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.
#26, bobb.
Chinese mayor: “You want money, comrade?”
“We have two choices. 1) you tear up the paper, or 2) I shoot you and send your next of kin the bill”
“you decide”
I had heard that one of their “arguments” for collecting all that money is that there was no such thing or law as statue of limitations when the loan was secured.
But yeah… that little 14th Amendment…
I think the confederate thing is what gets them off. As far as time I work at a bank and I will say there are certian instruments, like swaps and stuff that have effective dates way out in the future, like 100 years. I asked about that and they said it’s normal. I think it’s just a way to effectively make the thing permanant.
#27–Pirate & #30–Sea Lawyer==Thanks for the reference and the explanation. Makes sense to me.
Isn’t it nice to have an arguable position?
#32–Ah Yea==Isn’t it nice to have a gun?
No worry, she’ll be dead and buried before this one makes it way through the courts.
#35, Bobbo, Yea, dem’ guns are useful in certain situations…
Jesus H, Christ! I’m buying all of you a pair of wadless panties.
Well, as a relation to the “man” himself, Jefferson Davis, I can tell ya’ll that the South continues to unleash its worst on the Yankees in retaliation for all we’ve endured.
Britney Spears, ya’ll…
Besides, it’s a moot point. The South had a constitutional right to cede from the Union, so ya’ll owe us lots more than that for having to defend ourselves in muskets and moonshine. So there. Nyah-nyah.
#25, Ah Yea,
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.
Not quite. All Biddle has to do is produce a document saying Tampa owes money. She then must declare that Tampa has not repaid the money. She is not obligated to produce anything else. The rest is up to the defense to prove the the money was paid, the loan was forgiven, the Fourteenth Amendment covers the debt, there is local law that forgives the loan, or some other measure that negates Biddle’s claim. Failure to respond to the claim will automatically give the win to Biddle. If Tampa makes a defense, then Biddle gets an opportunity to dispute the defense. If the Judge decides there is a factual dispute, it goes to trial.
Good Faith on her part is irrelevant.
The city of Tampa does not have to prove it’s innocence, therefore they don’t have to prove anything.
Innocence has nothing to do with this. The correct word is liable / liability. Actually, Tampa would have to demonstrate their lack of liability.
*
NOTE: The Fourteenth Amendment might not apply here as the defenses could have been permanent and thus usable by the United States after the war. Much would depend upon the city demonstrating if the money was used solely for Confederate purposes and not more long term use.
The Town was decommissioned in 1869. If some of the infrastructure from the original town remained, the debt could also be held over.
#40–Catshit. Most excellent post. Even “judicious” I would say. Good think one side or the other didn’t hire you to argue as an advocate, the clarity of your post would have been lost.