Jump to content




Welcome to CreditBoards!


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to CreditBoards! Like most online communities, you must register to post in our community, but don't worry - this is a simple process requiring minimal information for you to sign up. Be a part of CreditBoards by signing in or creating an account.
  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Subscribe to topics to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Read These Items!

  • If you're getting an Authentication mismatch error: Clear your cache. Log out of CB. Delete your cookie. Close your browser. Open your browser and log back in.

Photo

Texas law seems to require CA to Delete if They fail to Respond to DV


  • Please log in to reply
951 replies to this topic

#26 jimmybank

jimmybank
  • Members
  • 320 posts

Posted 15 March 2007 - 09:14 AM

Nice. I love Texas.

I'm still confused about having to actually request accordance to TX law in the DV letter. My last round did not specifically mention that, but it's coming up on 30 days and I planned on being much more specific in the second letter. Anyone have a good example letter? Thanks!



#27 Dnice

Dnice
  • Members
  • 122 posts

Posted 15 March 2007 - 09:45 AM

Nice. I love Texas.

I'm still confused about having to actually request accordance to TX law in the DV letter. My last round did not specifically mention that, but it's coming up on 30 days and I planned on being much more specific in the second letter. Anyone have a good example letter? Thanks!

What is the sol for submitting DV letters in Texas?

#28 centex

centex
  • Members
  • 18,370 posts

Posted 15 March 2007 - 09:54 AM


Nice. I love Texas.

I'm still confused about having to actually request accordance to TX law in the DV letter. My last round did not specifically mention that, but it's coming up on 30 days and I planned on being much more specific in the second letter. Anyone have a good example letter? Thanks!

What is the sol for submitting DV letters in Texas?


You can make the request under TFC at any time.

The reason you invoke the specific provisions is that it ties in to the DTPA claims...you have to place the other party on notice of the alleged violation. Hence, you tailor the letter in such a manner that it outlines what they need to do (and if they don't, it helps prove the gross violation required for trebling) and you have to give 60 days written notice/opportunity to cure before litigating the DTPA claims.

#29 Dnice

Dnice
  • Members
  • 122 posts

Posted 15 March 2007 - 10:37 AM



Nice. I love Texas.

I'm still confused about having to actually request accordance to TX law in the DV letter. My last round did not specifically mention that, but it's coming up on 30 days and I planned on being much more specific in the second letter. Anyone have a good example letter? Thanks!

What is the sol for submitting DV letters in Texas?


You can make the request under TFC at any time.

The reason you invoke the specific provisions is that it ties in to the DTPA claims...you have to place the other party on notice of the alleged violation. Hence, you tailor the letter in such a manner that it outlines what they need to do (and if they don't, it helps prove the gross violation required for trebling) and you have to give 60 days written notice/opportunity to cure before litigating the DTPA claims.

So are you saying that responding to a co outside outside of thirty days to dispute a debt can be done under TFC?

#30 centex

centex
  • Members
  • 18,370 posts

Posted 15 March 2007 - 10:43 AM




Nice. I love Texas.

I'm still confused about having to actually request accordance to TX law in the DV letter. My last round did not specifically mention that, but it's coming up on 30 days and I planned on being much more specific in the second letter. Anyone have a good example letter? Thanks!

What is the sol for submitting DV letters in Texas?


You can make the request under TFC at any time.

The reason you invoke the specific provisions is that it ties in to the DTPA claims...you have to place the other party on notice of the alleged violation. Hence, you tailor the letter in such a manner that it outlines what they need to do (and if they don't, it helps prove the gross violation required for trebling) and you have to give 60 days written notice/opportunity to cure before litigating the DTPA claims.

So are you saying that responding to a co outside outside of thirty days to dispute a debt can be done under TFC?


It can be done under federal law as well, but the difference is the obligation placed upon the third party by the language of Texas law.

#31 Dnice

Dnice
  • Members
  • 122 posts

Posted 15 March 2007 - 10:59 AM





Nice. I love Texas.

I'm still confused about having to actually request accordance to TX law in the DV letter. My last round did not specifically mention that, but it's coming up on 30 days and I planned on being much more specific in the second letter. Anyone have a good example letter? Thanks!

What is the sol for submitting DV letters in Texas?


You can make the request under TFC at any time.

The reason you invoke the specific provisions is that it ties in to the DTPA claims...you have to place the other party on notice of the alleged violation. Hence, you tailor the letter in such a manner that it outlines what they need to do (and if they don't, it helps prove the gross violation required for trebling) and you have to give 60 days written notice/opportunity to cure before litigating the DTPA claims.

So are you saying that responding to a co outside outside of thirty days to dispute a debt can be done under TFC?


