# Unpaid Dentist Bill Gets Handicapped Van Repossessed



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

*Video: *Van Repossessed 

*Man Admits Not Paying Overdue Bill*

*ASSONET, Mass. -- *A wheelchair-bound veteran said he was stunned when his handicapped van was repossessed after he failed to pay a dentist bill.

NewsCenter 5's Amalia Barreda reported that Korean War veteran Don Remedis' 100 percent disability is the result of a training accident several months after he joined the Air Force when he was 18.

Remedis said he did not have the money to pay a $570 dentist bill from three years ago. On Saturday, constables working for a creditor seized his handicapped van that is outfitted, he said, with $20,000 worth of equipment.

While he admitted he was behind on a paying a bill, he said it was wrong for someone to take away his only means of transportation.

"I didn't have a chance to say why don't you take my TV? It would have been better than my van. I have tremors. I just was in shock. I didn't know how to react in a way," Remedis said.

The constables did leave Remedis' wheelchair, which was in the van.

"I think because when they saw the wheelchair, at least in my estimation, they could have asked me about my situation," he said.

The creditor listed on a small claims court order is Donald H. Jackson Jr. who works out of Norwell. He did not respond to a message left by NewsCenter 5.

"It's like when someone steals a chair from a person. When they noticed that, noticed the stickers on the back of my van, they would have come back to me and talk to me about it and then take something else," Remedis said.

Remedis got his van back on Monday because his son was able to borrow some money. With court costs and towing fees, the final bill came to $1,400 -- more than twice the original $570 dentist bill.

_Copyright 2006 by TheBostonChannel.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed._


----------



## bbelichick (Aug 25, 2002)

Even after the story in the papers, these idiots get away with taking thousands of dollars worth of property for a $700 bill?

And then jack the guy $1400? What a scam.


----------



## justanotherparatrooper (Aug 27, 2006)

God Im glad I live in nh... I'll bet they dont chase after illegals that screw the ER's all the time!


----------



## KozmoKramer (Apr 25, 2004)

So if I'm to understand this correctly;
the creditor took the debtor to small claims and won the judgment.
OK, I get that part.
What I don't get is; if you lose and don't pay, cant pay (for whatever reason), the creditor can enlist constables to seize your property? Is this what happened?


----------



## Nachtwächter (Dec 9, 2005)

We treat our veterans so well. This was not some one trying to blow off the bill. Hope anyone using this POS, *Donald H. Jackson Jr*. finds a new dentist.


----------



## Wiggum_1 (Dec 9, 2004)

Kozmo, they can and have. A few months ago the Boston Globe did a whole series on the practice.


----------



## KozmoKramer (Apr 25, 2004)

I had no idea that was an allowed practice Wig. I thought we lived in America, not 1939 Berlin.
I would rather the penalty for defaulting on a judgment be jail, not the seizing of property. That seems egregiously anti-constitutional.
Default on a $500.00 judgment, lose a $20,000.00 automobile? Incongruous.
And not that I'm defending the dead-beat populous, lord knows there are enough of them, this just seems wrong to me.


----------



## Nachtwächter (Dec 9, 2005)

Shouldn't the VA foot the bill if he is a 100% disabeled vet?


----------



## Otto (Nov 18, 2003)

KozmoKramer said:


> I had no idea that was an allowed practice Wig. I thought we lived in America, not 1939 Berlin.
> I would rather the penalty for defaulting on a judgment be jail, not the seizing of property. That seems egregiously anti-constitutional.
> Default on a $500.00 judgment, lose a $20,000.00 automobile? Incongruous.
> And not that I'm defending the dead-beat populous, lord knows there are enough of them, this just seems wrong to me.


Koz, they had to have a court order to take anything. The order may have said they could take anything that would satisfy the debt, which would allow for discretion.

Sometimes the order specifies what to take. In that case there is no discretion. It is possible the equipment in the van is worth a lot more than the van. The plaintiff's attorney and the court may not have been aware of what had been installed in the van.

Generally, neither the plaintiff nor the court wants the debtor to go to jail if they have the ability to satisfy the judgement.

The article is only giving one side of the story. It states the van was repossessed. I think that can only be done by the creditor of the van.


----------



## bbelichick (Aug 25, 2002)

Otto said:


> Generally, neither the plaintiff nor the court wants the debtor to go to jail if they have the ability to satisfy the judgement.


