Debtors' Prison Returns to America

From the Minnesota Star Tribune

As a sheriff's deputy dumped the contents of Joy Uhlmeyer's purse into a sealed bag, she begged to know why she had just been arrested while driving home to Richfield after an Easter visit with her elderly mother. No one had an answer. Uhlmeyer spent a sleepless night in a frigid Anoka County holding cell, her hands tucked under her armpits for warmth. Then, handcuffed in a squad car, she was taken to downtown Minneapolis for booking. Finally, after 16 hours in limbo, jail officials fingerprinted Uhlmeyer and explained her offense -- missing a court hearing over an unpaid debt. "They have no right to do this to me," said the 57-year-old patient care advocate, her voice as soft as a whisper. "Not for a stupid credit card." It's not a crime to owe money, and debtors' prisons were abolished in the United States in the 19th century. But people are routinely being thrown in jail for failing to pay debts. In Minnesota, which has some of the most creditor-friendly laws in the country, the use of arrest warrants against debtors has jumped 60 percent over the past four years, with 845 cases in 2009, a Star Tribune analysis of state court data has found.

And, from Charles Dickens. . .

At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,'' said the gentleman, taking up a pen, ``it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.''

``Are there no prisons?'' asked Scrooge.

 ``Plenty of prisons,'' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

``And the Union workhouses?'' demanded Scrooge. ``Are they still in operation?''

``They are. Still,'' returned the gentleman, `` I wish I could say they were not.''

``The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?'' said Scrooge.

``Both very busy, sir.''

``Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,'' said Scrooge. ``I'm very glad to hear it.''

 ``Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,'' returned the gentleman, ``a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?

``Nothing!'' Scrooge replied."

``You wish to be anonymous?''

 ``I wish to be left alone,'' said Scrooge.

Yes, more free traders and deregulation types, trying to reach again for that "Golden Age of Personal Freedom" of the late 19th Century when honest business men could have deadbeats locked up, and the county could profit from their labor on the farms and roadways.

Comments

[Sir Charles]

I wish this article was a little clearer on why the arrest warrant was issued. I am totally sympathetic to the debtor in this case, but I've had dead beat employers locked up for failing to honor subpoenas when I was doing assets discovery. It may be that the people here ignored some sort of court order -- the reporter does a pretty crappy job of sorting that out.

These people should file for bankruptcy where they get the protection of an automatic stay from legal process. Of course, they probably don't have access to legal counsel.

[minstrel hussain boy]

it seemed to me that a subpoena was ignored. it's astonishing the way some folks don't understand the basics, like how subpoena means "under penalty."

but, that brings us back to the education discussion doesn't it?

[Joe]

MHB, in almost any state you can't be locked up for failing to pay a civil judgment. What you can be locked up for is failing to appear in court to allow the creditor to use legal ways to collect a debt (things called citation hearings and garnishments). As somebody who does a lot of collections work (for condo associations, small landlords, small businesses, construction companies) it's an unpleasant but essential tool. Otherwise the judgment debtor (the person who owes money) can simply dodge the judgment and hide his/her assets forever.

What it sounds like happened in this case is that this judgment debtor ignored court proceedings which would have allowed the creditor to determine whether there was any legal way to collect the judgment.

[Sir Charles]

Joe,

I too have done a fair bit of collections -- from employers who failed to pay either wages or benefits that they owe and I have had to use the contempt process several times over the years. I am not very sympathetic to employers who do this, so if they end up spending a night in jail it doesn't break my heart.

Again, I think this reporter did not really do his/her job. There are lots of abuses by creditors against debtors going on -- however, this may not truly be one of them.

[oddjob]

I hadn't read the article, but I was very much hoping one of the attorneys here would comment. I suspected this might actually not be an example of "debtor's prison" per se so much as an example of what happens when you ignore a judge.

[litbrit]

As a sheriff's deputy dumped the contents of Joy Uhlmeyer's purse into a sealed bag, she begged to know why she had just been arrested while driving home to Richfield after an Easter visit with her elderly mother. No one had an answer. Uhlmeyer spent a sleepless night in a frigid Anoka County holding cell, her hands tucked under her armpits for warmth. Then, handcuffed in a squad car, she was taken to downtown Minneapolis for booking. Finally, after 16 hours in limbo, jail officials fingerprinted Uhlmeyer and explained her offense -- missing a court hearing over an unpaid debt.

What I want to know--and I think this is the most upsetting thing about this--is why the police did not tell her the reason for her arrest. Is that even legal? Do they not have to explain the charges to you upon taking you into custody, i.e. stating, "I am placing you under arrest for (_____)?"

Because as MHB argues--and I agree--the notion of throwing someone in jail because of an unpaid debt but not telling them why smacks of Dickens-era policy. Furthermore, it carries with it the same authoritarian mean-spiritedness. Again, don't they have to tell you what the charges are?

[Sir Charles]

D.,

I can't imagine why they wouldn't have told her. It sounds like her treatment was pretty outrageous.

Normally in a contempt case you would get brought before a judge relatively quickly (unless you get arrested at night).

Again, though, you would typically have had an "order to show cause", served on you for a hearing prior to any arrest warrant being issued. I tend to think this woman may have gone into serious head in the sand mode and paid a nasty price as a result.

[kathy a.]

yeah, someone being locked up should definitely be told why.

but it does sound like she missed a court date. and people who do -- defendants, witnesses, jurors, lawyers -- are really better off showing up.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Hmmm, sounds almost as bad as if someone introduced that wonderfully disastrous old concept of 'tax farming' of selling tax liabilities to private persons to collect however they would. That's such a history of horror -- dating back to Biblical times ('publicans' were not inn-keepers, according to most scholars, but tax farmers) that at least we can be sure no one would introduce that in 21st Century America. Or can we?