NPR says that a 77-year-old Tampa woman, Joan Kennedy Biddle, is suing to collect on a $300 loan that her great-grandfather made to the city of Tampa 147 years ago, during the Civil War. That modest debt (with interest) has grown to a little under $23 million dollars.
Biddle is in possession of an IOU signed by Tampa’s mayor promising to repay her ancestor for money borrowed to purchase supplies to be used in defense of the city of Tampa. The IOU is dated 1871, after Florida joined the Confederacy. When asked why she’s trying to collect the debt now, Biddle told NPR: “Better late than never.”
In defense of itself, the City of Tampa came up with a rather impressive list of reasons why the debt is not valid, not least of which is the fact that it was payable in Confederate dollars — a currency that no longer exists.
Sure seems to me that the City of Tampa as a political subdivision of the Grand Confederacy of the USA no longer exists?
I’ve always wondered why societies are held responsible for what dictators and what not do in previous regimes? Seems like the new government should just say “Sadam?”–we don’t pay Sadam’s debts.==Doesn’t seem relevant until you apply the same notion to half the 3rd world debt?
But I think “new” countries stay liable for the old debt in order to qualify for the new debt. Its what keeps the 3rd world in their place and dictators who support America in power.
I think Tampa should find some trailer trash to deliver her a leather check wrapped around their fist – and be expedient about it.
Hey, if the guy lent money to the city of Tampa, the city of Tampa should pay it back. End of story. Do you imagine that entities that took out billions of dollars in loans in French francs had those loans forgiven when they switched over to the Euro?
Pay the fucking woman. Sheesh!
[$23,000,000? What? – ed.]
Considering the Romans, had money Long ago…And if you find some of it, Many people would pay you Good money for it…
Even tho its obsolete/defunct..
I know..
Many companies IF’ you default, FILE it as a LOAN.. AS a LOAN, its fully collectible until you file Bankruptcy..
File it with a collection agency..
I’ve done the math.
$300, earning 5% compounded each year, for 150 years will owe $430,850
To get to 23 million, you must pay 8%.
Take into consideration the great depression and other periods in history of either low or negative growth, and maybe 4% is more reasonable.
$300 at 4% compounded annually gets you $103,535
Then there’s a little matter of income tax.
All they need to do is produce 146 year old document saying it was paid in full. Granted it would require the skill of someone knowledgeable about producing such documents. You know – no bond paper, Arial font,ink-jet printing, signed with a Bic and shit.
Wasn’t this an episode of the Andy Griffith Show?
Didn’t we already post this several weeks or months ago? I’m pretty sure we saw this on Dvorak’s blog awhile ago. Or maybe it was Fox News. I’m not really sure.
1871? The war was over by 1865!!!
I wonder if Tampa had declared bankruptcy at any point or gave a time limit to it’s loans.
It would also be reasonable to assume that at some time in it’s 147 year history that some law was passed declaring loans to the confederacy null and void. In fact, I’ll bet that the federal government itself declared confederacy loans null just to keep the federal government from having to repay them. Ergo, Tampa – once it was brought back into the union – had the loan automatically nullified due to being back in the union.
um, in 1871 the Civil War had been over for over six years.
They hopefully meant 1861.
Why is she “wacko” for attempting to collect 23 million? Heck I’d accept payment in genuine Confederate cash.
Unfortunately Tampa went bankrupt and dissolved in 1869 according to the story.
#1
This has nothing to do with Saddam, “new” countries, old countries, society, dictators, old debt, new debt, political subdivisions or dictators who support America. /boggle err … bobbo.
The 14th Amendment, section 4, covers it – she gets $0. End of story.
This is also a case of a greedy lawyer.
“Biddle said she’s known about the note since she was a little girl. ‘I showed it to the attorney, and he said it looked very interesting,” she said. “It’s strange that the thing has never been collected.'”
http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/article419897.ece
Not surprisingly, the lawyer was the one who suggested the law suit.
I personally have found this to be standard operating business for lawyers. Trolling for lawsuits. Too many lawyers.
The end result? The lawyer is going to try for a settlement which is somewhat less than the city’s cost of litigation hoping that the city will settle and save a little money.
Frivolous? Yes. Dirty and underhanded way to steal money from the city? Yes and Yes.
“This is also a case of a greedy lawyer.”
Bingo. I think it is wrong to call this woman a “wacko.” The lawyer wants an out of court settlement to make it go away. He gets his money, she gets hers.
#16–Ah Yea==whats frivolous about collecting on money owed???
I can see lots of “laws” that could affect the outcome of this case. Like the requirement of presentment==ie, money/interest not owed until note presented for payment?
Or that debts owed and not sued on after 7 years are null and void?
Bankruptcy as you say is a good techniques to start a fresh set of books.
So–all these active real worthwhile questions and you want to shoot the messenger? Terrible! What price justice????
#6–Pedro. Speak english. That sentence is so clipped, you are typing nonsense like me. Please pay attention and do better. But to what may be your point–I doubt Fidel paid off prior loans of (who was that guy)Samoza? ((sounds like a sandwich!)) And last I heard, he was not a recipient of World Bank development funds and what not.