WTF? Debtor's Prison?? Is this the British Colonies?

This is a disgrace.


----------



## 4ransom (Mar 1, 2006)

someone should confine that constable to a wheelchair so he can see how hard it is to get around without a van outfitted for you.


----------



## Otto (Nov 18, 2003)

The point of my previous post was that nobody here knows the whole story. The constable may not have had a choice. He may have had a court order commanding him to seize that van.

If he didn't the complainant who has been after his money for three years is going to be pissed and ask the judge why his / her order has not been executed. Then the judge call in the constable...

This may not be the case. Maybe the constable is an insensitive moron. We don't know from this one sided article.

bbelichick Quote: Originally Posted by *Otto* Generally, neither the plaintiff nor the court wants the debtor to go to jail if they have the ability to satisfy the judgement.
WTF? Debtor's Prison?? Is this the British Colonies?

This is a disgrace.

Are you suggesting that if someone has the ability to satisfy a court order and refuses, they should go unpunished?


----------



## bbelichick (Aug 25, 2002)

Otto said:


> WTF? Debtor's Prison?? Is this the British Colonies?
> 
> This is a disgrace.
> 
> Are you suggesting that if someone has the ability to satisfy a court order and refuses, they should go unpunished?


So you go to jail now if you can't pay your bills? SInce when? Not since the 19th century from what I can tell.


----------



## Otto (Nov 18, 2003)

Chapter 224: Section 18. Contempt; procedure; effect; appeal

Section 18. *The court may issue warrants for arrest and other processes to secure the attendance of debtors or creditors to answer for any contempt under this chapter.* The term debtor, as used in this section shall mean, if the debtor is a corporation or a trust with transferable shares, the contemnor as defined in section fourteen or section sixteen. An arrest shall not be made after sunset unless specially authorized in the warrant for cause.* Contempt of court under this chapter shall be punished by a fine of not more than twenty dollars or by imprisonment in the common jail for not more than thirty days. *A debtor or creditor in custody, charged with contempt, shall be entitled to a speedy hearing therefor, and the officer having him in custody shall remain in attendance until excused by the court. A debtor or creditor in custody, charged with contempt, may be released by the court and the hearing on the alleged contempt may be continued. 
*A debtor arrested on a capias after court has adjourned may be lodged with the keeper of the lock-up in the city or town in which he is arrested, or lodged with the keeper of the common jail.* Said keeper shall receive the debtor from the arresting officer and hold the debtor until the next sitting of the court issuing the capias, at which time the officer shall call for the debtor and take him before the court...


----------



## bbelichick (Aug 25, 2002)

Archaic bullsh*t. 

Here, read up...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debtor's_prison


----------



## Otto (Nov 18, 2003)

bbelichick said:


> Archaic bullsh*t.
> 
> Here, read up...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debtor's_prison


I don'y know why you would rely on an online encyclopedia over a current MGL. Especially when it supports my argument.

A *debtor's prison* is a prison for people unable to pay a debt to another creditor. Prior to the mid 19th century debtor's prisons were a common way to deal with unpaid debt. In the United Kingdom, the Debtors Act of 1869 abolished imprisonment for debt (although debtors who had the means to pay their debt, but did not do so, could still be jailed for up to six weeks).
Debtor's prisons varied in the amount of freedom they allowed the debtor. With access to a little bit of money a debtor could pay for some reasonable freedoms. Some allowed conducting business and having visitors over various hours. The father of English author Charles Dickens was sent to one of these prisons, which were often described in Dickens's novels.
In 1833 the United States eliminated the practice of imprisonment for debts at the federal level. Most states followed suit. *It is still possible, however, to be incarcerated for debt; debts of fraud, child-support, alimony, or release fines can land a citizen in **jail** or **prison**, or prevent one's release.*

I hope you pay more attention to detail when engaged in your "real police" work.


----------



## bbelichick (Aug 25, 2002)

Otto said:


> *It is still possible, however, to be incarcerated for debt; debts of fraud, child-support, alimony, or release fines can land a citizen in **jail** or **prison**, or prevent one's release.*
> 
> I hope you pay more attention to detail when engaged in your "real police" work.


And I hope you don't equate a Dentist's Bill with Child Support, Alimony or Court Fines.

Read for comprehension.



Otto said:


> I don'y know why you would rely on an online encyclopedia over a current MGL.


