough to cover penalties and interest and lower some of the customer's original debt, known as principal, so that if a consumer makes no new charges and makes monthly minimum payments, his or her balance will begin to decline.
Banks agreed to the new rules after, in the words of one top federal regulator, "some arm-twisting." But bank executives persuaded regulators to allow the higher minimum payments to be phased in over several years, through 2006, arguing that many customers are so much in debt that even slight increases too soon could push many into financial disaster.
Credit card companies declined to comment on specific cases or customers for this article, but banking industry officials, speaking generally, said there is a good reason for the fees they charge.
"It's to encourage people to pay their bills the way they said they would in their contract, to encourage good financial management," said Nessa Feddis, senior federal counsel for the American Bankers Association. "There has to be some onus on the cardholder, some responsibility to manage their finances."
High fees "may be extreme cases, but they are not the trend, not the norm," Feddis said.
"Banks are pretty flexible," she said. "If you are a good customer and have an occasional mishap, they'll waive the fees, because there's so much competition and it's too easy to go someplace else." Banks are also willing to work out settlements with people in financial difficulty, she said, because "there are still a lot of options even for people who've been in trouble."
Many bankruptcy lawyers disagree. James S.K. "Ike" Shulman, Hosseini's lawyer, said credit card companies hounded her and did not live up to several promises to work with her to cut mounting fees.
Regulators say it is appropriate for lenders to charge higher-risk debtors a higher interest rate, but that negative amortization and other practices go too far, posing risks to the banking system by threatening borrowers' ability to repay their debts and by being unfair to individuals.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge David H. Adams of Norfolk, who is also the president of the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges, said many debtors who get in over their heads "are spending money, buying things they shouldn't be buying." Even so, he said, "once you add all these fees on, the amount of principal being paid is negligible. The fees and interest and other charges are so high, they may never be able to pay it off."
Judges say there is little they can do by the time cases get to bankruptcy court. Under the law, "the credit card company is legally entitled to collect every dollar without a distinction" whether the balance is from fees, interest or principal, said retired U.S. bankruptcy judge Ronald Barliant, who presided in Chicago. The only question for the courts is whether the debt is accurate, judges and lawyers say.
John Rao, staff attorney of the National Consumer Law Center, one of many consumer groups fighting the bankruptcy bill, says the plight consumers face was illustrated last year in a bankruptcy case filed in Northern Virginia.
Manassas resident Josephine McCarthy's Providian Visa bill increased to $5,357 from $4,888 in two years, even though McCarthy has used the card for only $218.16 in purchases and has made monthly payments totaling $3,058. Those payments, noted U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Stephen S. Mitchell in Alexandria, all went to "pay finance charges (at a whopping 29.99%), late charges, over-limit fees, bad check fees and phone payment fees." Mitchell allowed the claim "because the debtor admitted owing it." McCarthy, through her lawyer, declined to be interviewed.
Providian Financial Corp. spokesman Alan Elias said: "When consumers sign up for a credit card, they should understand that it's a loan, no different than their mortgage payment or their car payment, and it needs to be repaid. And just like a mortgage payment and a car payment, if you are late you are assessed a fee." The 29.99 percent interest rate, he said, is the default rate charged to consumers "who don't met their obligation to pay their bills on time" and is clearly disclosed on account applications.
Feddis, of the banker's association, said the nature of debt means that interest will often end up being more than the original debt. "Anytime you have a loan that's going to extend for any period of time, the interest is going to accumulate. Look at a 30-year-mortgage. The interest is much, much more than the principal."
Samuel J. Gerdano, executive director of the American Bankruptcy Institute, a nonpartisan research group, said that focusing on late fees is "refusing to look at the elephant in the room, and that's the massive levels of consumer debt which is not being paid. People are living right up to the edge," failing to save so when they lose a second job or overtime, face medical expense or their family breaks up, they have no money to cope.
"Late fees aren't the cause of debt," he said.
Credit card use continues to grow, with an average of 6.3 bank credit cards and 6.3 store credit cards for every household, according to Cardweb.com Inc., which monitors the industry. Fifteen years ago, the averages were 3.4 bank credit cards and 4.1 retail credit cards per household.
Despite, or perhaps because of, the large increase in cards, there is a "fee feeding frenzy," among credit card issuers, said Cardweb president and chief executive Robert McKinley. "The whole mentality has really changed over the last several years," with the industry imposing fees and increasing interest rates if a single payment is late.
Penalty interest rates usually are about 30 percent, with some as high as 40 percent, while late fees now often are $39 a month, and over-limit fees, about $35, McKinley said. "If you drag that out for a year, it could be very damaging," he said. "Late and over-limit fees alone can easily rack up $900 in fees, and a 30 percent interest rate on a $3,000 balance can add another $1,000, so you could go from $2,000 to $5,000 in just one year if you fail to make payments."
According to R.K. Hammer Investment Bankers, a California credit card consulting firm, banks collected $14.8 billion in penalty fees last year, or 10.9 percent of revenue, up from $10.7 billion, or 9 percent of revenue, in 2002, the first year the firm began to track penalty fees.
The way the fees are now imposed, "people would be better off if they stopped paying" once they get in over their heads, said North Carolina bankruptcy attorney T. Bentley Leonard. Once you stop paying, creditors write off the debt and sell it to a debt collector. "They may harass you, but your balance doesn't keep rising. That's the irony."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10361-2005Mar5.html
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Original publisher's copyright reserved.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Now this is a damn good reason, to seek help from a financial counsler who can guide someone through the maze of companies.
I know of many who have dealt with CCCs (Consumer Credit Counsling Services) and while they are on the side of the companies, they DO get interest reduced, or some debt is forgiven.
Going it alone is the most foolish of choices to make. But hey, ego has a price!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

