Debt Validation Timely vs. Untimely

[Sultan]

It's a useful discusion Sultan and there can't be enough posts about these issues, but the info is here, it's not at everyones immediate finger tips all the time and that's why rekindling subjects or bumping posts is so valuable, you never know who can use the info and when they need it. That said we all need to be fimiliar with the search features, because the information here is invaluable, the people here who contribute are the formost experts on these issues in the country and if you asked me who I'd want advising me on serious credit CRA/CA/OC issues, a lawyer in my affluant home town, or some of the vets here, I'll take the vets here

 

That said I completely agree with pryan about the 30 days, you don't loose your right validate, a CA can simply assume the debt is yours after 30 days. We've debated this many times lots of point of views but in 10 years of discussing it I've never been convinced otherwise.

CramItCCCAs nice to cya stranger!

 

i agree i was hoping to get some collective information organized or some questions answered that i'm sure have been asked before in one form or another as you say it obviously doesn't hut to keep open and ongonig discussions of such an issue (good seeing ya again crammi)

 

I am going to take a stab at this one..

by all means appreciate the input hopelesscred

Edited October 12, 2007 by Sultan

[gweedoh]

Edit: Covered in another post

Edited October 12, 2007 by gweedoh

[direred]

Sultan, in the 9th, there's no requirement to do squat DV-wise after the 30-day period.

 

Thank the Mahons.

[Sultan]

Sultan I have participated on about 8 different consumer boards and this topic here always brings some real interesting discussions. I really wish they would amend the Fdcpa to remove that thirty day notice so the consumer could dispute at any time with the full rights afforded under Fdcpa. I think this would be a very fair ruling to put the consumer and the collector on even ground regardless of debt's age.

agreed CBD obviously there are exploits in the FDCPA as i mentioned though their might be some additional protection (for those who read thoroughly) under the Uniform Commercial Code as well as individual state laws, personally i think states like California, Texas, Arizona have solid state laws to supplement the ailing / aging federal law

 

Sultan, in the 9th, there's no requirement to do squat DV-wise after the 30-day period.

 

Thank the Mahons.

IMO with much respect its not that simple direred, i'm sure we'd all appreciate a more thorough explanation if you wouldn't mind going in to more detail (i'm being completely sincere here) give us a break down of your post layman's terms not the condensed slick & cool sounding version (I realize your referring to the court of appeals for the 9th circuit but it'd be better if you explained or gave a case reference) there is no case law that i've been able to find supporting the requirement to respond to DV after 30 days but it gets very blurry imo, they're talking about a requirements under FDCPA once they report the FCRA comes into play and if its inaccurate they're is certainly accountability to the furnisher

[direred]

Sultan, in the 9th, there's no requirement to do squat DV-wise after the 30-day period.

 

Thank the Mahons.

IMO with much respect its not that simple direred, i'm sure we'd all appreciate a more thorough explanation if you wouldn't mind going in to more detail (i'm being completely sincere here) give us a break down of your post layman's terms not the condensed slick & cool sounding version (I realize your referring to the court of appeals for the 9th circuit but it'd be better if you explained or gave a case reference) there is no case law that i've been able to find supporting the requirement to respond to DV after 30 days but it gets very blurry imo, they're talking about a requirements under FDCPA once they report the FCRA comes into play and if its inaccurate they're is certainly accountability to the furnisher

 

You know, sentences are nice things. Punctuation and everything.

 

This one time, I'll do your homework for you.

 

Mahon v. Credit Bureau of Placer County 171 F.3d 1197;1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 3645;43 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 262;99 Cal. Daily Op. Service 1778;99 Daily Journal DAR 2301

 

We conclude the evidence established, without a genuine dispute of any material fact, that [*15] the Notice sent to the Mahons on September 21, 1995 was received by them shortly thereafter. They did not request verification of the debt to Dr. Bowen until June 5, 1996, almost nine months later. For their request to have been effective, it had to be made within thirty days from the date they received the Notice from the Credit Bureau. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(3). The Mahons' tardy request for verification of the debt, therefore, did not trigger any obligation on the part of the Credit Bureau to verify the debt. Even if it did, however, the Credit Bureau, when it received the June 5, 1996 request, promptly contacted Dr. Bowen's office, verified the nature and balance of the outstanding bill, learned that monthly statements had been sent from Dr. Bowen's office to the Mahons for over two years, and established that the balance was still unpaid. The Credit Bureau then promptly conveyed this information to the Mahons, along with an itemized statement of the account. Although the Mahons did not request verification of the debt within the time provided by the statute, the Credit Bureau properly verified the debt anyway.

