Shoplifting, Larceny, Robbery, Theft shoplifter's dad being sued

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hamid

New Member
My 17 yr old daughter shoplifted for the first time at Urban Outfitters in Charleston SC and was ordered to do community service and take corrective classes. I received a non-certified letter from an atterney in Florida damanding $150 on behalf of the chain store to settle the civil matter. They have reduced it to $75 now. Should I pay and forget about it or should I ask for proof that they are the hired atterney or should I just ignore the letter ?
They claim they can show that I know or should have known my child could have commited this alleged theft act and so I have to pay for the civil claim.
 
Personally, I would forget that I ever received the letter. In fact, I have no idea what letter I'm even referring to.....
 
You can certainly choose to ignore letter (not recommended). If you do so expect more letters with amount going up (maybe triple). If you continue to ignore letter several things can happen

. They can sue you in court under state law and win. If they do expect to pay higher fine fees, court costs and, legal fees making the $75.00 turn into thousands possibly

. They can file criminal charges on your daughter (if not done at time) and seek monies through court system

. Send a negative report to credit reporting agencies due to your lack of payment

. They can blow it off

Its called Civil Demand its state law and 100% legal. Its your call to pay or not but its a crap shoot if you don't. The firm that sent the letter has the law on their side and everything to gain by pursueing this. If you need further insight I suggest you visit the link in my signature line. there are experts in this very area there that can help you
 
Hamid said:
My 17 yr old daughter was caught shoplifting for the first time at Urban Outfitters in Charleston SC and was ordered to do community service and take corrective classes. I received a non-certified letter from an atterney in Florida damanding $150 on behalf of the chain store to settle the civil matter. They have reduced it to $75 now. Should I pay and forget about it or should I ask for proof that they are the hired atterney or should I just ignore the letter ?
They claim they can show that I know or should have known my child could have commited this alleged theft act and so I have to pay for the civil claim.
Click to expand...

I made a correction to your posting, Dad:rolleyes:

YOU shouldn't pay the demand, your sticky-fingered little girl should.:cool:
 
****

I am going to defer to Jacksgal (here's a first!) because I really am not familiar with Civil demands. However, I am going to say that 3x 75 is still 225 and no attorney from Florida is going to come to SC to sue for that. I'm off to research, maybe I'll start with Jack's site.
 
Last edited:
Ok, I'm back to my original advice. This is a LEGAL scam allowed by the State to dupe people who have been accused of crimes into sending money to stores to help out with security costs. The Florida firm that you mentioned is Palmer Reifler & Associates and they sued exactly 10 people last year after sending thousands of civil demands out. If you ignore them they will go away. If they turn you over to a collection agency then deny the validity of the claim. They have to sue you to win anything. This is a scam authorized by your state legislature.

Here is an article by the Wall Street Journal on the practice:

BIG RETAILERS DUN MERE SUSPECTS IN THEFT

Jacksgal is legally right, but there is very little chance of being sued by this Florida Firm. I would either ignore it or make my daughter pay it (good lesson for her).
 
You might recheck your stats. P&R are the most agressive of these firms. In fact they were recently sued themselves for their tactics in collection of these monies. You may certainly ignore this but fact remains the options mentioned early exist and you could call victim to them. Its a crap shoot. so are you a gambler?

Now why do agencies like P&R choose not to sue? Simple they may feel the offender lacks the funds so even if they won collecting would prove difficult. this does not remove options like reporting you to credit reporting agencies or letting store file the criminal charges they might not had filed at time. Once more its a gamble and your call

Let me add that retailers lose over 15 billion each year to shoplifting alone! That is not even the biggest part of their "shrink" (loses). the cost to prevent such theft is huge. State laws like Civil Demand help retailers get back some of that cost. Hardly a scam!!
 
Jacks they aren't my stats. I'm quoting the Wall Street Journal.
 
jharris352 said:
Attorney Robert Lee Marshall did an article about how to handle Civil Demands on Avvo. I think it is worth your time to read.

Civil Demands: What to do?
Click to expand...

It has dumbfounded those familar with retail theft why Attorneys advise some of their client not to pay. This does not change the legality of the fine or the need. Or perhaps higher prices to you, lost of hours, benefits, jobs etc to employees is what you would prefer?
 
Jacks maybe you can answer this question:

My first reaction to it is that it seems like a random value, $50-500 at the store's option, is it really at the store's whim?

My second question is:

Why does it or can it go up as the threats increase?

The reason I ask this is it seems rather arbitrary and driven by the "split" between the collector and the store. If it was truly a "fine" one would expect something like 2X or 3X price of the item. Instead it seems to be whatever the collection agency can scare out of them.

