A new website is helping Montanans answer tricky legal questions about debt.

The Montana Legal Services Association has launched MontanaDebtOptions.org to offer resources for those dealing with consumer debt.

Alex Clark, community legal education coordinator for the Association, said the website is designed for any Montanan with a debt question who is afraid of losing income or property due to debt collection.

"We created some custom answers based on people's individual experiences with debt collectors that are pretty common to give them an idea of what might be crossing the line and what is actually legal," Clark explained.

Nationwide, about 64 million Americans have debt in collections, according to the Urban Institute.

The Montana Legal Services Association helped more than 350 clients with consumer debt issues last year. The website also includes a garnishment calculator to verify if a debt collector is taking the right amount from a person's wages.

Clark pointed out many people struggle when they are served with a lawsuit. He noted to participate in a lawsuit, people have to file a written response to the court by the deadline outlined in the serving papers, but it can be hard to identify.

"As we all know, court papers are really scary," Clark stated. "They're hard to understand. It's not really clear-cut what to do, and if you can't afford an attorney, you don't know where to go. So we're trying to change that."

Debt lawsuits are among the most common civil court cases in the country. But less than 10% of people have legal representation in such cases, according to the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Many simply don't show up to court, with about 70% of cases ending in default in favor of the debt collector. The website emphasized it shouldn't take the place of advice from a lawyer.

get more stories like this via email

Millions of Californians buy used cars still under a manufacturer's warranty - but consumer groups say those warranties are now essentially unenforceable.

It's the result of a ruling Thursday by the California State Supreme Court. The panel of judges agreed with car manufacturers that the state's so-called "lemon law" only applies to new cars.

"You won't be able to tell the manufacturer, 'Hey, you have to fix my car or I want a refund.' The manufacturer can just blow you off," said Rosemary Shahan, president of the nonprofit Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety.

Owners of these used vehicles could be faced with big unanticipated repair bills if the manufacturer opts not to honor the remainder of the warranty. The court ruling means they will no longer have a right to a refund or replacement vehicle.

Shahan said she thinks that now the California Legislature should step in. She said other states already have acted to better protect used-car buyers.

"A number of other states have used car 'lemon laws,' where they mandate warranties," she said, "and they say if you pay a certain amount for a used car, that the warranty has to last for a certain period of time, and you have the right to get a refund or replacement."

The case, Rodriguez v. Fiat Chrysler of America Inc., has been in litigation for several years. Lemon-law experts say it is unclear whether this decision covers what are known as "certified" used vehicles - promoted by the manufacturers as "like new."

get more stories like this via email

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story misstated the nature of additional flood insurance requirements. It is optional in most, but not all, cases. (10:45AM MST, October 28, 2024)

Since Hurricanes Helene and Milton devastated Florida, more than 49,000 insurance claims have been denied, leaving thousands of residents in financial uncertainty as they attempt to rebuild.

According to data from the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation, many companies denied claims related to flood damage, a peril not typically covered under standard homeowners' insurance policies.

Mark Friedlander, corporate communications director for the Insurance Information Institute, explains that many denied claims result from homeowners not having separate flood insurance, which is required for policyholders with Citizens Insurance and those with mortgages in high-risk zones.

"Standard home, condo and renters policies do not include flood damage," Friedlander pointed out. "If you're filing a flood loss with your property insurer, it's going to be denied. Another issue is not meeting the deductible; that's another big category of denials."

For instance, he noted if you have a $10,000 windstorm deductible and your damage is $8,000, there will be no claim payout. He added the threshold has led many homeowners to find themselves without compensation for damages falling just short of deductible limits. He emphasized property owners should consider purchasing separate flood-insurance policies to be fully financially protected.

For residents whose claims were denied, Friedlander advised considering Federal Emergency Management Agency assistance as a partial alternative. He revealed some homeowners intentionally file claims they know will be denied to meet FEMA requirements.

"In order to qualify for FEMA emergency grants, you must prove to FEMA that you did not have insurance coverage for the loss," Friedlander stressed. "The only way to do that is to get a denied claim. You need to show the letter from your insurer to FEMA as part of the application process for the grant."

Florida's high cost of property insurance added another layer of difficulty, with annual premiums averaging $5,527 dollars for a home valued at $300,000. The premium is more than twice the national average, creating a financial strain for many. Despite the recent hurricanes, Friedlander reassured residents Florida's insurance market remains resilient, crediting recent legislative reforms.


get more stories like this via email

Critics of recent court cases they say allow corporations to evade responsibility are pointing to legislation in Congress that could fix this issue. Large companies often urge arbitration in cases where legal disputes arise, such as for a couple in New Jersey that was injured when an Uber driver ran a red light. The couple sued Uber but was rebuffed because their daughter checked the company's terms and conditions agreement which says riders will settle disputes through arbitration rather than in court.

Jagjit Nagra, head of Oregon Consumer Justice, said these agreements can often appear dishonest.

"These mandatory clauses that are buried in the fine print - they're there to evade accountability, and what it does is it funnels disputes into a private system that more often than not favors corporations over individuals rather than it playing out in a court of law," Nagra added.

A similar case recently played out in a wrongful death case against Disney, and the Oregon Supreme Court ruled in a 2022 case in favor of employers that require arbitration to settle employment-related disputes. Companies with arbitration clauses have argued the process is quicker and less costly than court. But Nagra said the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal, or FAIR Act in the U.S. Senate would take this process off the table. The bill has support from Oregon Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley.

Nagra added the FAIR Act would apply in a variety of cases, including employment, consumer, antitrust, and civil rights disputes. He says the court process is more transparent, which is good for the public.

"Say there's an unsafe product or a fraudulent practice, what have you. This allows folks to be able to hold these corporations and other bad actors accountable in a public process," he said.

Nagra noted the arbitration process has different rules than court, concerning evidence, for example, and added evidence can be admitted in arbitration that is irrelevant or based on hearsay.

"Something that would be anathema in a court of law can take place there because they're private proceedings. And the judges are privately paid for judges by the arbitration company," he continued.

get more stories like this via email