[Sultan]

 

You know, sentences are nice things. Punctuation and everything. are you saying i'm a sloppy typer? so are manners hon

 

This one time, I'll do your homework for you. consider it a service to/for everyone not just me

Mahon v. Credit Bureau of Placer County 171 F.3d 1197;1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 3645;43 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 262;99 Cal. Daily Op. Service 1778;99 Daily Journal DAR 2301

 

We conclude the evidence established, without a genuine dispute of any material fact, that [*15] the Notice sent to the Mahons on September 21, 1995 was received by them shortly thereafter. They did not request verification of the debt to Dr. Bowen until June 5, 1996, almost nine months later. For their request to have been effective, it had to be made within thirty days from the date they received the Notice from the Credit Bureau. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(3). The Mahons' tardy request for verification of the debt, therefore, did not trigger any obligation on the part of the Credit Bureau to verify the debt. Even if it did, however, the Credit Bureau, when it received the June 5, 1996 request, promptly contacted Dr. Bowen's office, verified the nature and balance of the outstanding bill, learned that monthly statements had been sent from Dr. Bowen's office to the Mahons for over two years, and established that the balance was still unpaid. The Credit Bureau then promptly conveyed this information to the Mahons, along with an itemized statement of the account. Although the Mahons did not request verification of the debt within the time provided by the statute, the Credit Bureau properly verified the debt anyway.

that looks similar to the the case that divemedic posts over at CIC when we had this same discussion and went back and forth. Its awfully cryptic direred i was hoping to get your explanation of what you think it means as you made the reference to it and dropped a one liner that implies everyone is SOL

 

Sultan, in the 9th, there's no requirement to do squat DV-wise after the 30-day period.

 

Thank the Mahons.

any way thanks for participating in such an important issue

Edited October 12, 2007 by Sultan

[direred]

In the 9th, everyone is SOL after 30 days, and I don't mean statute of limitations.

 

I think it's all summed up by this line: "The Mahons' tardy request for verification of the debt, therefore, did not trigger any obligation on the part of the Credit Bureau to verify the debt."

 

NO OBLIGATION after 30 days.

 

Why is that cryptic?

[Sultan]

In the 9th, everyone is SOL after 30 days, and I don't mean statute of limitations.

 

I think it's all summed up by this line: "The Mahons' tardy request for verification of the debt, therefore, did not trigger any obligation on the part of the Credit Bureau to verify the debt."

 

NO OBLIGATION after 30 days.

 

Why is that cryptic?

i think a lot of people have a hard time understanding or discerning case law, i'll be the first to admit i do. Maybe some other less savvy people than yourself who read this (thick headed people like me ) will have better insight and understanding if things are broken down / spelled out if you will

 

 

that was my point any way - let me speak candidly here; i hope i haven't offended you i'll be honest you seem testy sometimes, i've always tried to be polite and respectful to you, i said above much respect, direred i'm here @ CB for the people and to further myself not for the drama, hopefully were on the same page while this is a serious issue as mentioned there are quite a few layers to it and i want to give folks hope and strongly advocate validation timely or otherwise

 

I'm not going to take if personal if i'm changing my posting style and not using punctuation as much these days and someone wants to throw a jab at me for that, at best its a distraction from bigger and better things. I think in the past I might have taken it personal, I think i'm learning to mellow out some. Are ya with me direred

[direred]

Maybe it's because I've read so much case law, but I find it technical but rarely difficult to understand.

 

Anyhow, that's how things stand in the 9th, read the whole case. It's an interesting one from a validation perspective.

[Sultan]

Maybe it's because I've read so much case law, but I find it technical but rarely difficult to understand.

 

Anyhow, that's how things stand in the 9th, read the whole case. It's an interesting one from a validation perspective.

