Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Good afternoon, everyone. This is the Vermont House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development. It is Tuesday, 01/27/2026 at 01:10 in. So now we're here to what is page three eighty five, category relating to remedies and protections for victims of coerced death. We have a legislative council with us, Maria Roy. Maria, good afternoon.

[Maria Roy (Legislative Counsel)]: Good Afternoon. Nice to meet Beth.

[Committee Member (unknown)]: Good to have you, guys.

[Speaker 0]: If you're gonna walk us through the strike all?

[Maria Roy (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. We have a draft strike all amendment to H. Three eighty five concerning course debt. And so, I am going to share my screen. It should be posted on your webpage. So what I have here is It's basically the bill is introduced Or the latest version. I don't know if we actually made changes last year. But what's shown here in highlight are any new revisions that you haven't seen yet. So we'll go through and talk about those. So I will say just at the outset, and I know we talked about this last session, one of the big issues that we are all kind of following is the extent of federal preemption under the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. So trying to walk that line, know, firmly rooting things in state consumer protection laws, but then also referring to and allowing furnishers and credit reporting aid, those who furnish information to credit reporting agencies and the credit reporting agencies themselves to still follow their own process as they're required to do under federal law. So I'm just mentioning that because as we go along, there may be places where we can kind of make that more consistent through either intent language or specifically referencing the procedures in federal So, that being said, so the first change here is just in the definitions section. It was just abuse before, and now it's domestic abuse and not quite in alphabetical order yet. I should mention this hasn't been reviewed by our editors, so probably a number of little things that we'll have to fix. But this is more of a clarification. The definition of abuse that is cross referenced is in Title 15, which concerns domestic relations. So the term there is in the context of domestic relations. So that's kind of the clarification there. And then just as a refresher, should we go through it more kind of a little more background instead of just focusing on the changes? Are you all pretty familiar with I know you heard the report from DFR, so you've had some. What would be helpful? I don't wanna

[Committee Member (unknown)]: I can use a little refresher.

[Committee Member (unknown)]: I mean, we've got time to tell, right?

[Maria Roy (Legislative Counsel)]: That's those are the, like, worst words for the attorney to give a good seat to hear, I just wanna say.

[Committee Member (unknown)]: I think it'd be good to

[Maria Roy (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.

[Speaker 0]: Just another restructure, though.

[Maria Roy (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Great. So right now, we're just gonna go through the definition section, and I'll kinda mention what they refer to when they're gonna come up. So the second definition for adequate documentation, this relates to a statement of course debt and the information that should be provided to a creditor ideally. It's basically supporting documentation related to a statement of forced debt, and what should be included in that is a police report. Yeah. Okay. So these are any of these items, not all of them. So what constitutes adequate documentation? A police report that identifies the coarse coarse debt or a portion thereof and describes the circumstances under which the coarse debt was incurred, a Federal Trade Commission identity theft report, an order from a court of competent jurisdiction setting forth findings of coerced debt, a sworn written certification from a qualified third party professional, and that term is defined later on in the definition section, or any other document that demonstrates a person was subject to coerced debt and that supports a debtor statement of coerced debt. So again, what is meant by coerced debt? And there is a change here. So now, I don't think it was specified in the earlier draft whether it was secured or unsecured or both. So this just specifies that course debt means all or a portion of secured or unsecured debt, and there's one qualification which we'll get to below, in a debtor's name that has been incurred as a result of, Roman numeral one, the use of the debtor's personal information without the debtor's knowledge, authorization or consent, the use or threat of force, intimidation, undue influence, fraud, deception, coercion or other similar means against the debtor, or economic abuse perpetrated against the debtor, and that term economic abuse is also defined, was not subject I think we might be missing some conjunctions here, if we can fix. But was not subject to a final judgment in an action for dissolution of marriage or a collection matter that occurred prior to the debtor requesting that the creditor seesaw collection efforts. And then significantly, kind of the carve out of secured debt is that subdivision C is not a mortgage loan. And then there's a definition cited. And also, with respect to security debt, it only includes the debtor's liability for any deficiency after the foreclosure, repossession or surrender and disposition of the subject collateral. So if it's a secured debt, it's a car that was used as a collateral for a car loan, The lending creditor can repossess the car and then charge any remaining amount that wasn't collected. So then creditor needs a person or the person's successor, assignee or agent claiming to own or have the right to collect a debt owed by the debtor. And then for purposes of this subchapter, debtor means a person who is a survivor of domestic abuse or human trafficking, and economic abuse is taken out of here. But I believe it comes up in the context of Where does it come up in the context of It's a subset. Right? Let me just double check on that. So, is a survivor of domestic abuse or human trafficking. And then what's new here is a vulnerable adult who is a survivor of abuse, neglect or exploitation, as defined in Title 33, Chapter 69, which is the Adult Abuse Prevention Act. Not sure that that's exactly the name. And this is definitely where we're missing a conjunction, owes core debt. So if you're one of those, if you fall into one of those categories and you owe core debt, you are considered a debtor. The definition of economic abuse has pretty much stayed the same. It just removes it from the context of a domestic relationship. Human trafficking, same cross reference, the perpetrator is the person who caused the coerced debt to be incurred by another. And then here's the definition. There's some changes here on who is a qualified third party professional. So, as in the bills introduced, it could be an officer of the court or law enforcement personnel. And then some changes in subdivision B, a little more specificity. So, it could be a crisis worker, and that term is defined in Title 12. A licensed social worker or a clinical mental health counselor, again, with a cross reference to the definition. Add a program, should be that provides assistance to older or dependent adults or to persons regarding domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking or abuse of children who has relevant training or experience. And then finally, the other qualified third party professional could be a licensed attorney or healthcare provider, as defined in statute. So, the statement of course debt, which is the primary documentation that needs to be submitted when a debt is challenged, means a written and you want a sponsor wanted to specify in this draft that it means only a written statement, not an oral statement, that's provided by mail, and we're going to define what exactly that term mail means in this subdivision, to a creditor that includes the following information. So all of these are just been renumbered or re lettered, but otherwise the same. So in the statement, of course, identification of the debt or portion of the debt that is coarse debt If available Description of the circumstances under which worst debt was allegedly incurred A statement by the debtor disclosing that the debtor did not willingly authorize the use of the debtor's name or personal information to incur such debt any information known by the debtor, including account information or credit card information the name of the individual in whose name such debt was incurred the identity of the perpetrator, if known, contact information for the perpetrator, unless the debtor signs a sworn statement that disclosing such information is likely to result in abuse to the debtor or any immediate family member of the debtor. Also, what should be included is the debtor's preferred contact method and information such as a telephone number, email address, physical address or safe address for either the debtor or a third party whom the debtor designates to receive information about the coerced debt, which shall be specified by the debtor in writing. Probably don't need to say that anymore. It's redundant. And kind of a catchall provision, which is new, any other documents the debtor deems appropriate to support the statement of coerced it. And then, as I mentioned, for purposes of this subdivision, what is meant by mail? It means certified mail, certificate of mailing, or any other similar first class mail tracking method used or approved by the U. S. Postal Service, including intelligent mail barcode tracing. The term also includes any electronic or digital transmission that provides a verifiable date, timestamp or tracking capability, as well as any other written method deemed appropriate by the Commissioner. It just kind of leaves it open a little bit for the commissioner to expand that definition as necessary or appropriate. And then in terms of the sworn written certification from the third party professional, I don't know how much detail you want to go through this. But so this is what would have to be sworn to by the third party professional. So obviously, their name, in what sense are they a professional as required, A statement that based on their professional interactions with the debtor, they have reasonable basis to believe that the debtor is a survivor of domestic abuse, economic abuse or human trafficking, is incurred all or a portion of debt that is forced debt statement saying that the professional has reason to believe the circumstances under which the forced debt was incurred are as follows. And then just a signature, and contact information for the third party professional. So those are the definitions, that pertain to the rest of this bill. So, section 2495B basically is just a statement that coerced debt is prohibited. A person shall not cause another person to incur coerced debt. And then further clarification, coerced debt is not enforceable against the debtor. So then, in terms of process, what a debtor can do with respect to forced debt, basically filing a statement of forced debt and adequate documentation with the creditor.

