Can Personal Injury Money be Reached by Creditors for Your Debts

[jk]

After reading that, there is still a lot you don’t understand.

You have a lot of weird ideas that are humorous to read though.


Maybe this will help a bit:

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p4345.pdf

[Taxing Matters]

I just read an article on this and an attorney said parts of a personal injury claim are not attachable. I tend to believe that it is the pain, suffering, disfigurement part that he was referring to. Do you know which part of that large settlement is untouchable?

Not without knowing what kind of debt was being collected and which jurisdiction's law applies. As I explained in my earlier reply, each jurisdiction has its own law on what is exempt from attachment and they vary.

To suggest that some people have to give up part of their body to pay a debt and others don't, is what I have a problem with.

But of course that is not what is happening. The body part lost was not lost to pay a debt; it was lost as a result of someone else’s negligence. Nothing replaces that. The money obtained in the lawsuit is just that — money. Taking that is not taking the arm. The arm was already gone. I see why you want to equate the two, but logically it doesn't work. Which is why the law doesn't view that way. Your view of it I think is fair to say is certainly rather unusual.

Oh, BTW, you asked me a question three times and the reason I do not answer it is because I do not understand what you are asking.

You seem to be saying that no debt of any kind should be allowed to attach a personal injury award. Personal injury awards include the medical bills that the injured person incurred to get treated for that injury. I am asking you whether you would at least agree that the medical providers who are owed for those should be able to attach that personal injury award to get paid? After all, the award included the those debts. The jury expected that the injured person would pay it, that's why the bills are included in the judgment. So would it be fair to exempt the award from attachment by the medical provider for those bills and as a result let the injured person stiff those creditors? Colorado and California say no, it isn't. The medical bills at least should be able to get paid out of that award.

[Brian57]

Not without knowing what kind of debt was being collected and which jurisdiction's law applies. As I explained in my earlier reply, each jurisdiction has its own law on what is exempt from attachment and they vary.

But of course that is not what is happening. The body part lost was not lost to pay a debt; it was lost as a result of someone else’s negligence. Nothing replaces that. The money obtained in the lawsuit is just that — money. Taking that is not taking the arm. The arm was already gone. I see why you want to equate the two, but logically it doesn't work. Which is why the law doesn't view that way. Your view of it I think is fair to say is certainly rather unusual.

You seem to be saying that no debt of any kind should be allowed to attach a personal injury award. Personal injury awards include the medical bills that the injured person incurred to get treated for that injury. I am asking you whether you would at least agree that the medical providers who are owed for those should be able to attach that personal injury award to get paid? After all, the award included the those debts. The jury expected that the injured person would pay it, that's why the bills are included in the judgment. So would it be fair to exempt the award from attachment by the medical provider for those bills and as a result let the injured person stiff those creditors? Colorado and California say no, it isn't. The medical bills at least should be able to get paid out of that award.

This conversation has fallen wildly off the tracks. No matter how many times I write something, it is disregarded and ignored. It's like you are having a conversation with yourself.

TM, you are one of the sharpest guys here. I find it curious that you appear to not understand me. The others I get because it is just what they do for amusement. But you, hmmm?

[Taxing Matters]

TM, you are one of the sharpest guys here. I find it curious that you appear to not understand me.

I understand the argument you are making. I just don't agree with it. It is not logical to say that taking the money awarded for the injury is the same as inflicting the injury itself. But yet that is exactly the argument you are making.

[Brian57]

I understand the argument you are making. I just don't agree with it. It is not logical to say that taking the money awarded for the injury is the same as inflicting the injury itself. But yet that is exactly the argument you are making.

No, you don't understand. I'll try again later.

[llworking]

No, you don't understand. I'll try again later.

I understood the argument you were making in exactly the same manor that Taxing Matters understood it.

[Taxing Matters]

No, you don't understand. I'll try again later.

Please do. Because you said:

I doubt that one would have to pay a debt by the act of giving up a part of their body....To suggest that some people have to give up part of their body to pay a debt and others don't, is what I have a problem with.