Typical Sheriff's Department employee. Relying on Arachaic MGL to make his case. These are still in effect, too...Go nuts and exercise your "authority"...

Chapter 272: Section 14. Adultery

Section 14. A married person who has sexual intercourse with a person not his spouse or an unmarried person who has sexual intercourse with a married person shall be guilty of adultery and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in jail for not more than two years or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars.

Chapter 272: Section 18. Fornication

Section 18. Whoever commits fornication shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three months or by a fine of not more than thirty dollars.

Chapter 272: Section 33. Exhibition of deformities

Section 33. Whoever exhibits for hire an albino person, a minor or mentally ill person who is deformed or a person who has an appearance of deformity produced by artificial means shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars.

Chapter 272: Section 36. Blasphemy

Section 36. Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.

Care to go a few more rounds, or do you want to piss off to your cushy post now?


----------



## Otto (Nov 18, 2003)

The charge isn't "Failure to pay dentist bill." It is "Contempt of court."

It is still a law. People are still jailed for it.


----------



## bbelichick (Aug 25, 2002)

Otto said:


> The charge isn't "Failure to pay dentist bill." It is "Contempt of court."
> 
> It is still a law. People are still jailed for it.


The difference between Contempt of Court for behavior in a Court Room and the tactics used by this Dentist and his thug Constables is night and day.

It's a disgrace.

By the way, all the examples I provided above are current MGL as well. They are "still a law". Why don't you pin on your star and head out in search of an arrest?


----------



## Otto (Nov 18, 2003)

bbelichick said:


> The difference between Contempt of Court for behavior in a Court Room and the tactics used by this Dentist and his thug Constables is night and day.
> 
> It's a disgrace.
> 
> By the way, all the examples I provided above are current MGL as well. They are "still a law". Why don't you pin on your star and head out in search of an arrest?


Contempt of court does not have to be a result of courtroom behavior.

Clearly, all the facts of the case were not spelled out in the article. Yet you dismiss the possibility that the constable was just executing a court order.

The difference between the laws you cited are that, while they are law, nobody enforces them, the one I cited is still enforced in courts every day.

BTW, I think Worcester PD charged someone with adultery in the mid 80's, and it flew.

This statement seems to be the one that has enraged you so...

_Generally, neither the plaintiff nor the court wants the debtor to go to jail if they have the ability to satisfy the judgement._

What should the consequences be for someone who has the ability to pay (which, in this case he did) a court ordered judgement and refuses? How long should the plaintiff have to wait for his money?

I'm all for veterans preferences, but should they be exempt from paying debts incurred decades after their service?


----------



## bbelichick (Aug 25, 2002)

I will attempt to dig up the Newspaper story from a few moths back detailing the shady and sometimes criminal practices of these "debt collector" offices.


----------



## Otto (Nov 18, 2003)

I am aware of the article, and the way the whole system is set up and works. I am not a fan either.

Maybe we can agree on that. 
</IMG>


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

Otto said:


> The charge isn't "Failure to pay dentist bill." It is "Contempt of court."
> 
> It is still a law. People are still jailed for it.


Contemt of court or not this "debt collector" constable saw that this was a 
HP van and should have used a little more common sense,he could have 
contacted the court prior to taking the van.
Your defense of him puts you in the same class as the constable.


----------



## Otto (Nov 18, 2003)

kwflatbed said:


> Contemt of court or not this "debt collector" constable saw that this was a
> HP van and should have used a little more common sense,he could have
> contacted the court prior to taking the van.
> Your defense of him puts you in the same class as the constable.


I am not necessarily defending the constable. Nobody knows the details of the case or the demeanor of the defendant. This has been going on for three years. Why are they just getting the van now? Has he been hiding it, knowing they are looking for it?

Just because someone is a veteran, does not necessarily mean he is a good guy or deserving a break.

He is quoted:

"_*I didn't have a chance to say why don't you take my *__*TV*__*?* It would have been better than my van. I have tremors. I just was in shock. I didn't know how to react in a way," Remedis said. _

_The constables did leave Remedis' wheelchair, which was in the van. _

Do you think it is likely that while they are taking his chair out for him, he didn't have a chance to say that?

My main point is that the article is not telling both sides. I will reserve judgement until I hear the whole story.