[Committee Member (unknown)]: That is

[Maria Roy (Legislative Counsel)]: mentioned in subsection B. Subsection A basically provides a time frame. Within thirty days following a receipt of a debtor's statement of towards debt, The creditor shall notify any consumer reporting agency to which the creditor furnish adverse information about the debtor that the debtor disputes the adverse information. And then if the consumer provides the statement and adequate documentation to the creditor, the creditor has ten business days to then cease all attempts to collect the coerced debt, refrain from filing any lawsuits unless the creditor is challenging the assertion that the debt is coerced in a court of law, Shall cease all garnishment of funds from the debtor. And then subdivision four, proposal here is to strike this, return to the debtor any payments that were made by the debtor or received as part of a garnishment of funds from the debtor on the coarse debt. Notify the debtor that it is ceasing all attempts to collect the debt from the debtor based on the claim of hoarse debt. And then the notice shall be provided to the debtor using the preferred contact method. And in addition, the creditor shall inform the debtor of the option to receive notice in writing. And then, instead of subdivision five, which basically I mean, this will come up in a later subsection. Instead of requiring the creditor to contact a consumer reporting agency and request that they delete the information, this subdivision now says that, and this is again within that ten day period, notify the debtor of the creditor's intent to either accept or dispute the accuracy of the statement of court's debt. If accepted, the creditor shall contact any consumer reporting agency to which it furnished information about the debtor and the course debt and request that such information be deleted from the debtor's credit report. And then again, finally, obligation of the creditor is to refrain from selling the debt or transferring it for consideration. So then, subsection C, if a creditor provides a statement that does not have all of the information that is required as defined, or only provides an oral statement without adequate documentation, then the creditor is obligated to notify the debtor within five business days using the preferred contact method, that the information is incomplete and additional information is necessary. If the creditor provides this notice orally, the creditor shall inform the debtor of the option to receive the notice in writing. And then, in terms of that notice that goes out, subsection basically references a form that the Commissioner of Financial Regulation will develop, and that's model form A1, which will be reviewed momentarily. So if the creditor provides that form to the debtor, then that is considered compliance with subsection C, that you notify the creditor of the information that they need to provide. So E expands this a little bit more to cover more languages about the written notice that's provided. It shall be provided to a debtor in the 12 most common languages in Vermont. Similar provisions about oral interpretation services that are needed in terms of communication. And then, also, with respect to that model form A1, it should be available, published in the 12 most common languages in Vermont. So in terms of what is in that form, again, this is a form that the creditors provide to the debtor. Basically information about the creditor and then soliciting relevant information, from the debtor. Think it's pretty self evident, everything related to the debt and the circumstances surrounding incurring that the poor's debt. And again, it references some of the definitions what constitutes a sworn written certification from qualified third party. This should all be consistent with the definitions section, but made really clear for purposes of this notice. And then just a clarification, the creditor can request that the debtor provide the identity of the perpetrator, but then referencing back that unless the debtor specifies the foreign statement, is potential for harm if sharing that information is requested or required. So there's a carve out. So in terms of the civil legal remedies around coerced debt, first, a statement that a debtor is not liable for coerced debt. And a debtor may raise as a defense in any forum and by any allowable procedure that a particular debt or portion thereof is coerced debt. So if they're sued, they can raise this as an affirmative defense. Subsection states that a debtor establishes a prima facie case that a debt is forced debt by providing a statement of forced debt and adequate documentation. If the creditor has a good faith basis to believe that the debt is not forced debt, the creditor may seek a court order in the court of competent jurisdiction declaring that the debt is not coerced debt, or asking for a court order. If there is such a suit brought by the creditor, the creditor has the burden to disprove the debt as coerced debt. So again, there's a prima facie showing that it is coerced debt, and then the burden is on the creditor to disprove that fact. The perpetrator of coarse debt is civilly liable to the creditor and may also be civilly liable to the debtor if the debtor made payments or incurred any losses. The creditor may use all legal rights and remedies to collect the coerced debt from the perpetrator of coerced debt. Subsection E basically these are protections, redactions, sealing of court records, basically to protect the debtor and the family members of the debtor. F is specifying that if a creditor doesn't comply with the procedures that are outlined here, then the creditor is liable to the debtor in an amount equal to the sum of actual damages. And then it just goes on to reference kind of what those penalties are up to $5,000 per violation. Court costs, attorneys fees, indicative damages if the court applies that that is appropriate and the creditor's conduct for noncompliance was willful. And then finally, subsection The provisions of this sub chapter apply to lawsuits filed in the state, regardless of whether a related contract provides that the law of another state is chosen. So contract can stipulate that the terms are consistent with another state's contract law, but for purposes of Board's debt, irrespective of that Vermont law, these provisions would be available. So creditor remedies, nothing stated here diminishes the right of a creditor to seek payment from the perpetrator. And again, having said that, the only caveat is that you still can't request the getter to provide the name of the perpetrator. It shares some risk. And then, a new section B, Nothing in this subchapter shall prevent a creditor from seeking recourse for fraudulent claims of forced debt. Also, a new section here for violations. This basically is specifying that if there's a violation of this subchapter, that constitutes an unfair and deceptive act in trade and commerce in violation two twenty four fifty three, which is UDAP Consumer Protection Act, Unfair Deceptive Acts and Practices in Commerce. That's the general statutory cross reference. And if something falls within that statute, then all of the remedies of consumer protection follow. And that's kind of specifically identified in subsection b. So the attorney general has the same authority to make rules, conduct civil investigations, enter into assurances of continuance, and bring civil actions as provided under subchapter one of this chapter. All of this is in the consumer protection chapter, and there are different subchapters. But those enforcement remedies from the AD's office are subchapter one. And as I looked at this, I thought about it. Because up above, we went through what the damages, the penalties are for a debtor, maybe just a clarification that that supersedes other remedies that would generally be available or some somehow, whatever you decide to do. And then section two, the attorney general has rules governing debt collection practices, and this just requires the Attorney General to amend those rules so that they are consistent with all the requirements in this bill. So section three, this amends provisions in the subchapter that pertains specifically to fair credit reporting, what needs to be furnished to a credit reporting agency, and also in the credit report. So, as you can see, there is a procedure already in statute. If a debtor disputes the accuracy or completeness of information in their credit report. And this is kind of one area. Maybe we can make the language a little more consistent or just specify that nothing that's required in the act is meant to supersede what's already in statute and required under federal law. So the significant substantive change to this process is added as a new subsection H, and it specifies that if a consumer asserts that a debt is the result of coerced debt as defined in the other subchapter and provides to the consumer reporting agency either report forward or relief, again, as permitted under the subchapter 13, or statement of course debt, as we have previously defined it, and adequate documentation as previously defined, then the consumer reporting agency shall reinvestigate the debt pursuant to this section. If after the reinvestigation is determined that the debt is coerced debt, then the Consumer Reporting Agency shall remove references to it from the consumer's credit report. Then proposal just to strike this definition here, because I think it's pretty consistent with the definition we just referenced. And section four is really just actually a clarification. This is, again, in the fair credit reporting subchapter. This just says that a person, if they believe their personal information has been used unlawfully, as described in, and that reference there is to Vermont's criminal identity theft law. And I'm not sure why it was limited to subsection a. There are several subsections to that criminal statute, and so this is just cross referencing the entire statute. And then finally, this proposal here is for this act to take effect 07/01/2028. And the only other thing I'll mention is that you might specific about what it applies to. If it is prospective, any debts incurred on or after the effective date, or if it applies to any debts that are in effect on the effective date. So just that is a policy question, but whatever you decide for you should clarify. And then the last thing I am just going to mention, if there is a finding of porous debt, and this is not my subject, but one of the things to think about is foregone obligations. Any money that they are not required to pay for could be considered taxable income. So you may want to see it. You can't change federal law, but if there is a way in state law you want to prevent it from being taxed, there might be a way to do that. But I just wanted to flag that. I think that's all I have.

