View full post on All Stories

View full post on All Stories

View full post on All Stories

View full post on All Stories

In addition, forcing the sale of debtors’ homes would be extremely bad public relations, as many people would be much less likely to use credit cards if they thought it could cause them to lose their homes.

Unless your financial situation is somewhat extraordinary, you probably do not need to worry about losing your home due to credit card debt. Only if you own your home outright, or if you have a very large amount of equity in the house, could the taking of your home become a concern. Even in those cases, it is extremely unusual for credit card companies to seize property due to the time and cost involved.

Before going into detail, I can advise you to seek a debt consultation to see if you can get help with your debts. Bills.com has many pre-qualified debt counselors who can help you sort out your problems. Visit the Bills.com Debt Help page for more information.

Credit card foreclosure
Before seizing any property, a credit card company would first need to file a lawsuit against you in your county courts in an attempt to obtain a judgment against you. The court process alone can take many months to complete, and there is no guarantee that the creditor will win a judgment against you, though it probably will win if you owe the debt. Once a creditor obtains a judgment, it can initiate further court proceedings to collect on the judgment.

Although the execution of a judgment could theoretically involve a creditor seizing your home, there are several much easier ways to collect on a judgment which creditors usually prefer. These methods include wage garnishment and levies on bank accounts. Also a creditor with a judgment against you will likely place a lien on your home, meaning that when (or if) you sell or refinance the home, you would be required to pay the judgment out of the proceeds of the sale.

Your state law dictates what methods are available to creditors to collect on judgments. For example, Texas, Pennsylvania, and North and South Carolina do not allow wage garnishment for the collection of most judgments. Keep in mind that before taking any of these actions, a creditor must sue you and be awarded a judgment by a court with jurisdiction over the case, which usually means the courts in your county of residence.

Falling behind on a credit card does not always result in a lawsuit. Many people unable to make their payments suffer nothing worse than collection calls. Also, keep in mind that creditor threatens you with a lawsuit does not mean that they will actually sue you.

Frequently, collectors will threaten people with wage garnishment, bank levies, or even the seizure of a home, even though the collector has absolutely no ability to follow through with the threats. See the Bills.com resource Collections Advice to learn more about your rights in collections.

Reasons why a creditor may not try to seize your home
If a creditor with a judgment against you wanted to seize you home, it would first be required to pay off any mortgages or home equity loans you have on the home. Only after paying off the secured creditors could the credit card company sell the home at auction. Since auctions frequently bring less than half of the actual value of the home, creditors are taking a huge risk. Since they must pay the mortgage company up front for the entire amount owed on the mortgage, if the home brings less than expected at mortgage, they can actually lose money on the deal.

In addition, almost all states exempt a certain portion of the equity in a home from creditor execution; this amount ranges from $5,000 in some states to several hundred thousand dollars in others. If a creditor sells your home at auction, they must pay you your exemption amount, regardless of whether or not the creditor made that much money at the sale.

As you can see, this is a complicated and risky proposition for creditors, which is why it is almost unheard of for a consumer to have his or her home seized to repay delinquent credit card debt. Some states, such as Texas, do not allow creditors to seize primary residences to repay judgments regardless of the amount of equity in the home.

If you are being sued by a creditor, or think that a lawsuit may be filed against you in the near future, you should consult with an attorney to discuss your states exemption laws and what action a creditor could take against you under those laws, and what you can do to protect yourself. After speaking with an attorney, some consumers find that they are “judgment proof,” meaning they have no assets a creditor could take to repay a judgment against them. This is especially common among elderly and disabled individuals.

The bottom line is that, while possible, it is extremely unlikely that a creditor would take your home to repay your credit card debts. However, as mentioned before, creditors can take other actions to collect on delinquent accounts, so you should look into ways to resolve your debts if you are struggling to repay them.

Debt resolution options
The first option that comes to many people’s minds is bankruptcy — if you are considering bankruptcy, I encourage you to consult with a qualified bankruptcy attorney in your area to find out if filing bankruptcy is a viable options for you.

If you find that you cannot file bankruptcy, or simply do not want to file, there are several alternatives available, such as consumer credit counseling and debt settlement. To read more about these options, I invite you to visit the Bills.com Debt Help page.