counsler . . .
The imminent end to bankruptcy law as we know it in the USA means that more than ever, debtors should consider they options under bankruptcy law. The credit card issuers have bought and paid for an emasculation of the Bankruptcy Code that will give credit card debt a higher priority than child support!
Without bankruptcy or insolvency, forgiveness of credit card debt -- including interest and penalties -- is taxable. In bankruptcy it is not.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gene wrote:

get

That makes total sense. You should pay someone who works FOR the credit card company to help you deal with them INSTEAD of depending on something like common sense. [ Free, eh? Does the first payment go to reducing the debt? If not, then it's profit for them -- clear and simple ] Let's see what the Owens case and the earlier case showed everyone :
Credit Card companies establish a "minimum monthly payment" amount. Now, apparently that amount is random, and is wholly unrelated to interest rates and penalty fees and amount of principal. Most SENSIBLE people would expect that paying the "minimum monthly payment" amount would LOWER their debt. Well, sensible has nothing to do with Credit Card Companies.
There is something called "age of majority" when people are held to be legally obliged to understand all reasonable realms of law which would be generally applicable to their lifestyle. If a majority of 100 "normal" average people think that paying that minimum would lower their debts, then the credit card company is clearly guilty of breaching the contract. It goes to "meeting of the minds" in contract law.
Paying the minimum is understood by NOBODY as a means to perpetually INCREASE your debt, thus the judge in the Owens case found the demand for additional payments from Owens to be "unconscionable".
Many people say "the consumer should be more educated" or "read the contracts" and (most absurdly) "the consumer isn't forced to...". Extortive contracts are not enforcable; just because it's in writing doesn't make it inviolate nor even binding. These people MORE than paid their obligation. The credit card companies don't actually get a say in what the level of obligation is -- that's up to reasonable standards. The general standard is the principal, plus interest (up to usually 100%) and fees of up to 30%. So if you bought something for $1000, then paying $2500 is MORE than fair compensation. If the company wants $4000 or more, then they are way out of line. If they want $3000 after a majority of payments were made in a timely manner at min monthly levels as set by their company, then it's extortive at worst, and deceptive at best.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/3/05 8:48 am, in article snipped-for-privacy@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, "urillan"

The answer is the million-man march, each man carrying a chain saw, to visit the homes of the CEOs of these crooked credit-card issuers.
What they are spewing out is worse than dope.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Why am I not suprized that the Washington Post ran an article about "poor helpless" credit card "victims", but never said anything about personal responsibility. I don't feel sorry for someone who lives beyond their means then ends up with huge credit card bills, etc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

And uh... so?
Last time I checked, credit card companies weren't in the business of providing medical/unemployment/auto/fire insurance. You pay other companies and providers for those services. Those services don't come with your credit card (if they did, the process of qualifying for a credit card would be far more onerous) so why should people be able to use bankruptcy as way of forcing a credit company to provide de facto bailouts for these disasters when you never paid them for that service?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/3/05 3:54 pm, in article 9P_Wd.342761$ snipped-for-privacy@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, "SpammersDie"

That's no reason why credit card companies should have a higher priority for their claims than child support. Or why credit card companies should be immune to having their claims discharged in bankruptcy when car loans, among other things, indeed every other debt except alimony, child support and some tort claims and taxes can be discharged.
You are changing the subject. Or you simply don't know what you are talking about. Bankruptcy has been with us since Biblical times, and in the fashion we now have it, more or less, since 1776.
The banks bribed Congress with $40 million to get this law passed. That is why it is despicable. It's bribery, nothing less.
I look forward to seeing YOU selling The Big Issue, homeless and hungry. Ha ha ha.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And when the new bankruptcy law is passed, we'll see lower fees and lower penalty interest rates from the CC companies, right?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It's hard to get lower than the $0 I currently pay...
--
Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy (except to buy loss leaders for
resale on eBay).
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/3/05 3:17 pm, in article snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com,

You didn't get hit crossing the street legally by an presumably uninsured hit-and-run joy rider, lose your job, have no money to pay your medical bills much less your credit card bills.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