[Speaker 0]: Question? Regarding

[Committee Member (unknown)]: the section where the creditor can and that's for the information about the perpetrator.

[Committee Member (possible bill sponsor) (unknown)]: Have we talked about that?

[Committee Member (unknown)]: There because a part of me feels like they should be able to ask that as this is special exception. But then again, I guess what's the reasoning for that?

[Committee Member (possible bill sponsor) (unknown)]: Yeah, mean, can is it Okay? They can ask for it, but it's the victim's ability to say, if I share that information with you, it could put me or a close family person at risk. And that's when they don't have to get it. So this is all policy questions, is what do we How protective do we think is reasonable to make the law?

[Committee Member (unknown)]: I'm not saying no to it. I'm trying to think it through because

[Committee Member (possible bill sponsor) (unknown)]: it's Yeah. It's not easy.

[Committee Member (unknown)]: No. So I try to get the whole process in terms of how this will check. And looking on page eight, so it's clear if the creditor accepts, you know, the state have adequate or whatever, it's clear what happens. If the creditor doesn't accept that, and I'm not trying to make a policy here, is the recourse simply to litigation at that point?

[Maria Roy (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Or to reinstate collection, debt collection practices, whatever had been ceased when the notice was filed by the debtor.

[Committee Member (unknown)]: Right. But the the creditor

[Maria Roy (Legislative Counsel)]: So they might be able to collect

[Committee Member (unknown)]: If they disputed it, they need

[Speaker 0]: a quote.

[Maria Roy (Legislative Counsel)]: Right? Yeah.

[Committee Member (unknown)]: They don't have any other debt.

[Maria Roy (Legislative Counsel)]: Not unless the debtors suddenly decide to pay it or the collection agency was successful. But

[Committee Member (unknown)]: And I get why that might be the case. And the other question, again, just kind of a technical nature, I guess. You got a bunch of examples of what the statement of course steps would be, needs to be in writing, a bunch of things that constitute an appropriate statement. The last one says, any documents that are deemed appropriate to support the statement? So it puts it in the debtor's perspective to say, Yeah, I think this statement that I'm making is adequate to support the firearm or something like that. Imagine other ways of trying to think about that. And again, I don't, maybe that's the way, in terms of reasonable person, that kind of thing, which is different, and maybe good reason. Formative question. You're looking at other spaces of adaptogens?

[Maria Roy (Legislative Counsel)]: So one thing I might say, I think this is so all of this information needs to be submitted in the statement. It's not one or the other. Oh. Yeah. There's an end. So it's just saying, and if there's something else that could support this statement.

[Committee Member (unknown)]: I see. I I thought it was I thought the oh, includes the following information. You mean past, past, each one. So got it. Becky.

[Speaker 0]: Okay,

[Committee Member (unknown)]: so it's and except for DD, a sworn written certificate Sworn written certificate from a qualified third party professional for E. So there's an or in there. E to E has or. Because I always had the same question trying to understand. Right.

[Committee Member (unknown)]: I'm on page one. Yeah, you're on page one. Oh,

[Committee Member (unknown)]: you're talking about page four. Okay. So those are ors. The page one, A, B, C, D, or E.

[Committee Member (unknown)]: You would assume.

[Committee Member (unknown)]: And then my question, which is, have other states adopted something similar to this? Do do any looking around?

[Maria Roy (Legislative Counsel)]: There are. Actually, Department of Financial Regulation did a really great report and summary. You might have heard of it, but think Joe can probably I don't know if he's ready like to review some of that. But there are different state laws that are referenced and described, contrasted and compared with one another. Connecticut, Texas, New York. Think New York was the most recent one. And I can send a copy if you want to look at the New York. I remember reading that now.