I hope this information helps you Find. Learn & Save.

Pros and cons of debt consolidation

The four primary concerns for most consumers are: i) monthly payment, ii) time to debt freedom, iii) total cost, and iv) the credit rating impact of the resolution program. Be sure to evaluate each program relative to your prioritization of these factors.

Since there are a variety of debt resolution options, including credit counseling, debt negotiation/debt settlement, a debt consolidation loan, bankruptcy, and other debt resolution options, it is important to fully understand each option and then pick the solution that is right for you.

Credit Counseling
Credit counseling, or signing up for a debt management plan, is a very common form of debt consolidation. There are many companies offering credit counseling, which is essentially a way to make one payment directly to the credit counseling agency, which then distributes that payment to your creditors. Most times, a credit counseling agency will be able to lower your monthly payments by getting interest rate concessions from your lenders or creditors. Because the program lowers interest rates, it less effective for someone whose interest rates are already low.

It is important to understand that in a credit counseling program, you are still repaying 100% of your debts — but with lower monthly payments. On average, most credit counseling programs take around five years. While most credit counseling programs do not impact your FICO score, being enrolled in a credit counseling debt management plan does show up on your credit report, and, unfortunately, many lenders look at enrollment in credit counseling akin to filing for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy — or using a third party to re-organize your debts.

Debt Settlement
Debt settlement, also called debt negotiation, is a form of debt consolidation that cuts your total debt, sometimes over 50%, with lower monthly payments. Debt settlement programs are geared for people who have a financial hardship that makes it so they either cannot pay their bills or are about to start falling behind. Debt Settlement programs typically run around three years. It is important to keep in mind, however, that during the life of your debt settlement program, you are not paying your creditors. This means that a debt settlement solution of debt consolidation will negatively impact your credit rating. Your credit rating will not be good, at a minimum, for the term of your debt settlement program. However, debt settlement is usually the fastest and cheapest way to debt freedom, with a low monthly payment, while avoiding Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. The trade-off here is a negative credit rating versus saving money.

Debt Consolidation Loan
Many people think first of a debt consolidation loan when seeking debt consolidation. This option typically means a second home loan (or home equity line of credit) or refinancing your primary mortgage. In a debt consolidation loan, you exchange one loan for another. The most frequent form is taking out a mortgage loan, which carries a lower interest rate and is tax deductible, to pay off high interest rate credit card debt.

It is important to be aware that shifting unsecured debt to secured debt can create a volatile situation, if there is ever a chance that you cannot afford the new mortgage payment you are now putting yourself at risk of foreclosure! In the case of a debt consolidation loan, most mortgages are 30-year loan, which means that the total cost and the time to debt freedom could be very high, but the monthly payment will be lower than other options and there is no credit rating impact.

Bankruptcy
Bankruptcy may also solve your debt problems. A Chapter 7 bankruptcy is a traditional liquidation of assets and liabilities, and is usually considered a last resort. Since bankruptcy reform went into effect, it is much harder to file for bankruptcy chapter 7. It may be the case that a Chapter 13 bankruptcy will be the only one available. In a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, a person’s debts are reorganized. The debts are reapaid, according to the terms established by the bankrupty court. Chapter 13 bankruptcies usually run three to five years. If you are considering bankruptcy, I encourage you to consult with a qualified bankruptcy attorney in your area.

Default
You may be curious what may happen if you do nothing. If you stop paying your unsecured debts, creditors have the right to collect the debt. First, you will likely receive collection calls and letters from the creditor directly. If you are still unable to pay the debt after several months, the creditor is likely to refer the account to a third-party collection agency.

Third-party collectors are known to be much more aggressive in their collection tactics than original creditors, so do not be surprised if the calls become more persistent, or even threatening. Thankfully, the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act has rules governing the behavior of collection agents. However, unscrupulous debt collection agents do not follow these rules.

