Justices to Decide if Social Security Can Be Seized

Woodmonkey · 04-28-2005, 02:55

Quote:

Justices to Decide if Social Security Can Be Seized

Quote:

A Washington state man with $80,000 in unpaid student loans seeks to shield his benefits.

In the latest installment of the baby boomers-reach-retirement-age saga, the Supreme Court said Monday that it would decide whether the government could seize Social Security benefits from individuals who failed to repay decades-old student loans.

At issue is $3.6 billion in student loans that have gone unpaid for more than 10 years.

One federal law says Education Department officials should aggressively try to collect money from those who defaulted on their government-backed loans by garnishing their wages or seeking other sources of money.

But a second law says the government should not take Social Security benefits to repay debts that are more than 10 years old.

Not surprisingly, lower courts are split on which law to follow.

To resolve the dispute, the justices voted to hear the case of James Lockhart, a Washington state man who went to four colleges in the 1980s with the help of federally guaranteed student loans. He became disabled as a result of diabetes and heart disease, and was unemployed in 1991 when he defaulted on nine student loans.

In 2002, Lockhart was living on his Social Security disability benefit of $874 a month. At the same time, he had $80,000 in unpaid student loans.

To repay his debt, the government took $93 a month from his disability benefit. A year later, Lockhart reached age 65 and began receiving an old-age benefit instead of a disability benefit. Now, the government is taking $143 a month.

Under the law, the government can seize 15% of a recipient's monthly benefit to repay the loans.

The Education Department said the seizures had proved to be an effective means of recovering unpaid students loans. In 2003, the collection effort brought in $400 million from reclaimed Social Security benefits.

Lockhart sued three years ago to block the seizure, but he lost before a federal judge in Seattle and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Its judges pointed to the education law that encouraged the government to collect on the unpaid loans.

In a different case, the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis came to the opposite conclusion by pointing to the Debt Collection Act, which bars the government from seizing Social Security benefits to pay debts that are more than 10 years old.

The Public Citizen Litigation Group, a public interest law firm, appealed on Lockhart's behalf. Its lawyers argued that many people, like Lockhart, had no income other than Social Security, and that Congress did not want agencies to seize the benefits of such individuals.

The high court said it would hear the case of Lockhart vs. U.S. in the fall.

The court also agreed to consider whether a homeowner who tripped over a piece of mail on her front porch could sue the Postal Service.

Barbara Dolan, a Pennsylvania woman, said she hurt her back and wrist in August 2001 when she fell over a stack of letters and packages that her mail carrier left on her porch. She sued the Postal Service, but a judge dismissed the claim, noting that federal law did not allow claims over the "loss, miscarriage or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter."

In her appeal, Dolan argued that her claim did not involve the mishandling of the mail but negligence in putting the packages on her porch. She also noted that a court in New York had allowed such claims. The justices agreed to take up her case, Dolan vs. U.S. Postal Service, in the fall.

A third case, also set for the fall, will test whether convicted murderers could try to avoid the death penalty by arguing before the sentencing jury that they were not guilty after all.

In the past, the Supreme Court has said the sentencing hearing should focus on whether the defendant deserves to die for the crime, not whether they committed the crime. But the justices have also said defendants have a right to present mitigating evidence to the sentencing jury.

Last year, the Oregon Supreme Court overturned the death sentence for Randy Guzek because he had been barred from telling jurors during the sentencing hearing that witnesses had said he was not at the crime scene when two people were robbed and killed in 1987.

The Supreme Court said it would hear the case of Oregon vs. Guzek to clarify the law.

Click here to see the source of this story

Bluehawk · 04-28-2005, 08:11

Not be contrary, but, wouldn't it also be a possible case that since the government has for so long been SOOOOOOOO insistent that a college education is THE best road to personal economic security, and it isn't, that maybe those folks who owe for their student loans and have run out of luck (or intelligence, supplied by having "earned" a college education) finding that the promise did not come true and being unable to repay might just HAVE a moral obligation to themselves to, at least, ask the government to wait until that much-vaunted oft-repeated promise has been actualized?

SherryGrace · 04-28-2005, 09:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wingwiper

Not be contrary, but, wouldn't it also be a possible case that since the government has for so long been SOOOOOOOO insistent that a college education is THE best road to personal economic security, and it isn't, that maybe those folks who owe for their student loans and have run out of luck (or intelligence, supplied by having "earned" a college education) finding that the promise did not come true and being unable to repay might just HAVE a moral obligation to themselves to, at least, ask the government to wait until that much-vaunted oft-repeated promise has been actualized?

Forgive me, I guess its just to early for me, but your post seems less than direct and more of a riddle.

What point are you making? Exactly?

sfga6970 · 04-28-2005, 09:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by SherryGrace

Forgive me, I guess its just to early for me, but your post seems less than direct and more of a riddle.

What point are you making? Exactly?

I think that he is trying to say is that all the ads, including those from the government, indicate that you will will thrive and prosper with a college education. He took the loans and did not do well because of personal medical problems and is now suffering even more because they are cutting his benefits when he can least afford it. If a person has become successful, makes good money and just tries to get out of their obligations, they should be sought out. But a person who depends on that monthly check should not be left to "starve". There is so much money being wasted now by the Federal Government on "pork barrel" issues from political factions, that something like this is just a drop in the barrel. Each case should be handled on an individual basis and determined whether it is a failure to pay or an inability to pay.

SherryGrace · 04-28-2005, 09:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by sfga6970

I think that he is trying to say is that all the ads, including those from the government, indicate that you will will thrive and prosper with a college education. He took the loans and did not do well because of personal medical problems and is now suffering even more because they are cutting his benefits when he can least afford it. If a person has become successful, makes good money and just tries to get out of their obligations, they should be sought out. But a person who depends on that monthly check should not be left to "starve". There is so much money being wasted now by the Federal Government on "pork barrel" issues from political factions, that something like this is just a drop in the barrel. Each case should be handled on an individual basis and determined whether it is a failure to pay or an inability to pay.

Oh....got it.

So we should only have to pay for our education if it yields us a good job? Interesting.

Hey...by the by...how do you suppose that guy got $80K from 9 student loans, having gone to 4 different colleges in the 80's and STILL can't make a living for himself? Doing NOTHING? AT ALL??? Disabled or not??? No teaching? or online teaching? editing? writing? or any of the thousands of other things a disabled person can do to earn a living? And this isn't just ANY disabled person. This person is at least $80K educated!!! I'd say that's pretty darn interesting. Perhaps his REAL situation SHOULD be reviewed.

sfga6970 · 04-28-2005, 10:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by SherryGrace

Oh....got it.

So we should only have to pay for our education if it yields us a good job? Interesting.

Hey...by the by...how do you suppose that guy got $80K from 9 student loans, having gone to 4 different colleges in the 80's and STILL can't make a living for himself? Doing NOTHING? AT ALL??? Disabled or not??? No teaching? or online teaching? editing? writing? or any of the thousands of other things a disabled person can do to earn a living? And this isn't just ANY disabled person. This person is at least $80K educated!!! I'd say that's pretty darn interesting. Perhaps his REAL situation SHOULD be reviewed.

I agree, it should be reviewed but we only have sketchy information. Not enough to make a real decision on. Once all the facts are revealed, then we can say either yay or nay. This is something the courts will have to decide, what we have is just personal opinion based on an incomplete background.

I don't know intimately how student loans work. I worked a full time job and used my VA benefits to get my college degree. I never borrowed anything for my education.