[Committee Member (unknown)]: On a similar vein, I have some concerns about any other document that demonstrates a person with a subject of worse debt. Mean, any is a really big word. I mean, does that mean that, you know, I can have a friend online write a letter saying, yeah. Well, I I chatted with this person online for weeks, and they definitely were in course debt. I just are there any guardrails on that? Because I just feel like that's just a that's Wild West right there. I mean, I mean, I can see businesses forming for $50. They'll send something like this out.

[Maria Roy (Legislative Counsel)]: No. I I think that's a really good point. Because as you can see, all of the other items are pretty police report, identity theft report. It would be in the best interest of the debtor to have a police report, identity theft report. Think that information they probably submitted. But whether you want to say that any other information qualifies or meets that definition, I think that's a really good point. Whether it's considered adequate documentation. I think that's a good point.

[Committee Member (possible bill sponsor) (unknown)]: I'm wondering if we need adequate documentation at all if we have what's required down below so that there's no confusion. If the statement of coerced debt is required, we can talk about that offline. Okay.

[Maria Roy (Legislative Counsel)]: Statement of life insurance. Oh, you mean, like, just include that in the statement?

[Committee Member (possible bill sponsor) (unknown)]: Oh, we have adequate documentation as a definition.

[Maria Roy (Legislative Counsel)]: Right.

[Committee Member (possible bill sponsor) (unknown)]: Do have We don't have that a statement of coerced death that includes all of these things as required. I just wonder if we're not creating some confusion.

[Maria Roy (Legislative Counsel)]: That's a good point. Have to think about it. I But are different think in one instance, you can submit a statement of course debt and begin the notification. But you can also then submit your adequate documentation after the fact. So it's whether they should be separate or together, maybe. Yeah.

[Committee Member (possible bill sponsor) (unknown)]: And maybe that probably would answer your question, is when does adequate documentation what does adequate documentation allow someone to do?

[Maria Roy (Legislative Counsel)]: I think that subsection that says once a creditor receives its statement and adequate documentation, it has to then cease collections, do a number of things. So I think that's where it becomes that's one of the places where they're but it's a good question about whether they should just be one statement.

[Committee Member (unknown)]: Thank

[Speaker 0]: you, Marie. Welcome.

[Committee Member (unknown)]: Good afternoon.

[Speaker 0]: Good afternoon. For the

[Joe Valenti (Director of Policy, VT Department of Financial Regulation)]: record, Joe Valenti, director of policy at the Vermont Department of Financial Regulation. I will be brief. I think as you recall when I did the walk through of our report a couple weeks ago, DFR is neutral on the bill. We recognize the need to, balance protections for survivors with concerns both about potential losses to financial institutions and Vermont having an outlier status with regard to the banking laws that are in place. We do had we do have excuse me. We did have a lot of corrective conversations with stakeholders. Many of them are in the room or online. We're very grateful for the back and forth that we've had. So I'll speak briefly just on technical aspects of the bill, and in the context of the act 23 report that we submitted. Two things I would draw your attention to, if you're not already aware, that happened since the time that we filed that initial report. One was that in New York state, a chapter amendment bill was introduced. In New York, a chapter amendment is when the governor as I understand it, the governor passes a bill on the condition that the legislature make changes to it. So there are some anticipated changes that may be happening to the New York bill this year. The other was that it was brought to our attention. There was a law passed in Illinois back in August that we had looked at briefly. That's a little bit different than the ones that are all here. The Illinois law would apply coerced debt protections only to the debt collection process. So not for someone when someone is interacting with their original lender, but if that debt falls into collections that someone would then have the ability to challenge. It's a bit different. Just wanted to put that on the table so you have an idea of the spectrum here. But with regard to the amendments to the bill, in general, these do have greater conformity with the other states where we have seen coerced debt legislation that is passed, to the changes, to secured debt, both carving out mortgages and having a specific process, for secured debt where it's only the deficiency and the collateral can be repossessed. That is consistent with what was passed in New York and that, to my knowledge, that, provision would stay even if the new amendments in New York, were enacted. One other thing that I would point out here is that the qualified third parties that are mentioned in the definition here are all licensed entities, and that may make it possible to have some greater oversight and safeguards over who is providing documentation in cases of this debt. I did want to point out the language access requirement for DFR. That is something that we need to explore more. Language access is very important. We recognize that it is not something that we have frequently encountered. And I think we just need to figure out as a department what the costs and obligations would be of doing that. And so I've already asked colleagues to see what we can find out about really in practice, what does that entail in terms of cost and time? I think most of the rest that's here, like I said, is is consistent with the laws enacted in other states. And, you know, these are a lot of policy decisions for the committee to undertake.

[Carly Glisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Good afternoon. I'm Carly Glisserman. I'm the policy director at the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. And please bear with me for a moment as I bring up a quick slide deck.

[Maria Roy (Legislative Counsel)]: Perfect.