It can be done under federal law as well, but the difference is the obligation placed upon the third party by the language of Texas law.

i.e. I have a co that I dv which is located out of state, so will this co have to follow Texas law?

#32 centex

centex
  • Members
  • 18,370 posts

Posted 15 March 2007 - 11:10 AM






Nice. I love Texas.

I'm still confused about having to actually request accordance to TX law in the DV letter. My last round did not specifically mention that, but it's coming up on 30 days and I planned on being much more specific in the second letter. Anyone have a good example letter? Thanks!

What is the sol for submitting DV letters in Texas?


You can make the request under TFC at any time.

The reason you invoke the specific provisions is that it ties in to the DTPA claims...you have to place the other party on notice of the alleged violation. Hence, you tailor the letter in such a manner that it outlines what they need to do (and if they don't, it helps prove the gross violation required for trebling) and you have to give 60 days written notice/opportunity to cure before litigating the DTPA claims.

So are you saying that responding to a co outside outside of thirty days to dispute a debt can be done under TFC?


It can be done under federal law as well, but the difference is the obligation placed upon the third party by the language of Texas law.

i.e. I have a co that I dv which is located out of state, so will this co have to follow Texas law?



If you are a Texas resident, then the out-of-state company has to follow Texas law. That includes the bonding requirements.

#33 Dnice

Dnice
  • Members
  • 122 posts

Posted 15 March 2007 - 11:21 AM







Nice. I love Texas.

I'm still confused about having to actually request accordance to TX law in the DV letter. My last round did not specifically mention that, but it's coming up on 30 days and I planned on being much more specific in the second letter. Anyone have a good example letter? Thanks!

What is the sol for submitting DV letters in Texas?


You can make the request under TFC at any time.

The reason you invoke the specific provisions is that it ties in to the DTPA claims...you have to place the other party on notice of the alleged violation. Hence, you tailor the letter in such a manner that it outlines what they need to do (and if they don't, it helps prove the gross violation required for trebling) and you have to give 60 days written notice/opportunity to cure before litigating the DTPA claims.

So are you saying that responding to a co outside outside of thirty days to dispute a debt can be done under TFC?


It can be done under federal law as well, but the difference is the obligation placed upon the third party by the language of Texas law.

i.e. I have a co that I dv which is located out of state, so will this co have to follow Texas law?



If you are a Texas resident, then the out-of-state company has to follow Texas law. That includes the bonding requirements.

I'm a Texas resident, and a lawyer whom I talked too says that I have a good case, because I disputed a charge on my credit card, because I recieved a defective product from a company and tried to return the product in good faith, but the company refused, and the credit card company honored my dispute because this company did not repsond within the time alloted. This company turned me over to a collection agency which reported me to the traunion, violating the fair billing and credit act. I had a Texas Attorney send the co another letter. Is this co in violation of the Texas Finance code?

#34 chriswufgator

chriswufgator
  • Members
  • 2,787 posts

Posted 15 March 2007 - 11:30 AM

This TFC rocks...

I am guna wipe the floor with CMI now.

Centex and Original Poster, thank you both!

#35 centex

centex
  • Members
  • 18,370 posts

Posted 15 March 2007 - 11:32 AM

I'm a Texas resident, and a lawyer whom I talked too says that I have a good case, because I disputed a charge on my credit card, because I recieved a defective product from a company and tried to return the product in good faith, but the company refused, and the credit card company honored my dispute because this company did not repsond within the time alloted. This company turned me over to a collection agency which reported me to the traunion, violating the fair billing and credit act. I had a Texas Attorney send the co another letter. Is this co in violation of the Texas Finance code?


Not enough information to say whether you have a TFC claim. None of us here know whether you have invoked the specific remedies or not.

I would, however, rather see the continued discussion about your particular situation in its own thread. It is a complex issue if this is the same deal with the book or class that you posted about in the NACA thread you started the other day...

#36 walterg55

walterg55
  • Members
  • 2,589 posts

Posted 15 March 2007 - 12:17 PM


I'm a Texas resident, and a lawyer whom I talked too says that I have a good case, because I disputed a charge on my credit card, because I recieved a defective product from a company and tried to return the product in good faith, but the company refused, and the credit card company honored my dispute because this company did not repsond within the time alloted. This company turned me over to a collection agency which reported me to the traunion, violating the fair billing and credit act. I had a Texas Attorney send the co another letter. Is this co in violation of the Texas Finance code?


Not enough information to say whether you have a TFC claim. None of us here know whether you have invoked the specific remedies or not.