Comments?
 
I am not the expert my husband is. the amount varies by several factors. First is cost of item taken. Some state laws have a amount like 10x item cost or $100.00 whichever is greater (just example) other let it got scale of $50.00 to $1000.00 (again just example). The law firms (like P&R) set the amount the store LP or anyone with knowledge can guess and will likely be close. Exmaple a thef tof about a $35.00 item in CA will likely result in a Civil Demand of $250.00 approx. When these fines are not paid the Law firm will send a letter warning person to pay. If it goes that far the fine can triple (depending on state law). Jharris each state has its own laws on this (like many laws) so how much etc will vary. Fact remains stores lose billions this helps recoup some of that and, if Dad does not pay there could be consequences! As stated earlier law suit is just one option they have. Now my husband tells me less than half of these fines are actually collect and of those who pay not all pay in full.
 
So, what I see happening here is that some attorneys are advising clients not to pay the statutorily permitted civil demand. My first question is, who is going to pay an attorney a retainer for advice on how to beat a $300 civil demand? I doubt there are too many true attorney-client relationships in this situation other than an initial "free" consultation. I wonder how many attorneys offering that advice would then represent the "client" for free if the retailer turns around and sues him? Probably none.

Ultimately, if the person receiving the notice is a gambler, they can choose not to pay. They can opt to avoid payment of the amount and HOPE that the matter does not go to civil court or to collections. I am not a gambler, so I don't see the value in taking such a risk so I would pay it. But, to each their own. But, remember, the law is on the retailer's side on this. If it goes to court the retailer is almost certainly going to prevail. The only question is whether or not they WILL pursue it to court, and THAT is the crap shoot.
 
jacksgal said:
It has dumbfounded those familar with retail theft why Attorneys advise some of their client not to pay. This does not change the legality of the fine or the need. Or perhaps higher prices to you, lost of hours, benefits, jobs etc to employees is what you would prefer?
Click to expand...

Another lawyer's perspective on the scam demands.

http://sfcriminallawyer.blogspot.com/2010/05/palmer-reiffler-associates.html

http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/shoplifting-and-civil-demand-letters-1




How can a demand scam for $75 reimburse the merchant if the item allegedly stolen was $100?

What if the defendant gets acquitted?

I'm an associate municipal judge in my home town.
(I'm a substitute judge, in other words. But, when I sit, I see lots of these cases, most of them coming from Walmart, K-Mart, Sears, and Dillard's. I always tell the defendants to tell (or their PO) me if they get such letters. Our muni court threatens the scammers with contempt, if they don't send the defendant a letter withdrawing the threat. I've never met any resistance yet. The sitting Muni Judge (the one I sub for) tells us, if they can bully people, his court can bully the scammers.)

Our city ordinances require convicted shoplifters to pay restitution, if the merchants request it.

Most of them do.

The probation office or the court makes sure the money is paid to the merchant/victim.

The demand letters are scams.

They have no force of law.

The firm that scams the $75 takes a cut.

The entire $75 scammed doesn't find its way to the merchant.

Even if by some strange circumstance it did, as I said, what if the item stolen was $80?

Besides, as I said, the court will order restitution, if requested.
 
Last edited:
CdwJava said:
So, what I see happening here is that some attorneys are advising clients not to pay the statutorily permitted civil demand. My first question is, who is going to pay an attorney a retainer for advice on how to beat a $300 civil demand? I doubt there are too many true attorney-client relationships in this situation other than an initial "free" consultation. I wonder how many attorneys offering that advice would then represent the "client" for free if the retailer turns around and sues him? Probably none.

Ultimately, if the person receiving the notice is a gambler, they can choose not to pay. They can opt to avoid payment of the amount and HOPE that the matter does not go to civil court or to collections. I am not a gambler, so I don't see the value in taking such a risk so I would pay it. But, to each their own. But, remember, the law is on the retailer's side on this. If it goes to court the retailer is almost certainly going to prevail. The only question is whether or not they WILL pursue it to court, and THAT is the crap shoot.
Click to expand...



The scammers would never sue.
It usually costs more than the $75 scam demand to bring a lawsuit.
Suing makes poor financial sense.
Besides, the scammer has no standing to sue.
The letter is violative of due process.
Even the government can't take your property, just because.
The scam works because people are scared, rightfully so, most are thieves.
Nevertheless, we still have a constitution in this country, thank God!
 
Last edited:
Actually, Judge, in California and many other states these demand notices have the force of law and are even included within the Penal Codes of those states. These demands are specifically above and beyond what might be applied to a criminal conviction. Yours may not be such a state, but most seem to have such laws. They are, for all intents, a claim made to the suspect. If the suspect denies or ignores the claim, they can go to small claims court.