[Carly Glisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: We greatly appreciate the opportunity to testify on H-three 85. This is the second time that I've been in this committee in this role, so I wanted to provide a little bit of context about the network, what we do, and the services that we provide, and those of our member programs. The Vermont Network is our state's leading voice on domestic and sexual violence issues, and one of our primary roles is as a membership organization. We work very closely with 14 independent nonprofits that provide life saving services to survivors of violence and prevention programming in their communities. They offer a 20 hotline and chat line, emergency housing, legal advocacy and children's services. And economic instability is one of the most significant barriers that most survivors face between them and seeking safety. And so staff at our member programs support survivors in accessing housing, benefits, financial literacy programs and more to try and reduce that barrier and support survivors in seeking financial independence. Now, we have heard loud and clear from survivors and advocates who serve them that core step protections like three eighty five are needed. Comprehensive, clear and accessible protections can promote the safety of victims and the integrity of our financial system. Transparently, the latest draft of the bill does not have everything that we would look for. And there are many more things that we could do to be more protective of survivors, and I'm happy to talk about them. And however we feel great about this current draft, it is a needed and important step forward, and we appreciate the committee's consideration of it. So taking a little bit of a step back from our perspective, what is forced debt? Horse debt is a form of economic abuse used to undermine a victim's personal and economic independence. It occurs when a perpetrator uses force, threats, fraud, manipulation or identity theft to incur debt in the name of a victim. And coarse debt occurs in the context of an abusive relationship with a partner, a family or household member, or a caregiver. And that is where the perpetrator of coarse debt can use power, control, and access within that personal relationship to facilitate that debt. That's why forced debt affects survivors of domestic violence, human trafficking, elder abuse, child abuse, and other forms of abusive relationships, and financial protections that consider that context are essential. Most survivors experience some form of economic abuse within a relationship that restricts their savings or their ability to earn money, and many are very low income. So adding debt that is not theirs and that they cannot afford, survivors are unable to leave an abusive relationship and seek safety, to meet their basic needs or meet the basic needs of their children, or gain economic independence. When forced debts are not paid because a survivor doesn't know the debt exists, the perpetrator of debt on a cosigned loan doesn't pay, or a survivor cannot afford the debt, survivors can face lifelong impacts to their credit. And with damaged credit scores, they can't access credit they can afford because they're either denied a loan or they face higher interest rates. They cannot secure rental housing or buy a home. They can't further their education. And in some cases where credit history is considered as part of a job application or credit can restrict their access to employment. Now, we are working with a few survivors of course debt, and we would appreciate the committee providing the opportunity to hear from them directly. But today, we wanted to provide some contextualizing examples of what court stat looks like by sharing two stories from survivors impacted by court stat in Vermont. The first is a victim of court stat who had been in a long term relationship with an abusive partner. Her partner threatened to physically harm her unless she cosigned on an auto loan. She was unable to use the vehicle because he withheld access to the keys. Her partner did not pay on the loan. It was a cosigned loan in years after she left him. She couldn't secure a loan to buy a home because her credit was so damaged by the poor Smith. The next is a victim of horse debt who is in a relationship with an abusive partner who withheld access to her IDs and financial information. When she left, she discovered her former partner used her credit card to make over $5,000 purchases without her knowledge. She's very low income, and she's unable to pay down that debt while meeting her basic needs. These are heartbreaking stories of survivors who need relief, And that's why we're grateful that the process in this bill, as outlined, is being considered. So I thought it might be helpful to walk through that process in the bill a bit from the survivor standpoint around what they need to provide to a creditor in order to get access to this relief, which we feel is a thoughtful and balanced process. So first, victims of course that need to discover that there is a state law to help them, and it's an unfortunate reality that most survivors will never get to step one. Carlos Sanchez Adams from the National Consumer Law Center will discuss this more, but in several states that have implemented core step protections, I've connected with advocates there who are battling underutilization of the law. But still, for the few who access it, it can change their lives. Next, so say a survivor fears about the law through an advocate at one of

[Committee Member (possible bill sponsor) (unknown)]: our member

[Carly Glisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: programs. The survivor needs to collect information for their core stat statement. So this could be gaining access to their financial records, like their credit history, including documents that may have been restricted from them during their relationship. Then they use that information to produce that written statement of course debt, which is basically like a narrative describing the course debt and the circumstances that led to it. And if they feel safe too, they can disclose the name of the perpetrator of course debt and include it, and creditors are able to pursue payment from that perpetrator. And I can talk a little bit about the different safety measures that are built into the process, including the option for a survivor to provide a sworn statement that doing so would risk their safety. Next, they secure supporting documentation. So that can look like a police report, an FTC identity theft report, a sign in, sworn certification from that qualified third party professional. Next, the survivor takes all of that paperwork and they submit it to the creditor through some form of written, trackable, dated method, so either certified mail, an online form, or an email. And then if the creditor has a good faith basis to challenge their claim of forced debt in court, they can. And a debtor can face legal action or penalties if they use the law as it's not intended. So next, I wanted to provide two data points from a 2025 national survey that I think provide some really important light on survivors' experiences of course debt and accessing course debt protections. For ninety six percent of survivors, risk of future abuse or harassment is a barrier to them disputing course debt. And there is very sadly a recent case in Vermont where court's debt preceded domestic violence homicide. So it is very important that measures in this bill ensure survivor safety and are maintained and critical. And so that includes the option for a debtor offering a signed sworn statement disclosing that if they provided the perpetrator's name, it would cause them harm. And that's part of why we think that option is really important. Next, for ninety nine percent of survivors, accessing or affording legal assistance is a barrier to disputing course debt. So there are some states where you have to get a court order to dispute a course debt, and these are states where they have very few people that are able to access the law. Statewide, there is a significant need for more attorneys to support domestic violence survivors right now, and there is not capacity to support survivors in the process if it goes through the court. Between that and the current court backlog, it's critical that the process outlined here, where court's debt is not a court process unless it's challenged, is key. And lastly, I wanted to note a letter that I sent to the committee this morning from 33 Vermont organizations in support of advancing this bill. The signers include advocates for older adults, community action agencies, victim services organizations, and more. And I think that it is a recognition of the ways in which court stat impacts survivors of abuse in so many different aspects of their lives, and the strong support for a mechanism to address that harm. I, again, greatly appreciate the committee considering this issue. I would be more than happy to answer any questions.

[Speaker 0]: Question for Charlie?

[Committee Member (unknown)]: I would just want to come back to you're talking about number one there, option one of how do you get the word out? I mean, it seems like and maybe you are, maybe you're not, but you're ahead of an organization that handles a lot of these other organizations. So is that something that you would do or how does that all work? Getting the word out on things like this.

[Carly Glisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: It's a great question. And as our policy director, I try so hard to make sure that all the great work that happens in this building really gets communicated out to the field so that these protections are truly accessible to survivors. One way that I discussed in the off session with our CoreStat stakeholder group was the training that goes along with crisis worker privilege. This is twenty hours of training more sometimes that we provide to advocates in the field. That's one way that we can highlight and get the word out for all these new advocates. We stay in very close communication with all the executive directors at our 14 independent member programs. And so that's something that we can ensure we're providing information to them that they then provide to their staff. And many beautifully designed handouts. That's the plan.

[Committee Member (unknown)]: Perfect.

[Carly Glisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Thank you so much.

[Maria Roy (Legislative Counsel)]: Good

[Speaker 0]: afternoon.