In some cases, when all other collection efforts fail, a creditor will decide to file a lawsuit against the debtor. This is not a frequent occurrence, but it is within a creditor’s rights and a possibility about which you should be aware. If one of your creditors sues you, the court will likely issue a judgment in the creditor’s favor. Depending on your state’s laws regarding the enforcement of judgments, the creditor may be able to garnish your wages, levy your bank accounts, place a lien on your property, or take other action to enforce its judgment.

Regarding a credit report, default damages a credit score severely. In addition, default is a warning flag for many lenders, who will refuse to deal with a potential customer with a default on their record. As a result doing nothing and allowing default is a poor option for most consumers.

Summary
Although there are many forms of debt consolidation, many people with good to perfect credit who own homes should look into debt consolidation loans, while consumers with high credit card debt and poor credit may want to explore debt settlement or debt negotiation. However, each consumer is different, so find the debt consolidation option that fits for you.

Lastly, here are some fast tips for your own quick Debt Consolidation Evaluator:
1. If you have perfect credit and have equity in your home — consider a Mortgage Refinance.
2. If you can afford a healthy monthly payment (about 3 percent of your total debt each month), your interest rates are a problem, and you want to protect yourself from collection and from going delinquent — consider Credit Counseling.
3. If you want the lowest monthly payment and want to get debt free for a low cost and short amount of time, AND you are willing to deal with adverse credit impacts and collections — then evaluate Debt Settlement.
4. If you cannot afford anything in a monthly payment (less than 1.5 percent of your total debt each month) — consider Bankruptcy to see if Chapter 7 might be right for you.

Bills.com makes it easy for you to apply for traditional forms of debt relief.

I hope this information helps you Find. Learn & Save.

Washington, DC, United States (AHN) – Native American farmers who sued the Agriculture Department for discrimination have agreed to a $760 million settlement. It is the second discrimination settlement this year for the USDA, which has agreed to compensate black farmers.

Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit led by George and Marilyn Keepseagle will receive $680 million in damages and $80 million in debt forgiveness. The agreement will be implemented next year after final approval by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

“This settlement marks a major turning point in the important relationship between Native Americans, our nation’s first farmers and ranchers, and the USDA,” Joseph Sellers, lead attorney for the farmers, said in a statement.

The agreement with the USDA ends a case that began more than a decade ago. The suit was filed in 1999 and charged the agency with denying farm loans to Native Americans since 1981, a span of time President Barack Obama in a statement called “USDA’s unfortunate civil rights history.”

“We have been waiting nearly three decades for this day to come,” Marilyn Keepseagle, a member of the Sioux Tribe who has maintained a ranch in North Dakota with her husband for decades, said in a statement.

“This settlement will help thousands of Native Americans who are still farming and ranching,” she added. “But more important, through this settlement we will leave to our children and grandchildren a farm loan system far more responsive to our community than the system we inherited from our parents.”

According to the lawsuit, George Keepseagle lost 50 calves in 1995 due to scours, and another 50 calves the next year after a blizzard.

The region was declared a disaster area in both years, but no Native American rancher received emergency disaster loans in those two years while white farmers were given such loans. Keepseagle had applied for emergency loans but was told he was not eligible without being informed of the reason.

The rancher also had trouble paying for annual grazing leases because USDA officials “often returned his loan applications without explanation, or set the applications aside until he inquired about the loan processing. To his knowledge, white farmers did not receive this treatment.”

Another rancher, Luke Crasco, was subjected “to overtly racist and demeaning remarks” and experienced “systematic and deliberate delays in loan processing.”

The complaint said one Farmer’s Home Administration official, LaVern Hellyer, stated “his dislike for Native Americans [and] reminded Crasco that he was assigned to that office for two reasons: ‘to watch FMHA’s money” and ‘to sell you people out.’ “

Under the settlement, farmers will receive a uniform settlement of up to $50,000 after providing evidence of bias to an impartial adjudicator. Farmers who have records showing they suffered greater economic losses due to discrimination will receive up to $250,000 in damages.

The agreement also creates a Native American Farmer and Rancher Council that will lead initiatives to improve the way the USDA implements farm programs. Moreover, the USDA will open regional offices to provide technical assistance to Native American farmers and ranchers, and review farm loan policies to determine what kind of reforms are necessary.