Check PC 490.5(b) and (c) for further on this in CA.

I cannot say how many of these have gone to small claims, but I have known of a number doing so. Usually in conjunction with some media attention to the issue likely designed to gain compliance in future cases.

And, of course, the merchant DOES have one year to report this to the police and get the matter filed in a criminal court, so there is always that option available to them if they do not receive satisfaction via civil demand. Granted, such a method can run precariously close to extortion if there is some implied or explicit connection between the two, but I have not seen such a threat in a demand letter though I would not be surprised if some of the smaller merchants were a little less cautious if trying to pursue these demands themselves.
 
CdwJava said:
Actually, Judge, in California and many other states these demand notices have the force of law and are even included within the Penal Codes of those states. These demands are specifically above and beyond what might be applied to a criminal conviction. Yours may not be such a state, but most seem to have such laws. They are, for all intents, a claim made to the suspect. If the suspect denies or ignores the claim, they can go to small claims court.

Check PC 490.5(b) and (c) for further on this in CA.

I cannot say how many of these have gone to small claims, but I have known of a number doing so. Usually in conjunction with some media attention to the issue likely designed to gain compliance in future cases.

And, of course, the merchant DOES have one year to report this to the police and get the matter filed in a criminal court, so there is always that option available to them if they do not receive satisfaction via civil demand. Granted, such a method can run precariously close to extortion if there is some implied or explicit connection between the two, but I have not seen such a threat in a demand letter though I would not be surprised if some of the smaller merchants were a little less cautious if trying to pursue these demands themselves.
Click to expand...


Amazing, simply amazing.
I agree, some states have made it law.
Your explanation is right on point.

One day a big rapper, actress, basketball player, wealthy person, or one of their children will get popped for shoplifting. Mr. Bigbucks will get this letter. I predict he'll dispatch his team of high priced, hot shot lawyers, and these laws will be toast. You have the state allowing a debt scammer to use the power and authority of teh state to collect an alleged debt. In most cases, from what I've read, most of these people haven't even been arrested, less alone charged. I know whay the state would try an do this, but I see problems with the way its being done. Thanks for helping see what other states are doing.
 
It has already been done - we read about these shoplifting cases in Hollywood with some frequency. The big shots pay the claim. A high priced team of lawyers is hardly a worthwhile investment to counter a civil demand for $500. Even then, I do not think the law would be "toast" but if that's what an appellate court might one day decide, so be it. I doubt it will ever GET that far, however.

And the STATE does not compel anyone to pay, it merely says that the merchant may seek redress above and beyond the compensation it might be qualified to in court. The civil demand, or "claim" if you would prefer, is often done in lieu of forcing everyone in to court for a criminal trial. It offers the merchant some method to receive some small measure of compensation and the suspect a chance to avoid a criminal conviction that could result in any future theft being charged as a felony.

A suspect can still refuse to pay the claim or ignore it, and then the merchant can proceed with his available options through the civil courts.
 
CdwJava said:
It has already been done - we read about these shoplifting cases in Hollywood with some frequency. The big shots pay the claim. A high priced team of lawyers is hardly a worthwhile investment to counter a civil demand for $500. Even then, I do not think the law would be "toast" but if that's what an appellate court might one day decide, so be it. I doubt it will ever GET that far, however.

And the STATE does not compel anyone to pay, it merely says that the merchant may seek redress above and beyond the compensation it might be qualified to in court. The civil demand, or "claim" if you would prefer, is often done in lieu of forcing everyone in to court for a criminal trial. It offers the merchant some method to receive some small measure of compensation and the suspect a chance to avoid a criminal conviction that could result in any future theft being charged as a felony.

A suspect can still refuse to pay the claim or ignore it, and then the merchant can proceed with his available options through the civil courts.
Click to expand...


I understand, but I'm glad I live in a state that doesn't engage in that nonsense.
If a person committed a crime, let the criminal justice system decide.

This system of threats allows a rich thief to buy her/his way out of the criminal justice system.
A poor thief, gets a conviction, and is still ordered to pay restitution.
That isn't justice.
Its the rare defendant that gets convicted that isn't ordered to pay restitution.
I see victims in more than 90% of the cases demanding (as they should) restitution.
Go figure.

Personally, it'll never impact me, because I'm not going to steal anything.
Its just another case of government run amok!
 
It is no different than making a claim for damages in any other civil matter, only here it is codified to permit retailers to do so in small claims court rather than have to burden the taxpayers and the system with a trial to gain restitution which will cost the state and all parties more than the civil demand. And, the suspect is still not forced to pay - he can choose to go to trial if he or she wishes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top