----------



## bbelichick (Aug 25, 2002)

Otto said:


> I am aware of the article, and the way the whole system is set up and works. I am not a fan either.
> 
> Maybe we can agree on that.
> </IMG>


Deal.


----------



## Otto (Nov 18, 2003)

Deal.


----------



## BUBBA87 (Feb 23, 2005)

Okay, let me play devils advocate. I started a business over a year ago and have some people that owe me money. I sent them 2 letters nicely asking for the money or a payment plan. I got no response. I then went to civil court. A notice for a hearing was sent, def never showed up. A 2nd hearing for judgement was set up. Again def did not show. Court found judgement in my favor. Mind you this whole process took 11 months. I still have yet to see any cash. So the saga continues, def has moved out of state. I had to then go to the district court in that state and apply for an out of state enforcement of judgement. Here again I prevailed. I have yet to see a dime. My question is this, did the disabled vet try to work some payment arraingement out when he was notified of the debt. Because the courts take into consideration your ability to pay. I have one customer paying me $5 a week for a $1400 debt, he called me after my first letter and apologized, he explained his situation and did the right thing.


----------



## Ranger83 (May 16, 2006)

The Globe series explained how this could happen. Basically the dentist sells the debt for pennies on the dollar to a debt collection outfit - who were little regulated. They would write a deceptive letter to the debtor that explained away any need to appear in court. They would then use the resulting judgement to sieze assets.

The state started cracking down on the registration requirement. The most shady operator examined in the article closed down their MA operations and moved to RI, where they are not regulated.

There were a number of heart-wrenching stories. The series was called Debtor's Hell - do a google search for boston globe debt collection, I don't have enough posts to include the link.


----------



## KozmoKramer (Apr 25, 2004)

Good God - you people have to read this expose.
I think you will find Part III especially interesting.
http://www.boston.com/news/specials/debt/


----------



## bbelichick (Aug 25, 2002)

*Enforcers' might goes unchecked*

By The Globe Spotlight Team | August 1, 2006
They have the power to take your car, your money, and sometimes your freedom. And they bring some uncommon credentials to the job.

Consider these resume highlights:

Kenneth J. Dorsey: Manager of a Jamaica Plain gin mill. Ran illegal gaming operation. Busted by Boston Police. Rifle and shotgun confiscated. Guilty plea, 1994.

Kevin J. Dalton: Plymouth County deputy sheriff until 2001. Fired after State Police probe into alleged shakedown of a company seeking a contract with the sheriff's department, an accusation he denies.

Constance M. Sorenson: Filed for bankruptcy in 2003 with $47,000 in delinquent credit card debt. Fined for punching a woman in the mouth outside a bar. Arrest warrant pending for failure to pay $100 fine in another case.Along with that baggage, Sorenson, Dalton, and Dorsey also carry badges - as officers in the murkiest backwater of the Massachusetts law enforcement community. They earn their keep as constables, independent operators appointed by cities and towns to serve court papers and execute court orders.

In Boston alone there are 186 of them, and Mayor Thomas M. Menino has given arrest powers to every one, including Dorsey and 87 others with criminal arrest records for offenses including firearms violations, indecent assault and battery on a child, and impersonating a police officer. Seven have been appointed in spite of guilty verdicts, among them one convicted twice in the last four years of beating his wife.

Constables are an odd, anachronistic leftover from colonial days. No training is required, no oversight is provided, and no state agency keeps track of their identities, much less their numbers - an estimated 1,500 to 2,000 statewide.
Yet many among them, including Dorsey, Dalton, and Sorenson, are foot soldiers for the most aggressive debt collectors in Massachusetts. They make their money by night, or at first light, with a frightening thump on the door, seizing cars by the thousands from intimidated debtors who have missed, or ignored, court orders to pay their creditors.

Most constables prefer to knock politely during daylight hours to deliver subpoenas and the like for their $35 or $40 fee.

But their more aggressive colleagues do much, much better than that, thanks to a 1990 amendment to state law that allows them to charge whatever they like for auto seizures. The result is price-gouging: Constables charge debtors between $600 and $900 to accompany the tow truck that arrives to hook a car. The fee used to be capped at $25.
When debtors cannot raise the cash to pay the debt and the seizure fees, their cars are sold at auction. Here again the constables are part of the game: Proceeds of the auction are split among the constable, the tow lot, and the creditor. Almost always ignored, the Globe found, is a state law requiring that the first $700 of the sale proceeds be returned to debtors.

