If you’re not familiar with Mr. Trudeau, he’s the brain behind such classics as Natural “Cures” Revealed (there are those quote marks again!) and More Natural “Cures” Revealed (OK, now he’s just making it too easy). These works, hawked extensively on late night infomercials, purport to disclose all the secret information on medicine-free “cures” for common and not-so-common ailments.

The only problem was that as those who actually succeeded in ordering the book (and not getting sucked into buying all the accompanying “product” his phone operators were shilling) found, the book was essentially a pages-long advertisement for — wait for it — the other products, interspersed with generally accepted common-sense ideas about maintaining health.

Here’s more on Trudeau’s background:

In September 2004, Trudeau agreed to pay $2 million to settle charges that he falsely claimed that a coral calcium product can cure cancer and other serious diseases and that a purported analgesic called Biotape can permanently cure or relieve severe pain. In September 2007, the FTC sued Trudeau again, charging him with violating the 2004 court order.

In October 2007, the FTC sued marketers of Kevin Trudeau’s book, “The Weight Loss Cure They Don’t Want You to Know About,” charging they made claims that were false and unsubstantiated.

Now, it seems, Trudeau has turned his attention to the national consumer debt crisis with - no kidding, this is the title - Debt Cures They Don’t Want You To Know About.

As the Consumer Affairs piece just quoted points out, there are tons of “reviews” of these books on the web. Be very cautious in believing any of them, since many are shills for the book — whether planted by those with a financial stake in the outcome, Trudeau himself, or others is hard to say. Creatively, they don’t rave about the book; rather, they offer mild criticism but then “conclude, grudgingly, that the book is actually pretty good, and therefore worth the price.”

Is the information itself horrid? Apparently not — though it is in some cases outdated, according to CA.

But here’s the cold hard truth. There are really only three “cures” for debt:

1. Infusion of cash
2. Renegotiation
3. Bankruptcy

Technorati Tags:
debt management, Kevin Trudeau

Did you type in a phrase in Google to get here? This post, the first in what I hope to be a regular series (perhaps monthly, maybe more often if I get inspired), will answer your question, whatever it is! Basically, I’m going to take some of the keywords reported back to me in my statistics, and address them here, in one post. Sound like fun? Let’s play!

1. who is laura t. coffey - She’s the person who writes the weekly 10 Tips column for MSNBC.com. Sometimes quoted here on this blog.
2. dana wilkinson, south carolina, lawyer - Yes. And a damn fine one, too.
3. cosigners family bankruptcy - OK, I got several permutations of this one, including the heartbreaking “i cosigned for a car and she made her payments late so i filed bankruptcy on that debt.” Here’s the skinny on cosigning: yes, it’s YOUR debt, if you cosign. I’m sorry to tell you that. I know it’s not fair. If she doesn’t make the payments, it goes on her credit, and yours. If you declare bankruptcy, though, your personal liability is discharged (but hers isn’t, unless she files and is discharged, too). But neither personal discharge will eliminate the lender’s rights against the car - meaning, they can still repo the car, despite the fact that you’ve got a discharge. What they can’t do is expect you to pay deficiencies or late fees or the like. There’s another post on this subject here.
4. can you get sc after being bankrupt - Can you get what? Santee Cooper? Sure, if you pay a deposit. Saint Kitts and Nevis? Probably not unless you win the lottery. Seychelles? South Carolina? The Safety Car? Santa Cruz? A little more specificity here would be welcome.
5. four primary reasons for filing bankruptcy - Statistically? Or in my experience? If you’re talking about my personal experience, that’s medical trauma/unexpected illness (either debtor’s or family member’s); loss of job; divorce; overspending (yes, it does happen - just not as much as creditors want Congress to think it does). Statistically - um, you’d think I’d be able to find that somewhere, wouldn’t you? I’ll keep looking.
6. can elderly people be cosigners for personal loan? - Can they? Sure. Should they? I don’t recommend it except in very narrow circumstances.
7. SC Law Updates - wow. On everything? I mean, I can try to include more case law updates here for bankruptcy and foreclosure law, but that’s a pretty tall order … On a more serious note, though, you might try the following resources for general South Carolina legal information: SC Code of Laws; SC General Assembly Current Legislation landing page; SC Judicial Department (including advance sheets - case opinions); SC general state government portal.




