legaleagle2012

The FCRA private right of action is limited: consumers cannot sue for a furnisher's initial inaccurate reporting but can sue if a furnisher fails to conduct a reasonable investigation after a credit reporting agency (CRA) sends them a dispute notice. A private right of action exists under section 1681s-2(b)(1), which allows for claims if a furnisher negligently or willfully fails to investigate a dispute that was forwarded to them by a CRA. Enforcement of other sections, like 1681s-2(a) (which covers initial reporting), is handled exclusively by federal and state agencies, not through private lawsuits.

What forum do they specify for arbitration? Should either be AAA or JAMS. File, they will probably refuse to pay their fees, which means they cannot use the court system anymore. Their fees, assuming this is a consumer loan and not business, will run them about 4K to start, and they are not recoverble. After they refuse, you have lots of options, like a federal lawsuit under USC 9.

Check to see if these accounts (last payment date) are beyond the SOL. That way you can argue to a lender that you can't be sued. They still won't like the idea that you have chargeoffs, but it's no suit possible is better than nothing. Only way a JDB will delete is for payment.

That's way beyond the SOL. Pray they sue you, that way you get a nice FDCPA claim against them. Portfolio isn't that *Admin prohibits insults that reference an individual's intelligence.* though, as a rule. The letter should have a disclaimer that due to age, they won't sue you. PF usually includes that. If there is any threat of legal action in their letters, that is also a violation.

Yeah, me. You blew off the most important question about SOL Bluesie asked.

About 95% 0f the time. The cost is usually a lot more than the debt, and they cannot recover the fees.

This may not apply in your circuit, but it is persuasive. First, the LeFevre - Cass opinion letter states: II. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA for a debt collector to report, or continue to report, a consumer's charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency after the debt collector has received, but not responded to, a consumer's written dispute during the 30-day validation period detailed in § 1692g?" As you know, Section 1692g(b) requires the debt collector to cease collection of the debt at issue if a written dispute is received within the 30-day validation period until verification is obtained. Because we believe that reporting a charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency, particularly at this stage of the collection process, constitutes "collection activity" on the part of the collector, our answer to your question is No. Although the FDCPA is unclear on this point, we believe the reality is that debt collectors use the reporting mechanism as a tool to persuade consumers to pay, just like dunning letters and telephone calls. Of course, if a dispute is received after a debt has been reported to a consumer reporting agency, the debt collector is obligated by Section 1692e(8) to inform the consumer reporting agency of the dispute. http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/cass.htm Then in Edeh V Midland the court said: 8th circuit An informal opinion letter from a regulatory agency is not entitled to Chevron deference, but it is nevertheless “‘entitled to respect’” to the extent that it has the “‘power to persuade.’” Christensen v. Harris Cnty., 529 U.S. 576, 587 (2000) (quoting Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323U.S. 134, 140 (1944)). This Court finds the FTC’s reasoning persuasive. The Court has learned, through its work on countless FDCPA cases, that threatening to report and reporting debts to CRAs is one of the most commonly-used arrows in the debt collector’s quiver. Consistent with the views of the FTC — and consistent with the views expressed in Purnell, Quale, and Semper — the Court finds that Midland was engaged in “collection of the debt” in violation of § 1692g(b) when it reported Edeh’s disputed debt to the CRAs before sending verification of that debt to Edeh. http://buckleysandler.com/uploads/36/doc/Edeh_v_Midland_Credit_Management_Inc_.pdf

Odd, since we haven't had a post in the HIBS thread since April 26.

Validation is off the table once you've been sued. You want documents? It's called discovery. You didn't sign a contract with anybody .... did CR1 send a lawyer and a notary to your house? NOBODY signs a credit card contract. By using the card, you accept the terms of the agreement it came with.

It would be nice if you could get that lawyer to repeat his lies about arb cost in front of a judge. All you pay is the filing fee. That aside, he doesn't seem to know about the arb clause. the TN SOL is 6 years, forget that. Even if FLA applied, it's 4 years and would not help either.

You don't need to sign an agreement with LVNV for them to be able to sue. They now own the account, and have all the same rights the OC had. Who is the OC? How much is the debt? Arbitration as provided in the CC agreement usually runs them off, Read the arbitration thread and file a case. You also have to file a motion with the court to compel arbitration. The template is in the thread, change as needed. Sign up for E-filing with the court. Arb must be granted if it's in the contract. That takes it out of court.

If you want arb, you pick the forum and file, not them. Arb works best against junk debt buyers, who have very little invested and quite a bit to lose. OCs are a different story; banks have lots of money and are more likely to take you on, especially for larger amounts. It will cost you the filing fee to find out. Be advised that if they do take you on, you need a valid defense.

https://www.td.com/content/dam/tdb/document/pdf/personal-banking/go-card-terms-en.pdf I would put both of them into arbitration for willingly failing to prove you owe them any money or that you are required to pay any money on an expired debt. This was their choice by selling / purchasing an out of statute debt. This is a malicious act designed to punish the cardholder for the OC and debt buyer's incompetence. Arbitration startup fees can cost them upwards of 4K and they know it. I doubt they would want to spend that much to defend this claim.

I got that beat. I thought my computer crashed; I did 4 restarts and got a black screen until I discovered I hadn't turned on the monitor.

It was two payments according to his post, not 23K.