Got a case involving an ex-girlfriend who owes over two grand to boyfriend for loans she agreed to pay back. They break up, he starts contacting her about repayment of the money. She's claiming harassment. But if the guy is only attempting to collect his debt - and that is it (none of the usual "baby please come back" stuff, just about the debt), is that phone harassment? The guy in the cube across from me (a felony guy) says yes it is because only legitimate collection agencies can do this kind of thing. My thoughts are, there seems to be an exception in the harassment statute to contact of this sort, and there is no requirement under the law that says one cannot collect or attempt to collect one's own debts.

What say you all?

Sounds like he needs to quit calling her and just file a small-claims lawsuit against her with the JP.

Is there a rule out there that says only a collection company can "harass" someone to recover a debt? News to me. If that's the case, then this kid is in trouble:

Better Off Dead

My wife and I saw that movie when we were dating. So whenever she 'borrows' some money from me (like when she forgets her purse at home) I always use that phrase when I come to 'collect'. lololololol

Regarding the idea that they guy must take the ex- to JP court, that's fine, too. But it still seems that it is okay for him to contact her about repayment of the debt. Any other thoughts??

It's not that he can't call her or contact her, it's how he's going about it. It could certainly cross the line, or not. Matter of degree....

Check out the Texas Debt Collection Act (Tex. Fin. Code Ch. 392) for what you can and cannot do.

Thanks for the tip, Ken!

After reading the statute it seems to me that it does not apply to a private individual seeking to collect his/her own debt from a person who owes him / her some money.

quote:

---

(6)A "Debt collector" means a person who directly or indirectly engages in debt collection and includes a person who
sells or offers to sell forms represented to be a collection system, device, or scheme intended to be used to collect consumer debts.

---

It seems to me the language "a person who...engages in debt collection" implies a person who does this for a living, as opposed to a situation where you borrow a friend or neighbor some money and you want it back.

I don't know, I'd read that section as "someone who is currently trying to collect a debt". It doesn't say employed, just engaging in the activity.

SAN ANTONIO, Texas -- Somerset Police arrested a 16-year-old girl on charges of online harassment. She was arrested under a new law that took effect September 1.

The new Texas law criminalizes online harassment on social networking sites and through e-mail or text messaging. H.B. 2003 states a person commits a third degree felony if the person posts one or more messages on a social networking site with the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten another person.

[... snip ...]

Link to full story

I was hoping that someone who knew all the history and/or logistics of 33.07 could render an opinion. Obviously we know what the statute was intended to include. Sec.(f)(1) refers to "a website that permits persons to become registered users..." My question is does that statute differentiate between websites that permit persons to become registered users as opposed to sites that require persons to become registered users. MySpace, Facebook, etc, require people to become members in order to post. But there are a host of other web places that are more than just message boards that allow people to seemingly skirt the intent of this statute if they post under "Anonymous." To me, under the wording of the statute an argument could be made that the statute includes websites that do not specifically require you to register because it uses the word "permit." If anyone has any ideas, I would appreciate hearing them.