That statement clearly suggests to me that you are arguing that taking the money is the same thing as taking the arm. In other words, you are equating a creditor taking the money as though the creditor were ripping off the arm itself and expressing shock because of course we would never allow a creditor to take the arm as payment for a debt. You are right that a creditor could not rip off someone's arm to collect a debt. But attaching the money from the personal injury award is not the same thing as ripping off the arm. Logically it doesn’t work. So if your argument is something different you'll need to lay it out better because what you wrote above clearly suggests to me that is what you are saying.

[Brian57]

Please do. Because you said:



That statement clearly suggests to me that you are arguing that taking the money is the same thing as taking the arm. In other words, you are equating a creditor taking the money as though the creditor were ripping off the arm itself and expressing shock because of course we would never allow a creditor to take the arm as payment for a debt. You are right that a creditor could not rip off someone's arm to collect a debt. But attaching the money from the personal injury award is not the same thing as ripping off the arm. Logically it doesn’t work. So if your argument is something different you'll need to lay it out better because what you wrote above clearly suggests to me that is what you are saying.

It is, and I have several examples to give you. I just hope you listen with an open mind.

I'm just busy today and can't lay it out now.

[Taxing Matters]

It is, and I have several examples to give you. I just hope you listen with an open mind.

I'm just busy today and can't lay it out now.

Perfectly understandable. After all, this forum is hardly time sensitive and it is weekend. Enjoy it!

[Brian57]

That statement clearly suggests to me that you are arguing that taking the money is the same thing as taking the arm. In other words, you are equating a creditor taking the money as though the creditor were ripping off the arm itself and expressing shock because of course we would never allow a creditor to take the arm as payment for a debt. You are right that a creditor could not rip off someone's arm to collect a debt. But attaching the money from the personal injury award is not the same thing as ripping off the arm. Logically it doesn’t work. So if your argument is something different you'll need to lay it out better because what you wrote above clearly suggests to me that is what you are saying.

I am glad you mentioned the word "logically," because that is the standpoint I am coming from. I do not know the law but as I said before, laws usually make sense to me. However, if a person was compensated with cash for losing his right arm, I find it illogical and irrational to take that person's cash award for losing his arm, since it is all he has to live off of.

Take two people that filed for bankruptcy for the same reason. Say they bought real estate super high and were upside-down to the tune of $200K. They had to sell and could not come up with the cash, so they went BK. One guy with both arms had no assets so he had nothing to lose. The other guy lost an arm in a work accident and was paid $1M (50K per year for twenty years). He was wronged and not at fault for the accident. He is a victim and handicapped for life. His prospects for work and to have a normal life are shot. All he has is the cash compensation for the loss of his arm. Similar to OJ, all he had was his pension money for the years he could not work.

The man with two arms is allowed to stiff the banks and has both arms to continue working at full capacity as before the BK. The other man with one arm has to use his life sustaining money that was earmarked for supporting him the rest of his life to pay back the loan. He is then left with a half a body to make back that money. Well, if it unfair (illegal) to take OJ's pension money because it was earmarked to support him in his elderly years, why is it logical and rational to take a handicapped person's money that was set aside to support his handicapped body?

Another example: In a BK they will take assets that can be transferred into cash like real estate, stocks, gold, etc. Well, what if the man used his $1M to purchase a prosthetic arm worth $1M. The arm was also re-sellable in the medical industry. He used his prothetic arm to gain employment. Would it be fair and logical for the creditor to force him to hock his prosthetic arm to pay back a creditor. Sure it sounds nutty but that is exactly what is happening. The law allows them to take his cash before he buys the prosthetic arm, but not after he buys it? If he bought anything else hock-able he'd be forced to liquidate it. Why not the bionic arm too?

We all have money making bodies that can generate cash in the future. That future cash is not seized in a BK. The man with one arm no longer has a money making body. He cannot make money like he used to. His body was unjustly taken from him. All he has is his compensation money to live off of. How fair and logical would it be to seize what little the poor man has? Especially when future assets of the two armed man are not seized.

All creditors, banks and lawyers see is cash...cash that they can seize. They don't care about what is right, rather what is legal. So did that man essentially give up his arm to settle a debt? Did the man with two arms get off scott-free with a whole body? I'd say "yes" to both.

In closing; A cash settlement for losing part of your body and your potential to earn money and live a normal life should be more untouchable than a pension. Logically speaking.