[Carla Sanchez Adams (Senior Attorney, National Consumer Law Center)]: Hi, good afternoon. Chairman Marcotte, Vice Chair Graning, members of the House Commerce and Economic Development Committee. My name is Carla Sanchez Adams, I'm a senior attorney at the National Consumer Law Center, NCLC. Since 1969, NCLC has used its expertise in consumer law to work for consumer justice and economic security for low income and vulnerable consumers in The United States. As you've heard and likely will continue to hear from others' testimony today, coerced debt impedes survivors of domestic violence, elder abuse, child abuse, and human trafficking from achieving economic security. Coerced debt has long term consequences causing severe financial harm to survivors of domestic abuse by damaging their credit, exposing them to lawsuits and abusive collection efforts, and increasing the risk of bankruptcy. Now, NCLC has zealously advocated for victims of economic abuse where existing federal and state consumer protection laws fail to adequately address the harm caused by coerced death. For example, NCLC and the Center for Survivor Agency and Justice successfully petitioned the CFPB to undertake rulemaking to expand credit reporting protections to victims of coerced debt. To support that rulemaking, we surveyed advocates all over the country about the barriers experienced by survivors when attempting to address the credit reporting problems caused by coerced debt. NCLC recently released a report with those findings, and I've submitted it to the committee for consideration in advance of today's hearing. But the CFPB's current leadership has not continued rulemaking efforts or meaningful enforcement around coerced debt, so states must continue to take action to help victims of coerced debt. In fact, NCLC has already assisted various stakeholders who sought to expand or create state consumer protection laws to provide this relief for victims of coerced debt. To that end, NCLC developed a model coerced debt law, which serves as a foundation for H-three 85. The model was finalized in 2024 after thoughtful consideration of the needs of survivors and the rights of creditors. The law provides checks and balances to prevent bad actors from exploiting it while ensuring unnecessary barriers do not prevent survivors from obtaining relief. The model law incorporates provisions of coerced debt laws from other states as well as my own experience in representing victims of coerced debt for thirteen years. Prior to joining NCLC, I managed a team of legal services attorneys focused on addressing the economic harms experienced by victims of crime, including coerced debt. I also collaborated with other domestic violence advocacy and consumer rights organizations in Texas to create the Texas Coalition on Coerced Debt, which was instrumental in passing laws to provide relief for victims of coerced debt in Texas in 2021, 2023, and 2025. But even before Texas passed its first law, Maine passed a law in 2020 prohibiting the collection of course debt. California, Connecticut, Illinois, Minnesota, Nevada, and New York have followed suit. Several other states have also recently introduced legislation addressing coerced debt, including Kansas, Maryland, and Colorado. To answer a prior question, the majority of these state laws have applied coerced debt, have applied to coerced debt already incurred prior to the legislation's enactment. Another concern raised earlier is about whether or not a survivor can disclose the alleged perpetrator. So I just wanted to comment on that and say that this is already the case in the dynamic for identity theft. The vast majority of folks who dispute claims based on identity theft don't know who the perpetrator is or may know but not have 100% absolute proof. Also, creditor still has the option to file a lawsuit to challenge the claim of coerced debt if they believe there's no good faith basis to that dispute. Another concern we've heard frequently raised in each state considering coerced debt legislation is whether the new law would result in a flood of coerced claims and losses to small independent banks. However, this fear has proven unsubstantiated. For example, the Texas Coalition on Coerced Debt received a grant to conduct a coerced debt pilot program to help victims obtain relief. They trained domestic violence advocates and attorneys in the Dallas Fort Worth area, which has 8,000,000 people, to screen for coerced debt and support survivors in accessing relief. The pilot ran for a year and a half, and during that time, we received 111 referrals, around six to seven referrals a month. Of those referrals, 38% were identified as court debt possible, course debt possible and direct services were only provided to 19. The majority of those coerced debts were less than $3,000 These numbers should assuage any fears of exploitation. To these 19 survivors, the relief was indispensable and life changing, even though it was only nineteen out of eight million people. In states with out course debt loss, survivors have to navigate a difficult and often costly process to attempt to obtain legal relief, which can lead to retaliation by the abuser, which in turn causes severe emotional and psychological harm, And the financial stress exacerbates the trauma caused by the domestic abuse. Perpetrators can continue to use coerced debt to control and trap survivors, limiting their ability to leave abusive situations. Poor credit and legal problems also block access to housing, jobs and support services perpetuating cycles of abuse. Laws like this bill are essential to protect survivors of domestic abuse, help clear coerced debt and support survivor recovery and independence. As a result, NCLC strongly supports and respectfully urges the committee to advance age three eighty five. The bill provides a trauma informed, focused legal process for victims to seek relief and restore their financial freedom while preserving the right of creditors to use any legal means to pursue the debt from any alleged perpetrator of the coerced debt and preventing financial institutions from becoming tools of coercion. Thank you for your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, Carla. Questions?

[Committee Member (possible bill sponsor) (unknown)]: Hi, Carla. Thank you so much for testifying. In that Dallas pilot program, were there any third party professionals that were found to be misrepresenting their clients? Or how was that taken into account?

[Carla Sanchez Adams (Senior Attorney, National Consumer Law Center)]: Sure, so the pilot program, like I mentioned, we trained DV advocates at shelters. And so the referrals came from those shelters. They did the screening. So we provided kind of a checklist of here's what you ask, here's how you screen for it. And after that screening, then it was referred to the pilot program. The pilot program itself also had another layer of screening. So it was attorneys through the Texas Advocacy Project, and they got the credit reports, went over the credit reports with the survivors, asked a lot of questions and that's where we kind of screened out. That's where the 38% came from. So a lot of the people didn't quite understand what qualified as coerced debt or didn't qualify as coerced debt. So from those that were initially referred, then there was an additional screening. And then after that screening, they were given and handed off to pro bono lawyers who could then start the court process.

[Committee Member (possible bill sponsor) (unknown)]: Thank you. And I guess,

[Carla Sanchez Adams (Senior Attorney, National Consumer Law Center)]: I mean, didn't 100% answer your question, but in Texas, our, our law is a little different because it does require a court order. So there is no, you know, there's no third party written qualification as, as your bill has. In other states where that bill has, where bills or laws have that language, because it requires a person's to, the person to be licensed, They haven't seen any, you know, falsification of those records because that subjects the person to to discipline if they are falsely using their license.

[Committee Member (possible bill sponsor) (unknown)]: Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Questions? Okay, Carla. Thank you.

[Carla Sanchez Adams (Senior Attorney, National Consumer Law Center)]: Thank you all so much. Bye bye.