8. Wilmington Trust Robert Moser - Either the president of Sun Trust Delaware Trust Company, in Wilmington Delaware, or a Wilmington NC police detective. Take your pick. (Probably others, too.)




9. sc law on payday loans - I have been remiss in not passing along this product before now. The SC Appleseed Legal Justice Center has published a fantastic resource for this topic - “Payday Lenders And the Law - Know Your Legal Rights Before Turning That Check Into Cash” (available here in English and here en Espagnol)




10. how to protect yourself if your husband defaults on a loan - Oh, boy. Talk about sensitive topics. While you’re not liable yourself, unless the loan’s for a necessity of life or you cosigned for the loan, it will still affect your financial lives together. My advice, although I’m not a marriage counselor, is to make sure you both fully hash out your financial histories, and have a clear understanding of needs, goals, and expectations (preferably before saying “I do”). After the wedding, the advice is the same for anyone who wants to protect their credit rating: check your credit reports periodically, and make sure you get a look at all three CRAs, not just one (as they each sometimes report different debts). Make sure you know in whose name the debt in your marriage has been placed, and if your name is on that loan, you need to take some responsibility for making sure it gets paid on time.
    

Technorati Tags: keyword cleanup, bankruptcy, consumer law,

Powered by ScribeFire.

• Client faces foreclosure
• Client wisely begins investigating Chapter 13 as a solution
• Client gets phone call from lender - “Don’t fret, we’ve got it under control. There will be a new loan. We’ll work something out.”
• Client breathes easier.
• The day before foreclosure hearing or sale, Client gets antsy, having not heard from Lender. Lender says, “Oh. Gee. Sorry. Didn’t work out.” Or “here’s your new term” - and it’s substantially more than Client can afford. Or - you get the picture.

This is happening in many states, with many lenders. Are the foreclosure and forbearance departments just not communicating with each other? (That wouldn’t surprise me, actually.) Or is something more insidious going on here?

Your guess is as good as mine. But it’s my mission to make sure that homeowners facing foreclosure know this one simple fact:

Chapter 13 is a viable solution that will achieve your goals of managing your debt and keeping your home.

Calling what the defendants in FTC v. Connelly et al. created a “debt negotiation scheme” is something like calling the recent bankruptcy amendments “Consumer Protection” - though perhaps not quite that laughable. These companies, including Homeland Financial Services, National Support Services and Prosper Financial Solutions, claimed that they could reduce consumers’ debt loads by up to 60%. Of course, people who were desperate for relief believed them - the result being bankruptcy, financial ruin, and completely trashed credit scores. From the press release:

According to the FTC’s complaint, the defendants have falsely claimed that, for a non-refundable fee of up to 15 percent of a consumer’s unsecured debt, they could reduce all of their unsecured debts, including credit card balances and medical bills, by as much as 40 to 60 percent. To the extent that the defendants initiate negotiations with creditors, they typically have begun only after a consumer has paid 30 to 40 percent of the fee, which could be up to three months after a consumer has stopped making payments to creditors, as the defendants have advised them to do, the complaint stated. The defendants rarely have negotiated settlements with all of a consumer’s creditors, and even when they have successfully negotiated an account, in many cases, the settlement amount is significantly more than 60 percent of what they owe.

The FTC complaint in the underlying legal action rests on alleged violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act, and charges the defendants with UDAP - unfair and deceptive acts and practices, in furtherance of their “debt negotiation scheme.” The judge in the case issued a temporary restraining order against the defendants. While this is not a final judgment, it is a good move and a win for the FTC, since TROs are usually granted only on a fairly strong showing by the party seeking the order.

The FTC has placed some of its work product in this case on its website in PDF format:

• Complaint
• Temporary Restraining Order