“Today’s settlement can never undo wrongs that Native Americans may have experienced in past decades, but combined with the actions we at USDA are taking to address such wrongs, the settlement will provide some measure of relief,” said Agriculture Sec. Tom Vilsack.

The settlement follows USDA’s agreement with black farmers who suffered discrimination around the same time, a case known as Pigford II.

Funds for the $1.25 billion Pigford II settlement currently require congressional approval. Lawmakers had appropriated $100 million and this summer failed to agree on how to pay for the remaining $1.15 billion.

View full post on All Stories

Gaza, Palestinian Territory (TML) – The Palestinian Authority will begin in 2011 to punish Palestinians who accept work in Israeli communities built on land Israel acquired in the 1967 war.

The cities and towns in question are at the heart of the “settlement” issue, which is arguably the principle obstacle to the current round of U.S.-brokered peace talks between the Israelis, and Palestinians.

The first step in the P.A.’s battle against the Israeli communities was launched last January, when a ban on all “settlement products” came into affect in the West Bank. Prime Minister Salam Fayyad embraced the campaign, personally participating in a product- burning ceremony in the town of Salfit.

The Palestinian “Law to Ban and Combat Settlement Products” represents the second stage of the campaign. Issued in April 2010, the aim of the law is “to combat settlement goods and services built on the Palestinian territory.” But many Palestinians who understand the national political strategy of de-legitimizing Israeli building on land the Palestinians see as their nascent state feel the law will be too costly on a personal level.

Ziad, 37, a construction worker from the West Bank town of Sa’ir, is paving a sidewalk in the Israeli community of Efrat, south of Jerusalem. He is upset by the new decision.

“We come here to feed our children, not to play games,” he told The Media Line. “I have been working for Israel since I was fifteen. What shall I do, sit at home?”

Ziad says that if the P.A. was willing to provide workers with a proper monthly salary, he would be willing to quit his job.

“If I were paid 5,000 shekels a month (about $1,300), I would sit at home and be happy,” he said.

“But otherwise, let me work!”

Ziad’s co-workers speak of a rumor circulating in the West Bank, whereby the Palestinian Authority will pay each worker forced to quit his job a stipend of 700 shekels a month (about US $200).

“That’s barely enough to buy milk for two days,” Ziad says ironically. “I have seven children at home, what shall I feed them, dirt?”

‘Abir Kopty, head of the Israeli Media Unit at the Palestinian Media Center (PMC), admitted that the “Law to Ban and Combat Settlement Products” was somewhat vague, mentioning only “assistance to settlements” rather than explicitly referring to workers. She added, however, that the law does, indeed, ban Palestinian workers from accepting any work in the Israeli towns.

“The law is already in force,” she told The Media Line. “It is now primarily the responsibility of workers to find alternative workplaces.”

Kopty added that the P.A. economics minister has decided to defer enforcement of the law until 2011 in order to give workers time to find alternatives.

“There are initiatives by the Palestinian Ministry of Agriculture, which has begun implementing agricultural projects in the West Bank,” she said. “In addition, a fund was established last year with public and private money, meant to support Palestinian workers.”

According to Kopty, about 25,000 Palestinians work in Israeli settlements. These workers comprise 9.9% of the total Palestinian work force in the West Bank, according to the Arab daily A-Sharq Al-Awsat.

The workers on Ziad’s construction site say that Israel only allows Palestinians over the age of 30 who have children to work inside of Israel, but that exceptions are made for work in the post-1967 territories, where younger men can also receive work permits.

‘Issa, a 54-year-old worker, is frustrated by political decisions that do not take into account the needs of simple day-laborers.

“We, the general public, are powerless,” he complained to The Media Line. “The ‘big guys’ decide everything. We can protest, but it’s useless. If they want us not to work here, let them give us an alternative.”

“When there was a closure [on the West Bank] and we sat at home for two months, the Palestinian Authority did nothing for us,” Ziad adds. “Nobody gave us money.”

Asher, a Jewish supermarket worker in Efrat, believes the Palestinian law is unrealistic and could never be implemented.

“It’s completely irrelevant,” he said to The Media Line. “The Palestinians will revolt. It simply makes no sense.”