I'm sure that has a lot to do with it, then again i may just be dyslexic (my reading comprehension was my strongest and highest proficiency through out school, I was taught to read by a very smart German lady in a private Christian academy school, I have to humble myself and admit here; I have to read so much of this stuff over and over and it still seems to have different meaning at times)

 

I'll read the case and see if I can make heads or tails of it.

[jack1212]

Heres my take on it. I use this as a constant reminder to CA's

 

 

 

809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g]

c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer

 

jack1212

[gweedoh]

Heres my take on it. I use this as a constant reminder to CA's

 

 

 

809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g]

c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer

 

jack1212

This just means the court can't assume you owe the debt just because you didn't respond to the dun. It means nothing in terms of the CA's validation requirements, which is the topic of the thread.

[Sultan]

Heres my take on it. I use this as a constant reminder to CA's

 

 

 

809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g]

c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer

 

jack1212

This just means the court can't assume you owe the debt just because you didn't respond to the dun. It means nothing in terms of the CA's validation requirements, which is the topic of the thread.

I'm thinking if that were true we could all start up companies and print up bogus bills and then run down everyone who fails to respond to the duns - is it really this simple?

Edited October 13, 2007 by Sultan

[jack1212]

I've heard mixed opinions on this, I'd like to present it for discussion, while there doesn't appear to be any case law that I know of in favor of consumers for requests made after the 30 days, obviously something is wrong with the idea that after 30 days a CA can simply ignore consumers when they request validation.

 

 

 

Consider the many JDB's who simply pop-up on consumer reports in which case they (the consumer) were not sent an initial notice, (for example they obtain their own report(s) every 90 days, and learned themselves that an item was placed more than 30 days ago)

 

Yes it does Gweedo. Too many CA's are saying You owe the debt, as you did not request it within 30 days.

[gweedoh]

Heres my take on it. I use this as a constant reminder to CA's

 

 

 

809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g]

c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer

 

jack1212

This just means the court can't assume you owe the debt just because you didn't respond to the dun. It means nothing in terms of the CA's validation requirements, which is the topic of the thread.

I'm thinking if that were true we could all start up companies and print up bogus bills and then run down everyone who fails to respond to the duns - is it really this simple?

 

If it's not a valid debt, them not validating it will be the least of their worries. There will be a plethora of other violations they will have committed.

[Hopelesscred]

There are several issues here...

 

Does a CA have to validate if the DV was not timely?...no, but they still have to prove their case should it ever go to court.

 

809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g]

c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer

 

This is where I think is gets in a grey area..OCs are not bound by the FDCPA, and if the CA is reporting a TL that is inaccurate or is believed to be, the FCRA offers the consumer some protection.

 

If a CA is not reporting and does not plan to take legal action, whether or not they validate is irrelevant. This discussion is helpful as it addresses some loopholes in the statutes.

 

Scenario

 

JDB A purchases a debt and consumer fails to DV, assigns to lawyer CA B, they attempt to sue--debtor answers, suit is dropped. JDB reassigns to Lawyer CA C, still no DV--suit is dropped again, JDB reassigns to CA B...debtor has found CB and promptly sends out a DV...can lawyer CA B argue DV was not timely? Or does the subsequent assigments negate the first initial contact?

Edited October 13, 2007 by Hopelesscred

[gweedoh]

I've heard mixed opinions on this, I'd like to present it for discussion, while there doesn't appear to be any case law that I know of in favor of consumers for requests made after the 30 days, obviously something is wrong with the idea that after 30 days a CA can simply ignore consumers when they request validation.

 

 

 

Consider the many JDB's who simply pop-up on consumer reports in which case they (the consumer) were not sent an initial notice, (for example they obtain their own report(s) every 90 days, and learned themselves that an item was placed more than 30 days ago)

 

Yes it does Gweedo. Too many CA's are saying You owe the debt, as you did not request it within 30 days.

And thank the stars CAs are not courts of law.

[Sultan]

Heres my take on it. I use this as a constant reminder to CA's

 

 

 

809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g]

c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer

 

jack1212

This just means the court can't assume you owe the debt just because you didn't respond to the dun. It means nothing in terms of the CA's validation requirements, which is the topic of the thread.

I'm thinking if that were true we could all start up companies and print up bogus bills and then run down everyone who fails to respond to the duns - is it really this simple?