In this obscure trade, constables have some well-armed competitors: the county deputy sheriffs, who sit one short rung up the law enforcement ladder and have grabbed an increasing share of the business. For sheriffs, too, the pursuit of a payout can sometimes take precedence over fairness. In one case earlier this year, two deputy sheriffs in Worcester County threatened to arrest a woman who stood between them and her car - waving bankruptcy papers that should have exempted it from seizure. Nonetheless, she lost her car for 10 weeks.

Since 2001, sheriff's departments in just five counties - Worcester, Norfolk, Bristol, Plymouth, and Middlesex - have seized about 2,500 cars for debt collectors, most often for a fee of $600 per car. And like constables, they rarely tell debtors they are entitled to the first $700 from the sale of a seized auto.
'Don't argue with us'
Marie LoConte had her close encounter with constables shortly after midnight on July 28, 2004, when her doorbell rang.

LoConte, 41, made her way down the stairs from her second-floor apartment and found three men wearing blue uniforms and badges. ''They looked like police officers. I thought they were,'' LoConte said. One of them, she recalls, was tapping his nightstick in the palm of his hand while another informed her they were there to seize her 1997 Ford Thunderbird for an unpaid credit card debt.
''Don't argue with us,'' she heard him say.

Terrified, LoConte said, she called Taunton police, who offered little sympathy. The constable brandishing the nightstick was playing by the rules, she says she was told, as long as he didn't hit her with it. ''I didn't sleep all that night. I couldn't stop crying. I was shaking,'' LoConte said.

LoConte is disabled as a result of lupus and Crohn's Disease. She lost her cleaning business more than a decade ago, and, by 2000, had stopped making payments on a $430 Providian credit card balance. She wound up paying $1,758, draining her savings and borrowing from a friend, to erase the debt and get her car back.
Of that, $158 went to the tow lot, which kept her car for a day, and $800 to the constables, dispatched by Sorenson's firm. To ransom the car, LoConte had to drive 70 miles to Sorenson's office in Chelmsford to pay her bill, then another 55 miles to a Bridgewater tow lot.

For Jeanmarie Fitzpatrick, the constable's visit was even more costly. An $800 constable's fee would have seemed a bargain to her.

When Dorsey, the former bar manager turned constable, arrived at her door last Dec. 14, he demanded $1,250 in fees for seizing her 2000 Dodge Neon.

Fitzpatrick, a 37-year-old single mother who lives in South Boston's D Street public housing project, was about to drive her three children to school when Dorsey drove up and blocked her car. Fitzpatrick figured it must be something to do with unpaid parking tickets; she said she had no idea there were court judgments against her for two delinquent credit card accounts, totaling $3,800. That's because Norfolk Financial Corp., the debt collector who sued Fitzpatrick, had given the court the wrong address. She says she was never notified of the lawsuit, and a Globe check of court and public records shows she's right.

''They went out of their way to find my car but they didn't go through the trouble to find my address'' to notify me about the lawsuit, Fitzpatrick said. ''That's what kills me.''

Dorsey, she said, turned aside her tearful plea that he wait to take her car until she could drop the children at school.

Dorsey's fee for having her car hauled away: $625. But since he was holding two pieces of legal paper for taking just one car, he demanded $1,250. The car was sold at auction for just $1,000, even though it had a resale value of about $4,000.

''It's a week before Christmas. I have three kids,'' Fitzpatrick said. ''These people have absolutely no heart.''
Dorsey, asked in an interview why he demanded twice the normal $625 fee, said: ''It was two different cases.'' If he had handled them separately, Dorsey contended, he would have been justified in seizing her car twice.
''I explained everything to her,'' Dorsey said. ''I'm not out to screw people.''

A badge without scrutiny

The office of constable is as ancient as it is obscure, governed in Massachusetts by laws that date back to the 1600s. One power of the office - never repealed - is to ''take due notice of and prosecute all violations of law respecting the observance of the Lord's day, profane swearing and gambling.''

Nowadays, constables, and the deputy sheriffs who perform parallel work, busy themselves delivering subpoenas and other court papers, placing liens on real estate, and seizing personal property to satisfy court judgments - in the case of constables, judgments of no more than $2,500.

Where they differ is in accountability. Constables, for example, can legally operate only in the communities that license them. But that restriction, the Globe found, is often ignored.