“I have been working with Palestinians for 38 years,” added Asher. “Neither side has any choice but to work together. No Jew is willing to work in construction, so what can we do, bring Thai workers in again?”

Ayyash, a construction worker sitting on the sidelines, displays a more stoic attitude towards the new law.

“Our livelihood comes from Allah,” he says. “Not from the Jews or the Arabs.”

©2010. The Media Line Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

View full post on Labor Stories

Los Angeles, CA, United States (AHN) – Casey Affleck has settled the multi-million sexual harassment cases a cinematographer and a producer filed against him. Terms of the settlement have not been disclosed.

Last month, Affleck was sued by cinematographer Magdalena Gorka and producer Amanda White, who both worked with the actor/producer on his documentary about co-actor and brother-in-law Joaquin Phoenix titled “I’m Still Here.”

The women claimed they had no choice but to quit when Affleck demanded sexual favors from them. They allegedly never got paid after they quit.

White said Affleck refused to pay her salary when she refused to sleep with him in a hotel, while Gorka claimed he crawled into her bed as she slept.

Afflect has adamantly maintained his innocence, calling the claims attempts at extortion.

The charges have now been dismissed. While the financial aspects of the settlement remain confidential, White and Gorka will receive a credit on the film.

“I’m Still Here” is about Phoenix’s decision to quit acting and pursue a career as a hip-hop artist.

View full post on All Stories

You have already wasted much money. With the right Christian debt settlement, about 30 percent of your bills or even more could be forgiven. There will be a dramatic increase in your savings which you can use to clear your bills fast. Your total interest rate will be lowered since you will only make one single monthly payment. All penalty charges will be removed and add more money in your wallet. You will not confront your creditors any more thereby having a peace of mind for some time.

With Christian debt settlement, you can avoid bankruptcy and save your essential assets from being sold. If you devote yourself and make all payments in good time, you will eventually clear your bills less than four years. Agencies from this institutions are God fearing people who will offer services and spiritual guidance to help you clear the bills.

On the other hand, bills forgiven will be taxed since its an increase in your income. Your credit will get affected for quite some time but this should not worry you since you have come from far. Once you have cleared your bills, take good control of your finances and buy everything on cash to avoid creating more bills.

Mary Mukami Gachonde Researches and Reports on Finance. For More Information On How To Get Out Of Debt, Visit Her Site At GETTING OUT OF DEBTYou Can Also Post Your Views About How To Get Out Of Debt Here CHRISTIAN DEBT SETTLEMENT COMPANIES

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/personal-finance-articles/some-facts-about-christian-debt-settlement-companies-1292320.html

Debt Relief

Millions of consumers are hurting financially during the current economic recession and its mass job layoffs. Too many good Americans have suddenly found themselves unable to meet financial obligations, even struggling to make their minimum monthly credit card payments.

During the economic boom times of the not too distant past, credit card issuers made a full court press to get their credit cards into the hands of as many consumers as possible. Now with recent credit card legislation going into effect early next year, card issuers have begun raising rates and the minimum monthly payments on account holders across the board. This has caused a great hardship for many.

Total Debt Relief’s debt relief programs have become the preferred method for reducing and eliminating debt. Unlike bankruptcy and all its negative and harsh implications, and debt consolidation which does not actually reduce the total amount owed, the debt settlement professionals at Total Debt Relief do in fact negotiate agressively on consumers behalves with their creditors to significantly lower the total amount owed – without the harsh consequences of filing for bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy should be considered only as a last resort. The effects of filing for Bankruptcy protection are long-lasting – up to 10 years in certain states. Recently the rules for filing Bankruptcy changed, and it is now harder than ever to wipe the slate clean.

Total Debt Relief would like consumers to know that bankruptcy is not the solution. There are in fact viable alternatives to bankruptcy to reduce and eliminate personal debt once and for all. The company offers consumers a free debt evaluation with no obligation simply by filling out the form on their website – www.totaldebtrelief.net

John Chase works in the finance field, and writes about topics such as debt settlement & debt consolidation, home loan modification, credit repair and unemployment issues.

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/personal-finance-articles/debt-relief-can-eliminate-credit-card-debt-immediately-1283067.html