Few things are as unpleasant and disruptive as a call from a collection agency. To avoid this, the obvious strategy is to pay your bills. Or, set up a payment plan so that the account isn't turned over to a collection agency.

But life happens. The economy sputters. So it is that many find themselves dealing with unfortunate developments — medical bills, divorce, a job loss, a loved one's illness — and unable to meet financial obligations. And, as a result, contending with a collection agency, an industry widely despised because of its tactics and its unpleasant but necessary task — getting people to pay up.

For debtors, the easiest course of action too often is ignoring the calls and letters. A recent Star Tribune article by Randy Furst and Kara McGuire illustrated not only the dangers of this, but also the troubling Minnesota laws that kick in when this happens, allowing collection agencies unfair access to debtors' bank accounts.

"The issue is not allowing people to evade their bills. We need to have balance and fairness in the system,'' said Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson.

Swanson said Minnesota is one of about five states that allows the garnishment process without court action. Her push for reform comes at a time when Minnesotans are increasingly falling behind on credit cards, mortgages, car payments and medical bills. Default judgments, which happen when debtors don't respond to a legal summons and complaint served on them, are considered a key indicator of financial distress and are surging in Minnesota.

The unusual Minnesota laws hit consumers caught up in this default judgment process. What they do is allow debt collectors to freeze consumers' bank accounts without giving consumers a day in court. The industry argues that this saves time for collection agencies and consumers and relieves pressure on already-backlogged courts. But it also circumvents the safeguards of a court hearing and plays consumers' lack of legal expertise to collectors' advantage.

The problem starts with the summons and complaint served on the consumer. These legalese-filled documents request an "answer" within a certain timeframe. What consumers don't realize — and what the collection agencies often don't tell them — is that an "answer" must be a written document conforming to Minnesota's rules of civil procedure. You can do it yourself, but you essentially need a lawyer. And the way the system works, it's up to the debt collection agency to decide if you answered by the rules. If not, they can move to garnish. Swanson said many consumers also mistakenly believe that calling the collection agency constitutes an "answer." They find out it does not when they can't access their bank account funds.

The value of the court's role in debt collection cannot be overstated. Hearings give consumers a chance to provide documentation, dispute the amount owed, correct erroneous information or move protect certain funds off limits to debtors, such as Social Security. In this economic downturn, change is needed within the industry and the law to help debtors better understand their obligations during the collection process. Legislative reform is needed to ensure companies cannot bypass the courts before gaining access to consumers' accounts.