Constables also largely operate in secret. There is no requirement for them to keep, or submit to scrutiny, records of their seizures. When the Globe set out to determine how many cars constables across the state have seized from debtors, almost all those asked refused to say. Records held by county sheriffs, by contrast, are public.

But what is clear, by the account of sheriffs, debt collectors, and constables themselves, is that it is constables who handle the bulk of the car seizures. Court records suggest their total runs to several thousand cars a year, across the state.

Sorenson's firm alone was seizing between 80 and 100 cars a month for two debt collection companies, according to affidavits filed in a court case involving the companies. And Dalton, who owns South Coast Legal Services, told the Globe he uses constables around the state as subcontractors to seize vehicles, though he refused to say how many cars they hook for him. One of his subcontractors, Dorsey - who took away Fitzpatrick's car - said he seizes between 12 and 30 cars a month.

And no one monitors their work. So little scrutinized are constables that some work with impunity in communities where they have no jurisdiction.

Sorenson, for example, represents herself as a constable, but her license, in Salem, expired in 2003. In an interview, Sorenson, 37, claimed to be a constable in Lynn and Medford, in addition to Salem. But officials in Lynn and Medford said they have no record she has ever been licensed to serve in either city. Sorenson has also been embroiled in legal disputes for dispatching constables to do seizures in communities where they are unlicensed.

And some constables who worked for her have been criticized for over-the-top tactics. One allegedly identified himself as a State Police officer, according to court papers filed in a 2001 lawsuit against a debt collector. Another constable allegedly threatened a debtor with criminal sanctions, even though debt collection is a civil matter.
''There's not one heavy-handed constable that I've ever worked with,'' Sorenson insisted. She reached a confidential settlement in the 2001 case, which she declined to discuss with the Globe.

She said she's now stopped seizing cars altogether. But in June, Sorenson identified herself as a constable when she seized two cars from a Grafton businessman.

Sorenson defended the work of constables. She said consumers who ignore court orders to pay their debts have no right to complain when the constables come calling, no matter the hour. She described her own workday as ''nine-to-five'', meaning 9 at night until 5 in the morning.

''I think you should pay those debts - especially consumer debt. ..... You can't take a credit card and go buy yourself a new television and expect to never have to pay for it, but people do,'' Sorenson said. ''I think everyone should be responsible - I do. I'm responsible.''

Not quite. A Globe review of federal bankruptcy files showed that Sorenson has twice filed for bankruptcy, most recently in 2003, when her credit card debts alone exceeded $47,000. After that, her lawyer sued her for not paying his fee and won a court judgment - along with authorization to have her car seized. But he decided against taking that step.

Sorenson sidestepped questions about her own financial problems, except to say: ''Defendants aren't all bad. They're like me and you.''

Checkered pasts
Dalton, who owns the South Coast Legal Services constable business, changed careers in 2001 after 16 years as a Plymouth County deputy sheriff. But he didn't go willingly.

He and two other cashiered deputies filed a federal lawsuit claiming they had been unjustly fired. At the trial, the county introduced evidence from a State Police investigation in 2000 that Dalton had allegedly sought cash payments from a Brockton moving company trying to obtain county work in court-ordered eviction cases.

The federal jury upheld the dismissals. In an interview, the 60-year-old Dalton said the allegations were false but refused to discuss the issue further. He was never charged criminally in the case.

As for the $625 fee he charges for each car seizure, Dalton was hardly defensive about his price; he said he is considering an increase to offset the higher cost of gasoline. ''I have a lot of guys burning up gas, looking for cars,'' he said.

State law requires cities and towns to ''investigate the reputation and character '' of all constable applicants, as well as their fitness for office. But the law sets no specific criteria. In some communities, a police criminal background check is required. But in some cases the background checks appear to be cursory.

In Boston, police do background checks before Menino appoints constables. But Dorsey, the constable who demanded $1,250 for seizing Fitzpatrick's car, was appointed by Menino even though he listed his criminal record on his application. On Super Bowl Sunday in 1994, according to court records, Boston police raided the Old Stag Tavern in Jamaica Plain, which Dorsey managed, arrested Dorsey for running a betting operation and confiscated the two firearms. He was found guilty of a misdemeanor for possessing gaming materials and was fined $300. Dorsey, who is 50, also had a prior arrest for failure to make child support payments.