[Christopher Curtis (Assistant Attorney General; Director, Consumer Assistance Program)]: Good afternoon, mister chair, madam vice chair, members of the committee. For the record, my name is Christopher Curtis. I'm an assistant attorney general for the state of Vermont, and I'm the director of the consumer assistance program. I'm here today to talk with you about the bill you have before you, h three eighty five. And just by way of background and context, the attorney general is generally very supportive of consumer protection laws in the state. Our job is to enforce those laws, and they are typically very broad and remedial in nature. Our consumer protection act extremely broad and provides protection for Vermont consumers. And as you know, as referenced in the bill, there is a subset of specific rules, consumer protection rule one zero four, that prevents, unfair or abusive, debt collection practices directed towards consumers or debtors, already. So that said, with respect to this particular bill, and I I should hasten to add that the attorney general, of course, broadly supportive of, extending protections for victims of domestic violence and abuse. As regards to this specific bill, I'm just seeing the, you know, the walk through and the changes that were made to it, so we'll want some additional time just to digest all of that. But, as I'm listening to the testimony, you know, one thing that occurred to me is I did note that there are protections for victims or for debtors as defined in the bill in the court system for sealing of certain records when there might be a threat to the health or safety of someone who's in the middle of an adjudicated process. A question that I wanted to flag for the committee is that in the context of the bill and what you're trying to accomplish, you may have victims who are reporting to different state agencies, whether it's the police or it could be to the consumer assistance program or any number of different it could be to DFR because they've heard the DFR is a regulator of banking and institutions and so on and so forth. So, people who are in desperate need pick up the phone, and they call who they can get ahold of. And they're trying to make reports about what is happening in their lives, and they may disclose things to certain public agencies, that they wouldn't, had they known, otherwise have wanted to make publicly available in particular to an abuser or a perpetrator as defined by the bill. So a question that I just flagged for your committee is if you're extending those that direction or guidance to the courts to maybe inappropriate circumstances to seal certain records, you know, a question might be whether you want to explore some sort of narrow public records exemption for reporters of this type of coercion to other state agencies or municipalities, whether it's the local police or whatever, because we're typically in the business of transparency. You know, if we get a complaint, you know, we tell people at cap, you know, this is a public record, so you're reporting this, and that may get disclosed at some point. But in the case of domestic abuse, that's a different calculus in terms of what may or may not be disclosed. And so, just flagging that this is in the context of sort of commercial and consumer protection standards, so it's a little different than other criminal proceedings that might otherwise have those privileges and protections set out. And so you're identifying that that's a place where a court might find it appropriate to seal records or keep things confidential. Maybe that's, you know, that's for you all to discuss as a policy matter, but I'm just flagging it. Like, that information might be available to a perpetrator who's also seeking information about someone who is saying the debt's not mine. It's this other person's. And that could, you know, potentially expose the the victim to being identified in some way. So that's just a thought or question or consideration that I had as I was reading, the bill. The other thing that popped out of us, of course, is that the attorney general's office is referenced in the bill in the context of rulemaking. And it looks like after the most recent version, there are two references to rulemaking. One is a fairly standard provision that often accompanies consumer protection legislation that basically says the attorney general has, the same rights and opportunities to, promulgate rules under this act as as she does for the Consumer Protection Act. So that's fairly consistent with what you've done in other statutes. And then there's another section now that says that the attorney general shall promulgate rules, you know, by a date certain, I think, 01/01/2027, or maybe if the bill becomes effective in 2028, you're gonna change that date. And so I just and it looks like it's for conformity, but I guess the question might be I think the other provision serves more broadly that if we determine there was a place where we needed to harmonize, we would do that, without, having a commandment that we do so, especially if we find that there's no need to harmonize, because the statute supersedes the rule. Right? Statute is is, more supreme than a rule. So if you change a statute that says, well, here are the particular protections, and here's the form of the notice, and here are the timelines for what happens and when, that may be all that you need to do. So it just might be a little redundant to say, well, you have to change the rule by 01/01/2027 if it turns out that we don't actually need to. I would need to look at the bill more carefully to see, obviously, if there are other elements that need to be harmonized. We could take a look at that. So but I just wanna fly. There's now two references to that, and so you may just wanna choose whichever one is most appropriate. Generally speaking, that broader one just allows us to take into account what the new statute says, and then we can kind of determine whether or if new rules might be appropriate in that context. So those are the parts that touch on our office that I wanted to flag for the consideration of the committee. And if you all have any other questions for me, I'd be happy to take them. Chittenden, Chris?

[Committee Member (possible bill sponsor) (unknown)]: Just a statement. I think the debt collection rules before the law goes into effect was to give the banks a heads up on what they would need to have to do before the law goes into effect.

[Christopher Curtis (Assistant Attorney General; Director, Consumer Assistance Program)]: Oh, I see.

[Committee Member (possible bill sponsor) (unknown)]: So if you have a question as Or if you have a suggestion as to how to make that language more clear, I think that would be helpful. But it was simply, if it's a new law, it's going to take effect in two years. How do we make sure that any entity that has this law coming down, I think they can prepare?

[Christopher Curtis (Assistant Attorney General; Director, Consumer Assistance Program)]: Understood. Thank you for that clarification. That's good to know.

[Speaker 0]: Mhmm. Chris, the point you made about keeping some of this information confidential, Does it make sense that anytime that anything like this is reported to CAC agency, to anybody that unless a court order is given to divulge the information that you couldn't divulge that information on.

[Christopher Curtis (Assistant Attorney General; Director, Consumer Assistance Program)]: You'd have to look at it, and I might wanna you know, I wouldn't wanna go back and reacquaint myself with the Public Records Act exemptions themselves because I know there are provisions in there already around certain, you know, sensitive financial information that you don't disclose. And so arguably, this might fall under that. I guess the question is for the committee, you might wanna get more express and just say, like, yeah, this is out. Like, we're not going to that where if someone's making a report because they're worried for their health or safety and this is like a financial detriment that's fallen to them, We're just not gonna put the state or municipalities or other public agencies in the position of having to respond to requests for those records. You could be really express on that point, but I know you're always balancing too, like how many exemptions should there be? You know, if it's already covered, maybe you don't need to do that. But if it's arguable, you know, and then somebody's making the case, you know, we might be in the position of having to defend why or if we made a decision not to, you know, issue a disclosure. So I think it's a good conversation to have, and we can certainly continue that committee. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: Questions? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Laura?

[Laura Byerly (Director, Victims’ Rights Project, Vermont Legal Aid)]: Sorry, I apologize. My computer won't let me unmute.

[Committee Member (possible bill sponsor) (unknown)]: Sorry to keep that.

[Speaker 0]: No problem. Welcome.