I would, however, rather see the continued discussion about your particular situation in its own thread. It is a complex issue if this is the same deal with the book or class that you posted about in the NACA thread you started the other day...


I too would appreciate this being in its own thread. But I do have 2 questions for Centex specific to my post. I can find no mention of a 30 day requirement to respond to a CA letter in the TFC so I assume that if I were to proceed with a general letter to the effect that I dispute the CA and intend to pursue all applicable remedies and then after the 30 day period specified in the TFC My next letter invokes the apllicable TFC provision and that I expect compliance with the TFC I am on my way to a good basis of action if the CA violates. I have sent a couple of validation letters off without directly invoking but if I have to send any further I will directly invoke the TFC provisions.

My real question is your statement about underwriters and bonding. Clearly, that wouls be a highly effective tool. How can I find out who they are for a CA and would a CC to them of the appropriate letter be the first step?

Edited by walterg55, 15 March 2007 - 12:18 PM.


#37 centex

centex
  • Members
  • 18,370 posts

Posted 15 March 2007 - 01:06 PM



I'm a Texas resident, and a lawyer whom I talked too says that I have a good case, because I disputed a charge on my credit card, because I recieved a defective product from a company and tried to return the product in good faith, but the company refused, and the credit card company honored my dispute because this company did not repsond within the time alloted. This company turned me over to a collection agency which reported me to the traunion, violating the fair billing and credit act. I had a Texas Attorney send the co another letter. Is this co in violation of the Texas Finance code?


Not enough information to say whether you have a TFC claim. None of us here know whether you have invoked the specific remedies or not.

I would, however, rather see the continued discussion about your particular situation in its own thread. It is a complex issue if this is the same deal with the book or class that you posted about in the NACA thread you started the other day...


I too would appreciate this being in its own thread. But I do have 2 questions for Centex specific to my post. I can find no mention of a 30 day requirement to respond to a CA letter in the TFC so I assume that if I were to proceed with a general letter to the effect that I dispute the CA and intend to pursue all applicable remedies and then after the 30 day period specified in the TFC My next letter invokes the apllicable TFC provision and that I expect compliance with the TFC I am on my way to a good basis of action if the CA violates. I have sent a couple of validation letters off without directly invoking but if I have to send any further I will directly invoke the TFC provisions.


The key part is the requirement for certain action affecting reporting if the investigation cannot be completed within 30 days:

(d) If the third-party debt collector or credit bureau states that there has not been sufficient time to complete an investigation, the third-party debt collector or credit bureau shall immediately:

(1) change the item in the relevant file as requested by the individual;

(2) send to each person who previously received the report containing the information a notice that is equivalent to a notice under Subsection � and a copy of the changed report; and

(3) cease collection efforts if the item involves a debt.


My real question is your statement about underwriters and bonding. Clearly, that wouls be a highly effective tool. How can I find out who they are for a CA and would a CC to them of the appropriate letter be the first step?


Bonding information is on the Secretary of State website. The underwriter gets a courtesy cover letter that explains why they are receiving a copy of the letter sent to their insured...matter is generally gone soon afterwards.

I don't pussyfoot around playing word games like some have recommended in the past. I told them it was not mine, I told them they had the requirement to prove it up or delete it and I also told them that the 60-day clock had started on the date that they signed for the letter, and that a failure to act in accordance with the TFC provisions would result in litigation commencing in Travis County following the expiry of 60 days. I also reminded them that any attempt to remove to federal would be fought as the claim would not invoke federal statutes and thus the feds would remand the case back to the trial court of record...

#38 UTDebtFree

UTDebtFree
  • Members
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 15 March 2007 - 01:12 PM

Centex -

I use the generic letter with wording like this...

As such, I dispute your claims in their entirety and request validation pursuant to the FDCPA.

If you are unable to provide validation wtihin 30 days from the receipt of this letter or you require more than 30 days time to provide validation, then you must cease all collection efforts and not report this to any credit bureaus and/or remove it from any credit bureau reported to.


If I am understanding you correctly, I need to add in the specific texas laws?

Also, since I have already sent these out and they failed to respond within 30 days or do anything....how do I proceed?

#39 walterg55

walterg55
  • Members
  • 2,589 posts

Posted 15 March 2007 - 01:18 PM

That was the point of one of my questions and my takeaway would be; after 30 days from receipt send another letter (I would CMRRR) invoking TFC specific provisions and demand immediate action on the part of the CA. The TFC only requires notice of a dispute which you gave and then CA has 30 days which have now expired.

#40 centex

centex
  • Members
  • 18,370 posts

Posted 15 March 2007 - 01:20 PM

Centex -

I use the generic letter with wording like this...

