Comments on: Profs: considering credit history could violate rights of mentally ill

By: ras

ras — Sat, 14 May 2016 20:51:56 +0000

Who’s crazier, the mentally ill guy, or the guy who loans him money?

By: Craig

Craig — Sat, 14 May 2016 16:15:00 +0000

One of many catch-22 clauses. Can’t consider credit history for giving a loan, but get in trouble with regulators if too many risky loans. Can’t consider criminal history (ban the box) but get in trouble if an employee assaults a customer or steals from you. argh

By: Bumber

Bumber — Sat, 14 May 2016 15:06:56 +0000

All this liberal gibberish is driving me crazy.

Hmmmm, where do I sign for the loan and can I get a VISA card with that?

By: Boblipton

Boblipton — Sat, 14 May 2016 02:13:13 +0000

Anyone who gets into such a fix that they can’t pay their credit card bills is insane. Next!

Bob

By: Wfjag

Wfjag — Sat, 14 May 2016 02:05:52 +0000

What a great opportunity for identity theft and fraud. Comb the court records to identify persons subject to guardianships because they cannot manage their affairs, and then use their identities to fraudulently obtain goods, services, credit and loans. Then skip and leave it for the guardian to deal with the mess, someone who likely are next of kin serving because they care about their wards, and not because of financial sophistication. Thank you Professors. You’ll be protecting the rights of disabled persons and their care givers right into bankruptcy.

By: CarLitGuy

CarLitGuy — Fri, 13 May 2016 23:18:14 +0000

In reply to Noncenx. You've just described most of our elected officials. "It’s not their fault they have a bad payment history, they’re too mentally ill to handle finances in a responsible manner." and most of the voters who keep re-electing them.

By: Noncenx

Noncenx — Fri, 13 May 2016 20:52:04 +0000

It’s not their fault they have a bad payment history, they’re too mentally ill to handle finances in a responsible manner.

Yeah, this will really help them out when all credit goes away.

By: Shtetl G

Shtetl G — Fri, 13 May 2016 20:01:20 +0000

And how are creditors going to be able to make allowances for financial choices made as of results of metal illness without violating a medical privacy “right”?

By: ras

ras — Fri, 13 May 2016 16:23:21 +0000

Sure, as long as the person can prove that their mental illness is a thing of the past. Perhaps the American Psychological Association would underwrite its members’ written affirmations of such cures, in case of the incredibly rare event that an illness resurfaces and someone has to sue for damages.

/Yes I do live under a rock. But if you treat me as crazy you’ll violate the law!

By: SPO

SPO — Fri, 13 May 2016 14:05:58 +0000

My firm did a pro bono case for a person with Tourette’s Syndrome who lived in a community of attached townhomes. Through no fault of his own, his outbursts disturbed a neighbor, and the neighbor got the assistance of the HOA, which ultimately threatened to force the person with Tourette’s Syndrome to sell. I, of course, sympathized with the person with the condition, but my sympathies lay more with the neighbor forced to endure loud cursing outbursts. Seems to me that her right of quiet enjoyment should trump the right of a person to inflict his symptoms on others in a pervasive manner.

The Tourette’s patient won, but, in my view, shouldn’t have.