 

If it's not a valid debt, them not validating it will be the least of their worries. There will be a plethora of other violations they will have committed.

not necessarily gweedoh junk debt buyers do it all the time not the mention the shall we say lower companionship less ethical of the industry if they can get away with it don't think they wont

 

the relatively minor financial spankings and educated consumers are the only thing keep them at bay

 

its a garbage collector junk industry that does nothing to put new money into the economy instead trys to leach and bloodsuck what ever it can like an opportunistic disease out of anything it can latch onto

 

does a mosquito care if it bites a horse or a cow?

[Sultan]

JDB A purchases a debt and consumer fails to DV, assigns to lawyer CA B, they attempt to sue--debtor answers, suit is dropped. JDB reassigns to Lawyer CA C, still no DV--suit is dropped again, JDB reassigns to CA B...debtor has found CB and promptly sends out a DV...can lawyer CA B argue DV was not timely? Or does the subsequent assigments negate the first initial contact?

each time the debt gets sold and they dun the clock for DV restarts as far as i know, its not unlikely to see 2 or even 3 CA's trying to collect on the same account at which point is this written off money more of a nuisance than its worth? none as long as consumers who don't know any better keep feeding the monster

 

its a shame the FTC stopped issuing their opinion letters (not that they hold all the weight in the world or are the law, they do serve a valuable purpose)

Edited October 13, 2007 by Sultan

[pryan67]

Heres my take on it. I use this as a constant reminder to CA's

 

 

 

809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g]

c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer

 

jack1212

This just means the court can't assume you owe the debt just because you didn't respond to the dun. It means nothing in terms of the CA's validation requirements, which is the topic of the thread.

I'm thinking if that were true we could all start up companies and print up bogus bills and then run down everyone who fails to respond to the duns - is it really this simple?

 

If it's not a valid debt, them not validating it will be the least of their worries. There will be a plethora of other violations they will have committed.

 

 

really? Assuming the consumer is like 99% of them and isn't going to sue...

 

 

and also assuming the CA doesn't take it to court themselves.....

 

 

I don't see it being an issue...at least the CAs don't think so, since MOST of what they dun people for are bogus in one way or the other

[pryan67]

JDB A purchases a debt and consumer fails to DV, assigns to lawyer CA B, they attempt to sue--debtor answers, suit is dropped. JDB reassigns to Lawyer CA C, still no DV--suit is dropped again, JDB reassigns to CA B...debtor has found CB and promptly sends out a DV...can lawyer CA B argue DV was not timely? Or does the subsequent assigments negate the first initial contact?

each time the debt gets sold and they dun the clock for DV restarts as far as i know, its not unlikely to see 2 or even 3 CA's trying to collect on the same account at which point is this written off money more of a nuisance than its worth? none as long as consumers who don't know any better keep feeding the monster

 

its a shame the FTC stopped issuing their opinion letters (not that they hold all the weight in the world or are the law, they do serve a valuable purpose)

 

 

correct....not only does the clock for DV restart (And I'm not convinced that it ever REALLY ends...depending on how the consumer enforces his/her rights)...the CA you DID DV is REQUIRED to notify the NEXT CA that the debt is in dispute...which then would trigger the requirement for the SECOND CA to cease collection until it's validated IMO

[LearnCreditTips]

Heres my take on it. I use this as a constant reminder to CA's

 

 

 

809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g]

c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer

 

jack1212

This just means the court can't assume you owe the debt just because you didn't respond to the dun. It means nothing in terms of the CA's validation requirements, which is the topic of the thread.

I'm thinking if that were true we could all start up companies and print up bogus bills and then run down everyone who fails to respond to the duns - is it really this simple?

 

If it's not a valid debt, them not validating it will be the least of their worries. There will be a plethora of other violations they will have committed.

 

 

really? Assuming the consumer is like 99% of them and isn't going to sue...

 

 

and also assuming the CA doesn't take it to court themselves.....

 

 

I don't see it being an issue...at least the CAs don't think so, since MOST of what they dun people for are bogus in one way or the other

Agree with what you said about the assumption by a CA is that 99.9% of consumers are not going to sue.

[Jen23514]

^

[Jen23514]

ttt

[EarnIt]

Playing in the way back machine today Mr. Peabody?