As such, I dispute your claims in their entirety and request validation pursuant to the FDCPA.

If you are unable to provide validation wtihin 30 days from the receipt of this letter or you require more than 30 days time to provide validation, then you must cease all collection efforts and not report this to any credit bureaus and/or remove it from any credit bureau reported to.


If I am understanding you correctly, I need to add in the specific texas laws?

Also, since I have already sent these out and they failed to respond within 30 days or do anything....how do I proceed?


And this is why generic letters set people back when they have state laws that have some teeth. You have to lay the proper groundwork...

You are boxed into needing to send a new letter out. The most effective way to ensure that you can make a claim under TxDTPA is to invoke the Texas Finance Code provisions because the TFC specifically provides that a violation of that section is a deceptive act under the Business & Commerce Code. Further, the FDCPA places no requirement on the modification as requested by the consumer. Additionally, if you do not incorporate the DTPA into the letter, then you have to again sit and wait for 60 days if/when you decide to litigate because of the notice/opportunity to cure requirement contained in Ch17 of the BCC.

#41 centex

centex
  • Members
  • 18,370 posts

Posted 15 March 2007 - 01:23 PM

That was the point of one of my questions and my takeaway would be; after 30 days from receipt send another letter (I would CMRRR) invoking TFC specific provisions and demand immediate action on the part of the CA. The TFC only requires notice of a dispute which you gave and then CA has 30 days which have now expired.


If the letter is done correctly the first time, there is no need to send a second letter. Leave the federal crap out of the equation. Why give them potential opportunity to remove future litigation to the federal level? Remember, it was a County Court at Law judge (CC@L courts have a real judge and are a level between JP and State District) here in Travis County that slapped Lenahan to the tune of six figures...

By using only Texas law, I can all but guarantee that anything I file will not survive a motion to remove to federal...

#42 UTDebtFree

UTDebtFree
  • Members
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 15 March 2007 - 01:27 PM


Centex -

I use the generic letter with wording like this...

As such, I dispute your claims in their entirety and request validation pursuant to the FDCPA.

If you are unable to provide validation wtihin 30 days from the receipt of this letter or you require more than 30 days time to provide validation, then you must cease all collection efforts and not report this to any credit bureaus and/or remove it from any credit bureau reported to.


If I am understanding you correctly, I need to add in the specific texas laws?

Also, since I have already sent these out and they failed to respond within 30 days or do anything....how do I proceed?


And this is why generic letters set people back when they have state laws that have some teeth. You have to lay the proper groundwork...

You are boxed into needing to send a new letter out. The most effective way to ensure that you can make a claim under TxDTPA is to invoke the Texas Finance Code provisions because the TFC specifically provides that a violation of that section is a deceptive act under the Business & Commerce Code. Further, the FDCPA places no requirement on the modification as requested by the consumer. Additionally, if you do not incorporate the DTPA into the letter, then you have to again sit and wait for 60 days if/when you decide to litigate because of the notice/opportunity to cure requirement contained in Ch17 of the BCC.


I will send out the follow up stating that they had 30 days and per Texas DTPA that they had to modify thier listing as I requested it. Do I give them another 30 days at validation and modification?

#43 walterg55

walterg55
  • Members
  • 2,589 posts

Posted 15 March 2007 - 01:28 PM


That was the point of one of my questions and my takeaway would be; after 30 days from receipt send another letter (I would CMRRR) invoking TFC specific provisions and demand immediate action on the part of the CA. The TFC only requires notice of a dispute which you gave and then CA has 30 days which have now expired.


If the letter is done correctly the first time, there is no need to send a second letter. Leave the federal crap out of the equation. Why give them potential opportunity to remove future litigation to the federal level? Remember, it was a County Court at Law judge (CC@L courts have a real judge and are a level between JP and State District) here in Travis County that slapped Lenahan to the tune of six figures...

By using only Texas law, I can all but guarantee that anything I file will not survive a motion to remove to federal...


So; if I did not invoke feds in my letter but only that I disputed, demanded deletion, and "will pursue all available remedies" will allow me to send second letter demanding immediate action and invoking applicable TFC provisions and clock started from date of notice ie; first letter. I will make sure to invoke it immediately in any first letter sent in the future

Edited by walterg55, 15 March 2007 - 01:30 PM.


#44 aeronsmom

aeronsmom
  • Members
  • 635 posts

Posted 15 March 2007 - 02:07 PM

This is all very confusing so basically when sending out the first DV letters and TxFC is not mentioned/cited, then the 30 day deadline doesn't go into effect? So if you send out an 2nd (or 3rd) DV letter citing TFC as well as the FDCP, etc., THEN they have 30 days to validate or delete?