That which is full becomes empty, and that which is empty becomes full.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Only the most uninformed, and those paid for their ignorance, are complaining about credit card abuse. The majority of bankruptcy cases present with a divorce, illness, loss of employment, or a combination of those things. I'm also seeing more and more elderly folks.
These people don't abuse credit cards, they have a serious financial problem, rely upon available credit, their situation doesn't improve or gets worse, and they finally can't service their debts. It'll be a sad when the nation turn its back on them in favor of putting a few more dollars in Capital One's account. Even more sad when you consider that these banks already have effective remedies for fraudulent credit card use.
I don't feel sorry for banks that lend so much unsecured money to such risky debtors, charge premium interest rates (and "fees") to offset their recklessness, then complain to Congress when their debtors predictably default. I do appreciate their marketing campaign, though. They've managed to turn themselves into the victims.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Was that supposed to be some sort of rebuttal?
YES, there are legitimate reasons to file bankruptcy. Living beyond your means and burying yourself in credit card debt is not one of them.
--
Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy (except to buy loss leaders for
resale on eBay).
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7 Mar 2005 06:37:29 -0800, whilst I was lookin scott snipped-for-privacy@my-deja.com wrote:

I don't know if anyone else saw this but I did remember reading a newspaper article where a woman was brought to court because of a credit card debt that she owed. The judge found out that the fees were so exhorbitant that he dismissed the whole case - meaning the woman didn't have to pay anything.
I'm just wondering if this will start some kind of trend?
Rose http://members.aol.com/Roseb441702/grants.htm Grant Basics 101!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/3/05 1:26 am, in article snipped-for-privacy@News.Individual.NET, "Rose"

Ruth M. Owens. Story picked up by the wire services and published in all the papers (well, perhaps not the Washington Times and the other pro-Bush papers, at least not without a different slant): http://www.angelfire.com/co4/legalstuff/lat_creditcarddebt.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10361-2005Mar5.html Mentioned in LA Times editorial: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-bankrupt9mar09,0,5214298.story Municipal Court Judge Triozzi's bio & photo are here: http://tinyurl.com/5vy6w The judgment is not online, but one could presumably order a copy by ringing the clerk at (216) 664-4870
Discover might appeal (out of spite if nothing else), and there's no telling what will happen then. Without seeing the judgment I can't comment on its strength.

Not likely.
Discover was born of Sears, Roebuck, the firm heavily sanctioned for violation of bankruptcy law again and again:
Class action: Bolin v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc., 231 F.3d 970 (5th Cir. 2000) http://www.angelfire.com/co4/legalstuff/231gf3d970.html
And a typical bankruptcy court sanction: Willhite v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Bankr. N.D. Cal. 6/28/1988 http://tinyurl.com/6j7qh
Discover was among the firms that so generously bribed Congress to pass the legislation ending bankruptcy as we know it.
Having known many families distressed through no fault of their own, I can only be amused at the knowledge that so many of these people who should out viciously that "pacta sunt servanda" will, themselves, one day be wishing they hadn't. Nearly 1,500,000 bankruptcy cases are filed annually. That is 1/2 of 1% of the US population. Over a lifetime of 80 years, that's what percentage of the population???
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ever heard of a "negative amortization" loan? They're commonly used by people who are buying a more expensive home than they can (currently) afford.
Anyone with a brain understands such things.
--
Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy (except to buy loss leaders for
resale on eBay).
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/3/05 3:13 pm, in article snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com,

Non sequitur.
Troll.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Scott en Aztlán wrote:
demand

by

Absolutely. It has absolutely nothing to do with this. It's like saying "ever heard of secured options"? It's like understanding how electricity works, it's nice to know, but has nothing to do with standard credit agreements.
As anyone with a brain knows, any attempt to purchase into a "negative amortization loan" must be mutually conveyed. Thus, by LAW in all states, it's to be empirically stipulated (by all contractual parties) that the specified amount being paid is insufficient to EVER bring down the payment.
At best, one would only enter such an agreement where the interest rate is expected to fall, thus you KNOW and ACCEPT the risks.
Standard credit agreements are, however, understood to specify minimums which would not result in greater debt. Credit isn't gambling. If you follow their instructions, then you should be both mutually benefitted, not suffer personal, perputual financial injury to the parasitic benefit of the other party without any recognizable meritorious personal advantage.
Anyone with a brain understands such things, as the judge obviously agreed with that summation. It's about reasonable person, not about esoteric financial tools.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 01:42:42 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@cruller.invalid wrote:

Maybe you should try reading some history before you spout nonsense.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n3/reg15n3-england.html

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

BeanSmart.com is a site by and for consumers of financial services and advice. We are not affiliated with any of the banks, financial services or software manufacturers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.

Tax and financial advice you come across on this site is freely given by your peers and professionals on their own time and out of the kindness of their hearts. We can guarantee neither accuracy of such advice nor its applicability for your situation. Simply put, you are fully responsible for the results of using information from this site in real life situations.