#11–Bob Stone–good call. But probably a typo as the article says the debt arose “during” the Civil War.
#15–Pirate. HAW!!! Well, I’m glad you chimed in so affirmatively on this issue. Is this any indication of your strength of analysis on the prior thread that you defaulted on????
As I read the 14th Section 4==thats about debts owed to the Fed Gov and the States. You are going to have to atleast show a case or another law that extends this language to cities?? Thanks for playing.
#18 No it means that I don’t argue with idiots on the internet. How many times do I have to tell you that? I pointed out how you failed, you had your say, end of discussion, period.
Better read it again, so far you get a fail as usual.
#19–Pirate===really? That’s all you have to do? Enter a thread, announce you have won, poop, and leave?? Gosh. And here I keep giving you chances to explain yourself or provide additional facts/argument. I’m sorry. I’ll take your tack.
No you didn’t, I won.
Ahhh, I can’t help myself. Do you still say the 14th disposes of the issue in this thread???
Welcome to /ignore boobo.
Can you believe it – what next
Descendents of the Vikings demanding money + interest on whatever ?
The Indians who had Manhattan taken away from them ? Current value + interest
Where does it all – grow up – get a life
Get me an aspirin
#22–Spine==I’ve read that interest on the beads conveyed for Manhattan far exceeds the current real estate worth of Manhattan. Doesn’t sound possible, but such is the effect of compound interest.
#21–Pirate. I’m looking for discussion of opposing positions. If I slop over into winning/losing expressions of sentiment, its because I’m only human and lack self control over enthusiasm.
I always feel the better for “losing” an argument==means I learned something.
Teach me.
#9. I think it was. Every lesson in life can be learned from the Andy Griffith show. That’s where I learned that if you kill the momma bird, you are responsible for raising the baby birds.
P.S. Jenny asked me if I would like to “Dirty Sanchez” her. I told her I most certainly would not. Though it did remind me of a box of chocolates.
Bobbo, here is my lawyer logic.
“Frivolous” in that there exist so many reasons why this lawsuit cannot proceed that any lawyer who was honest would not take it (yea, I’ve only met one and I count myself lucky).
Since Biddle is the accuser, the burden of proof lies with her. For her to win, she will have to prove that Tampa never made a Good Faith attempt to repay the loan. Note the word “attempt”. It’s not enough to show that neither her nor any of her ancestors received the repay, but that the city itself never made the attempt.
The city of Tampa does not have to prove it’s innocence, therefore they don’t have to prove anything. She has to prove their guilt. Good luck with that.
And of course, the city that took out the loan ceased to exist in 1869. Any claim had to be settled at that time. The new city of Tampa was incorporated in 1887, a period of ~18 years. Why so long? Statute of Limitations, for one. The old city’s debts were not carried over to the new city.
Therefore, it’s a nice piece of paper and nothing else.
But wait! The city has more ammunition in it’s defense. Her lawsuit squarely brings the Doctrine of Laches into play.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity)
Realistically, she cannot win.
So therefore the lawyer is:
A) Taking her retainer (usually $5,000) knowing in advance that she is going to loose it all, or
B) Going pro-bono with the intent of extorting the city out of some cash.
Either way, the real criminal here is the lawyer. (Are we surprised?, Me neither).
#25–AH Yea==well, you are more secure in your understanding of Tampa City Law than I am.
I don’t think there is any threat of extortion if the law is as clear as you lay out?
Most governmental authorities are quite firm in rejecting lawsuits that have NO merit al all? Settlement usually proceeds only when the actions and the law clearly show government liability and the settlement proceeds on avoiding the hassle/expense/uncertainties of “fighting city hall.”
Lets see. The lawyer, the client–who is the bigger shmuck? Not knowing the law, I can’t tell.
How would a chinese municipality react to such a claim? (make that rhetorical!)
Gawd, one more time. First of all an amendment to the constitution of the Untied States most certainly applies to a city in the United States.
In the 14th amendment the fourth section confirmed that the United States would not pay “damages” for the loss of slaves, or debts that had been incurred by the Confederacy.
To wit: “But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States”
Now the city of Tampa, incorporated in the state of Florida and in this case after the civil war, being a part of the United States has to abide by the Constitution of the United States. Its not fucking rocket science.
And I don’t want to hear any foolish babble about how the constitution applies only to the states and federal government bobbo.
Checking on ebay
Confederate $10 bill sold for $22.51
Confederate $100 bill sold for $35.77
My favorite would be the
Alabama 10 cent note that sold for $14.99
Bobbo: really, it’s the exact same reason why the 14th Amendment’s transferring of the Bill of Rights down to acts of the States is also pushed down further to county and municipal governments as well. Or are you going to also argue, incorrectly, that since city governments aren’t mentioned, they are free to re-institute mandatory school prayer just so long as it’s not being directed from the state capitol?
Maybe there are legal reasons why this won’t fly (I’m sure there are) but I would imagine that if the City found out that great graddad hadn’t paid taxes or something wouldn’t they try to make the living family pay?