[Laura Byerly (Director, Victims’ Rights Project, Vermont Legal Aid)]: Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak today. My name is Laura Byerly. I am the director of the Victims' Rights Project at Vermont Legal Aid, and I've been an attorney in Vermont for more than nineteen years. During that time, I've represented hundreds of survivors of domestic violence, and I've also advised and represented Vermont consumers in debt collection, repossession, and foreclosure cases. I'm here today in support of H385 and to talk with you about some of the impact Core Stat has on our fellow Monitors. We've heard a lot of more of a high level view of how this impacts the folks that we live and work with every day. But I thought I would give you an example and bring it more of a granular level of how this debt is incurred and who it impacts. Coors debt, economic abuse, is just one more way that abusers use to control, isolate and exploit the people they profess to care the most about. We live in a world where you need a good credit score for just about everything to get a job, to access affordable loans, for cars and for homeownership, even to rent an apartment or open a bank account. What do you do when that credit is destroyed by an abuser who you thought loved and cared for you? A couple of years ago, I represented a young woman that I will call Mary. Mary comes from a very good, supportive and loving family in rural Vermont. She's the oldest of five children and was excited to be out on her own. Mary graduated from high school, got her LNA and decided she wanted to live in the big city Burlington, Vermont. She left home for the first time, and it was the 2019. Like many coming to Burlington for the first time, she struggled to find affordable housing and to find direction. And like many 19 year olds, she was ashamed to ask the people in her small town for help. She wanted to make it on her own. After all, she was now an adult. And while she didn't recognize it, she was a vulnerable one. Enter Chuck. Chuck helped Mary get an apartment. It was an apartment in his building. In fact, it was right next door. He showed her around town. He seemed to know everyone, including the local police. He convinced her that he was only acting in her best interest, and he discouraged her from reaching out to any of her family and friends. He also convinced convinced her that the police would only believe him if she ever dared to try to get away. Then the pandemic hit, and Mary felt as if she had nowhere to go and no one to turn to. Chuck encouraged this and controlled every aspect of Mary's life. He isolated her from friends and family. He physically, emotionally, and sexually abused her. There were days when he controlled her to such extent that she wasn't allowed to leave the building. He accompanied her to doctor's appointments, made her a pay for an Uber for them both to go shopping and buy things for him and for the apartment. He allowed her to work, but only when he needed money and only when he could check up on her and make sure she's not talking to anyone else. She lost jobs because he called to check on her so often and because he came and hung out at the place where she was employed. Then under the guise of helping her with benefits, Chuck obtained Mary's Social Security information. When she was employed, he opened bank accounts in her name. He used her identity to get credit cards and loans without either her knowledge or her permission. He destroyed her credit before she had the opportunity to build it on her own. Mary was on well, flash forward four years, and Mary has escaped Chuck. She's terrified of him and has taken steps to protect her location, but he still sends people to find her. She changes her name she changed her name, but he's monitoring her credit and he keeps finding her. Mary was aware of how much money she had to give Chuck when she lived under his control, the things she had to buy him, the pay she was forced to hand over. But she wasn't aware of the extent to which he had used her name to get loans until she applied for a car loan and was denied. She checked her credit report and began to understand the full extent of the economic abuse Chuck committed. Chuck was 45 when he met Mary. He used his age, his size, his status as the confident older man to abuse Mary in every conceivable way. Chuck, however, has never paid any economic price for the harm he has done. Mary wasn't his first victim. It is unlikely that she will be his last. Mary managed to get physically away from Chuck, but years later, Mary is still stuck. The bruises have healed, therapy helps, good families and friends have found ways to reconnect, but the economic abuse inflicted upon Mary and hundreds like her continues to have lasting consequences for the victims and for their families. Mary's family tries to help her pay these debts, but they have to give up opportunities for themselves and their other children in order to help. If Mary could access the process in this bill to challenge the course debt, she would be able to advance in her work and have better employment opportunities because she would be considered more financially responsible with a higher credit score and a cleaned up credit report. She would be able to get a better vehicle to travel for her work and to further her education, and she could move outside of the area limited by public transportation, allowing her to find safety and more stable and affordable housing, and also enabling her to start a safer future instead of paying for her past. Victims of economic abuse do not get the benefit of the debts they are forced to incur, but they continue to pay the price in lost opportunities and ruined credit. They lose out over and over again, first by being abused, and then again when they have to deal with the longer lasting economic impacts. I urge you to support protections as an important step towards placing accountability in the right place when it is safe to do so and giving survivors of economic abuse a tool to begin rebuilding their lives. Mary is just one of many. I'm happy to share more of my experience working with survivors, and I'm also happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

[Committee Member (possible bill sponsor) (unknown)]: Hi, Laura. Thank you so much. I appreciate you sharing that information. I brought this bill forward to help people in this situation. And I know that we have to be balanced in how we go forward and having our banks take the brunt of the issues that have come forward from these abusers, right, is a concern. And so you said you'd worked with people across the state. How many people would you think would be able, eligible, to take advantage of this new law to benefit from this situation in Vermont in any given year? And I know that's an impossible question to ask, but you probably have more information than I do in making that estimate.

[Laura Byerly (Director, Victims’ Rights Project, Vermont Legal Aid)]: Well, a lot of factors go into that. This isn't an easy for me, when I'm looking at this bill, it seems to me very similar to disputing something on your credit report for any other reason. Right? It's a process you can do in order to clean up a mistake or to challenge a debt. It's very similar to that kind of process, but it has the extra layer of needing to qualify for the relief and to knowing how to access it. So I think that there won't be a huge number of folks who are ready to take this step, that are away enough from their abuser to be able to feel safe doing so, and who are ready to start rebuilding their economic lives. So, I'm thinking we will see cases in about the dozens, not anything more than that, but for those dozens in a year, I think the impact could be phenomenal and incredibly profound. Those folks will not only be able to start to rebuild their economic lives, they're going to be able to start contributing in ways that they've never been able to before with this debt and this burden hanging over them. So I think we will be moving not to a place where we're ultimately placing more of a burden upon our banks and our financial systems, but that we will be empowering our survivors to be better economic engines and people who can deliver economic growth in ways that they never could before. Most of these debts are not going to be able to be collected from the very low end of the economic spectrum. Like the folks who would qualify for legal aid services outside of my project are very low income, and so they will not be collectible anyway. But they're also now, under these circumstances, being barred from getting safe transportation, so they will never be able to be collectible or to be able to participate fully in this economy. This is a way for them to get an opportunity to grow and to become full citizens and full people participating within this economy. You're not going to be able to collect from them anyway, and you're certainly not going to be able to collect from most of the abusers. So if you can't collect the money, why not empower people to make more of it?

[Committee Member (possible bill sponsor) (unknown)]: Thank you.

[Committee Member (unknown)]: Michael? I think answers one of the questions that Maureen had asked about, when does it apply and it should be retroactive.

[Speaker 0]: Other questions for Laura? Laura, thank you very much for your time.

[Laura Byerly (Director, Victims’ Rights Project, Vermont Legal Aid)]: Thank you for having me. Appreciate it.

[Speaker 0]: Okay, committee. Think probably next steps would be working with Chris, DOG's office with some of those questions. And let's see where we can go. I think public committee, I would assume that we want this to be retroactive so we can we know that that's there. And then better understanding the points that Chris brought up and moving forward. So beyond that, I think, Chris, and we'll hear from financial institutions probably next week, have that discussion with them as well, and see if we can move this bill through. Our next presenter will be the state auditor at 03:00. He wants to talk to us about the training program. We have a letter. Remember, we had a hearing with institutions and corrections committee last week or the week before concerning CCB, and there's a letter that's

[Committee Member (unknown)]: been put

[Speaker 0]: together to committees to send on. So we'll take a look at that too. So I think we can go offline and make sure you're here for 03:00. Thank you.