by footloose » Mon Aug 08, 2011 05:51:55 PM
@average_joe
Under the British Columbia Business Practices Act ( BCBPA ) unlike other Provincial and Territorial Acts, there is a provision to either seize or sue for an outstanding and unpaid debt but the creditor cannot do both.
In this case, Scotia Bank made a loan of $7,500 for the purchase of a car and presumably registered a lien against the car. When this loan was defaulted upon, Scotia Bank has the option of either seizing the car or suing the debtor for the outstanding portion of the loan, BUT NOT BOTH.
If Scotia Bank elected to seize the car and sell it privately, to a dealer, or take it to a car auction, and if there is a shortfall between the proceeds and the outstanding amount owing on the loan, they are prevented from suing the debtor for the shortfall. This is not the case in other jurisdictions where the creditor CAN sue the debtor for any shortfall. Conversely, if the proceeds exceed the outstanding amount owing, the excess MUST be returned to the debtor.
It appears that Scotia Bank believed that the value of the car exceeded the outstanding amount owing and that their loan would be quickly settled. Or, upon examination of the debtor's financial situation, it was determined that collection of this loan would be difficult due to the debtor's employment situation. In B.C., if a creditor obtains a judgment and further obtains a wage garnishment order, that order is valid for only one pay period. A creditor must obtain a new wage garnishment order for each pay period. In other jurisdictions, once a wage garnishment order is issued, it is valid for each pay period until the debt is extinguished or until the debtor leaves his place of employment at which time, the creditor will have to obtain a new wage garnishment order for the debtor's next employer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Educating one Consumer at a time