#45 centex

centex
  • Members
  • 18,370 posts

Posted 15 March 2007 - 02:46 PM

This is all very confusing so basically when sending out the first DV letters and TxFC is not mentioned/cited, then the 30 day deadline doesn't go into effect? So if you send out an 2nd (or 3rd) DV letter citing TFC as well as the FDCP, etc., THEN they have 30 days to validate or delete?


Although you could argue that the protections should exist, the reality is that it is a difficult case to prove up in court unless you invoke the specific provisions. Further, most of the generic FDCPA letters do not specifically request that the tradeline be deleted, and absent that request, there is not a requirement even under the TFC to delete the tradeline.

AND...in order to raise the DTPA claims, you have to specifically address the matter by which the notice to cure is being sent, which brings you back to the 60 day clock on that matter not starting until you put the other party on notice.

In short, you invoke TFC, tell them that if they have not proven up the claim in the 30 days then your request is for the tradeline to be deleted, and oh BTW, if they don't do it, you are also putting them on notice that the failure to comply is actionable under the DTPA and that 60 day clock has now begun to run...

My letter runs about two pages...

#46 Dnice

Dnice
  • Members
  • 122 posts

Posted 15 March 2007 - 02:53 PM


This is all very confusing so basically when sending out the first DV letters and TxFC is not mentioned/cited, then the 30 day deadline doesn't go into effect? So if you send out an 2nd (or 3rd) DV letter citing TFC as well as the FDCP, etc., THEN they have 30 days to validate or delete?


Although you could argue that the protections should exist, the reality is that it is a difficult case to prove up in court unless you invoke the specific provisions. Further, most of the generic FDCPA letters do not specifically request that the tradeline be deleted, and absent that request, there is not a requirement even under the TFC to delete the tradeline.

AND...in order to raise the DTPA claims, you have to specifically address the matter by which the notice to cure is being sent, which brings you back to the 60 day clock on that matter not starting until you put the other party on notice.

In short, you invoke TFC, tell them that if they have not proven up the claim in the 30 days then your request is for the tradeline to be deleted, and oh BTW, if they don't do it, you are also putting them on notice that the failure to comply is actionable under the DTPA and that 60 day clock has now begun to run...

My letter runs about two pages...

Bottom line we shouldn't worry about if we didn't validate debt in 30 days as long as we sent a dv letter to the co in accordance with TFC? I know I have asked a lot of questions, but some people will say that if you dont respond to a co in the 30 day window, then your dv letter loses its legality.

#47 centex

centex
  • Members
  • 18,370 posts

Posted 15 March 2007 - 03:16 PM

Bottom line we shouldn't worry about if we didn't validate debt in 30 days as long as we sent a dv letter to the co in accordance with TFC? I know I have asked a lot of questions, but some people will say that if you dont respond to a co in the 30 day window, then your dv letter loses its legality.


Most of those people don't live in Texas.

#48 aeronsmom

aeronsmom
  • Members
  • 635 posts

Posted 15 March 2007 - 03:30 PM

Thank you!!

#49 Dnice

Dnice
  • Members
  • 122 posts

Posted 15 March 2007 - 03:34 PM



Bottom line we shouldn't worry about if we didn't validate debt in 30 days as long as we sent a dv letter to the co in accordance with TFC? I know I have asked a lot of questions, but some people will say that if you dont respond to a co in the 30 day window, then your dv letter loses its legality.


Most of those people don't live in Texas.

Thank you, I was so confused with this 30 day stuff, after reading another board I became more educated about FDCPA, and with info posted here the TFC. Thanks again for the info, and go Cowboys!

#50 Trailrated92

Trailrated92
  • Members
  • 569 posts

Posted 15 March 2007 - 04:48 PM

:yahoo: chriswufgator !! We actually agree on something !! LOL , yep its the bastards at CMI that I was referring to :yahoo: , they dropped of EX with nary a peep a bit ago , then came roaring back with a vengence a couple weeks ago and replaced the original TL and added a NEW one , with like 3 x's the total claimed owed then the first one did . Gonna write up my DV , quoting TX Statutes this weekend and mail it out , sounds like invoking DTPA just may be enough to send them packing for good ( fingers crossed ).




1 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users



© Copyright 2003 - 2013 Creditboards.com. All rights reserved. No portion of this site may be reproduced without explicit permission from the owners. The content of creditboards.com is subject solely to the personal whim of its admins. We reserve the right, at our sole discretion, to remove any and all posts or comments, at any time, for any reason which takes our entirely capricious fancy, or for no particular reason whatsoever, without restriction. Comments or questions regarding the site may be addressed to admin@creditboards.com.