Boston Police Sergeant Raymond Mosher, who oversees criminal background checks for prospective constables, said he could not discuss Dorsey's case because of privacy restrictions.

Like Sorenson, both Dalton and Dorsey have had financial struggles not unlike those of some of the debtors whose cars they seize. A decade ago, Dalton had one small-claims judgment and two federal tax liens against him, according to court records reviewed by the Globe. And Dorsey says his own struggles help him empathize with the people who are his quarry.
''I've hid from bill collectors. I'll be honest,'' he said.

Restraint among sheriffs

Unlike constables, for whom no one sets standards, Massachusetts county sheriffs have to face the voters every six years. That can work as a check on overzealous collection work.
''We do not want people saying, 'The elected sheriff took my car and then junked it,' .'' said Jeffrey R. Turco, the chief deputy to Worcester Sheriff Guy W. Glodis. After receiving inquiries from the Globe, the Massachusetts Sheriffs Association is reviewing the fees they charge hooking cars for debt collectors.

No sheriff's department has seized more autos than Worcester County's - more than 1,000 since January 2002. And for Glodis, who took office in 2005, some of those seizures could prove to be politically embarrassing.

Take the case of Marlene Cote, of Leominster, who last December filed for bankruptcy - a step that legally protects assets from seizure. Or so Cote thought, until the evening of Jan. 13, when two of Glodis's deputy sheriffs banged on her door at 8:30 p.m. and said they were seizing her 11-year-old Jeep.

By Cote's account, the deputies were undeterred when she showed them her bankruptcy filing. They even threatened to arrest her when she stood between the tow truck and her vehicle.

Cote's debt, an old $300 bill from a local dentist, barely topped $600 with accumulated interest. The fee charged by the deputies added another $600. And the towing company wanted $310. The total - for a car that could not legally be seized - was $1,530.56.

When the Globe first raised Cote's case with Deputy Turco in mid-March, he acknowledged that the deputy sheriffs should have checked with his office when they were presented with the bankruptcy documents. According to his office records, Cote's car was returned within a few days when the error was discovered.

In fact, the car was still being held, two months after it was towed away, by Direnzo Towing & Recovery, which had added another $1,200 in storage fees in the interim.

Finally, at the end of March, Cote's car was returned and all the charges were waived. But Cote paid dearly for the episode as she struggled to regain her financial footing.

During the 10 weeks she had to get by without her Jeep, Cote said, she spent between $600 and $800 to commute by taxi to her $8-an-hour job as a cashier at a Kohl's department store in Leominster. During that period, she also had to abandon a second job, caring for mental health patients in group homes in Athol and Gardner.

It felt to her, as to many who lose their cars to unpaid debts, like a prison term for a traffic offense. And such penalties are far from rare: A review of Worcester sheriff's office records released by Turco showed numerous instances of debt collectors engaging deputy sheriffs to seize cars from people with small unpaid debts. Often, the fees associated with seizure doubled or even tripled the amount of the original debt.

Uxbridge collection lawyer Richard R. Hubbard is the source of many of those cases. He has had hundreds of cars hauled away, mostly by the Worcester County Sheriff's Department, from families whose unpaid - or disputed - debts to dentists, doctors, and local heating oil companies were just a few hundred dollars.

For its part, the Worcester Sheriff's Department has made one change in the wake of Globe inquiries: They had been charging $600 for all car seizures, whether the car is towed or the debtor pays the amount owed on the spot. Now, those who pay their debt to avoid a tow are charged $300.

In some other jurisdictions, sheriffs and constables have gone even further. In fact, most decline to seize autos. And the vast majority of debt collectors likewise frown on the practice.

In Suffolk and Barnstable counties, for example, the sheriff's departments rarely seize automobiles. And in the few instances when Barnstable deputies seize a car, they charge just $40 an hour for a deputy's time, according to Barnstable Chief Deputy Sheriff Brad Parker. When asked about constables who charge between $600 and $900 to seize a car, Parker said, ''That's gouging.'' As for his peers in other sheriff departments, who charge up to $600, Parker chose his words carefully: ''That sounds high.''

Parker said his office was approached two years ago by Norfolk Financial Corp. and Commonwealth Receivables Inc., two collection agencies that have seized thousands of cars, and asked to do their seizure work on Cape Cod, but he refused.

Too often, Parker said, such cases ''are against a single mother with kids and a beat-up old car, and no other transportation.''


----------

