Is there a lawyer in the house?

[Dan Gould]

Here's the situation my wife is confronting:

She had a loan from a Credit Union. She became delinquent and it was submitted to a lawyer for collections.

She also works as a loan processor for a company that has been sending business to the same credit union when a client needs a second loan when they are purchasing a property thru her mortgage company.

Today this Credit Union has informed her boss that they will not accept any loan applications in which she is involved as loan processor.

I call this total bullshit and if it adversely effects her job, actionable against the CU. There is no relationship between her handling of her personal loan and the handling of loan applications for work.

Anyone know anything? Post or PM please. Thanks in advance.

[GA Russell]

Dan, I suspect that it would be a matter of state law.  If so, only a Florida attorney's advice would be trustworthy.

Anyone want to disagree, and say that it is a federal matter?

[Dan Gould]

Oh I don't doubt Florida law would control but I'm curious if any lawyer would chime in on a general basis.

[catesta]

Did they tell her boss why? If so, they may be crossing the line with the whole "third party disclosure" thing.

[BillF]

I can't think of anything in English law that would help her. Sorry to say it, but her employer might be able to take the first steps (in the form of a formal warning) to dismissing her fairly on grounds that her conduct (in the same area as her employment, i.e. finance) has adversely affected their business.

Let's hope Florida law says something different!

[Dan Gould]

6 hours ago, catesta said:

Did they tell her boss why? If so, they may be crossing the line with the whole "third party disclosure" thing.

That's what I believe they've done.  She didn't commit a crime of any sort, no fraud in securing the loan. She just fell behind in her payments and rather than working with her on a payment plan they suddenly stopped accepting her payments and said that she was in default and being referred to their attorney.

And having done nothing but fall behind on payments, she's done nothing to give them the right to communicate her delinquent status to her employer.

I am going to strongly encourage her to find a lawyer conversant in this area to get an idea of whether this is actionable.

5 hours ago, BillF said:

I can't think of anything in English law that would help her. Sorry to say it, but her employer might be able to take the first steps (in the form of a formal warning) to dismissing her fairly on grounds that her conduct (in the same area as her employment, i.e. finance) has adversely affected their business.

Let's hope Florida law says something different!

Not at all sure why you mention English law but there is no adverse implication to her employment.  She is senior processor but does not process every loan officer's file, far from it. Of the loan officers she handles, there are very few of these types of double-loan situations and her boss is unconcerned about having them assigned to someone else.

Its the principle of the situation as well as the fact that however fewer loans she works results in a smaller bonus check each month, at least potentially.

[danasgoodstuff]

Get an attorney, now.

[Scott Dolan]

Interesting. 

Is that information protected in any way? There's no HIPAA equivilent in the banking industry, is there? Sounds higly unethical, but not necessarily illegal. 

I'm interested to see how this plays out. Good luck, brother. 

[Dan Gould]

On 8/27/2017 at 1:16 PM, danasgoodstuff said:

Get an attorney, now.

Well we haven't done so (not a lot of extra cash lying around) but a week or so ago Susan was served with the Credit Union's lawsuit papers.  She's consulted an attorney and he advised that their communication with people in her company is absolutely a violation of the Federal credit/collections rules and that it could be used as leverage to reduce the ultimate settlement of her debt. However they recommended communicating with their attorneys about a payment plan.  Given their refusal to discuss a payment plan months ago I don't see that as going very far.

She did find out that since she makes more than me, as "head of household" she is protected from any garnishment of wages. This makes me strongly suspect that their refusal to discuss the matter was predicated in the antiquated belief that wives make less than husbands and that this would work in their favor once a judgement is won.

[Brad]

I'm an attorney and my advice is to get one, which appears to have already been done.  I'm not sure why her wages couldn't be garnished but each state's law varies.  

Speaking as a non-lawyer, it sounds like the CU is trying to use leverage against her. 

[Dan Gould]

17 minutes ago, Brad said:

I'm an attorney and my advice is to get one, which appears to have already been done.  I'm not sure why her wages couldn't be garnished but each state's law varies.  

Speaking as a non-lawyer, it sounds like the CU is trying to use leverage against her. 

Florida Statutes provide an exemption from garnishment of earnings payable to a head of household whether denominated as wages, salary, commission, or bonus. For a debtor to qualify as a head of household, he must provide more than half of the financial support for another person to whom he has either a legal or moral obligation of support. The supported person may be a child or an adult, and the supported person need not reside in the debtor’s homestead.