Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by legaleagle2012

  1. Verification comes after validation. Verification is nothing more than sending the same information again if it was complete the first time, which it was. Again, tell me what they could send that wasn't in the first notice.
  2. You are arguing about something that hasn't even happened, and trying to shift the burden to the debt collector when disputing is the consumer's burden. That letter contains anything and everything that could possibly be required. Name something it doesn't have. Your case law just repeats what the ststute says. The statute states a copy is just fine: § 1006.38(c)(2) (2) Response to disputes. Upon receipt of a dispute submitted by the consumer in writing within the validation period, a debt collector must cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion of the debt, until the debt collector: (i) Sends a copy either of verification of the debt or of a judgment to the consumer in writing or electronically in the manner required by § 1006.42; I take that to mean they can resend the verification information they already gave him. Stuff like this never goes anywhere in court, especially with a JDB who has been sued numerous times for this in the past, and finally desisgned a bullet proof letter. The judge will just look at him and say "exactly what is it they didn't tell you that you need to know?"
  3. It says: (a) NOTICE OF DEBT; CONTENTS.--Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing-- The letter they sent him contains all of this. They do not have to send another one. If he DVs them all they will do is send a copy of the letter, then sue him. Any argument to the contrary is then moot. Come back on the 29th and see if he DV'd them. The letter satisfies this standard: The validation notice "must be large enough to be easily read and sufficiently prominent to be noticed" - Swanson v. Southern Oregon Credit Service, 869 F.2d 1222 (9th Cir. 1988).
  4. Read the FDCPA. All they have to provide in DV is the name of the creditor (them) the name of the original creditor if you want it, and the amount. That is all. They do NOT have to respond to a DV request if they already satisfied the requirement.
  5. They usually send them the complete file for any accounts they purchase. If you want something specific, you have to file a discovery request.
  6. It isn't unlawful to sell your account, get that out of your head. They have already accomplished debt validation, since you know who they are and how much they want. It is not a violation to threaten to sue or actually sue within the thirty days. Debt validation is YOUR burden, not theirs. (4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; Did you read the FDCPA? Your lawyer is going to tell you the same thing.
  7. Sure, If you don't believe what is right in front of you, file a motion with the court.
  8. Assume they do; they don't advertise stuff like this. Also be aware that lying on a credit application to a federally insured institution is a federal crime.
  9. ;(2) upon failure of the Applicant to satisfy the terms of the agreement; or (3) at the option of the Applicant or of Navy Federal with good cause. Navy Federal has the right of assignment of this agreement. Assignment means they can sell it.
  10. PRA has that delete promise right on their site. By paying, you have entered into a contract. If they don't delete, that breaches the contract. Two guesses what happens next. They are NOT that *Admin prohibits insults that reference an individual's intelligence.*.
  11. No, they would have to take some type of action against you in a letter, etc., or by actually filing a suit.
  12. What legal action? You said it was charged off in 2011. which is beyond any SOL. If they hire outside counsel and they come after you on a time barred debt, sue them.
  13. That is not their number Customer Service is 1 (888) 221-1161
  14. 1099s do not cancel the debt, according to the IRS. If it is 200 and you settle for 100, they can 1099 you for the other 100. "Since scientists can't prove that cigarette smoking causes cancer, why would anyone expect them to know anything about climate science?" That's funny. Interesting fact; the actor who played "Marlboro Man" died of lung cancer. So did 3 others who played him, and so did RJ Reynolds III. Just proves cancer cures smoking.
  15. My dear Pot-O: Gotta read the fine print, Jethro. He hasn't been sued. The case I cited addresses "filing or threatening to file a lawsuit ." Nothing else. Altho sending one of those nice collection letters that does not include the language that the debt is beyond the SOL and you cannot be sued for it would be a violation in his circuit. (I doubt they are that stupid) It mischaracterizes the legal status of a debt. "Normal collection activities" must comply with the law; they can ask, pretty please pay us, nothing else. So far there have been no collection activities, hence I told him he has no basis to do anything. Now mosey on down to the ce-ment pond and have some Irish coffee, you all.
  16. Collecting on a debt is definitely not a FDCPA violation unles ...... Yes it is. No warning is required on either side. He disputed with the CRAs, not with the creditor. Kaiser v. Cascade Capital, LLC - Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals "Joining other circuits, the panel held that the FDCPA prohibits filing or threatening to file a lawsuit to collect debts that were defaulted on so long ago that a suit would be outside the applicable statute of limitations. The panel held that these prohibitions regarding time-barred debts apply even if it was unclear at the time a debt collector sued or threatened suit whether a lawsuit was time barred under state law. The panel concluded that plaintiff’s debt was time barred under Oregon’s four-year statute of limitations. Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint stated a claim for relief under the FDCPA." If they decide to sue you, which in the present case it seems like they cannot, then you can insist on verifiable proof. I said that to OP. No suit, no discovery. Actually they can sue, but not without committing the violation. He should be so lucky. The argument here is that they waived the right to report when they waived filing suit. Rosenthal is all but useless. Statutory damages are something like $50. "Any debt collector who willfully and knowingly violates this title with respect to any debtor shall, in addition to actual damages sustained by the debtor as a result of the violation, also be liable to the debtor only in an individual action, and his additional liability therein to that debtor shall be for a penalty in such amount as the court may allow, which shall not be less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor greater than one thousand dollars ($1,000). Cal. Civ.Code § 1788.30(b). Accord Yu v. Signet Bank/Virginia, 69 Cal.App.4th 1377, 1395–96, 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 304 (1999) (“The [ Rosenthal] Act provides for recovery in an individual action of … a fine of $100 to $1,000 if the creditor’s violation is willful and knowing.”) (citing Cal. Civ.Code § 1788.30(b))." It is their responsibility as debt collectors to know and comply with the SOL. If they don't, that's wilfull in my book. "We didn't know" doesn't fly. Incompetency comes with a price.
  17. Check your SOL for ID theft ..... it is generally rather short in most states. If it expired, the police prob won't take a report because even if they caught the perp, they couldn't do anything about it. The fact that sonny was underage at the time and could not have legally opened an account should be enough to get this removed. If not, consult with a consumer attorney.
  18. You have no legal basis to "do" anything at this point since it appears they are ignoring you so far. If they attempt to collect the debt, that would violate the FDCPA and Rosenthal Act. Suing / collecting has nothing to do with reporting. You could try the "prove it" angle with the CRAs .... since PRA declined to take you to court within the SOL period and now cannot successfully do so, you were deprived of an opportunity to challenge their ownership of the accounts. You canot conduct discovery with no pending court case, so for all you know, they don't even own these accounts. That all depends on whether or not they ever sent you any paperwork when they acquired the accounts. This tactic may not get you very far, but it will create some work for PRA. If they refuse or cannot prove ownership, you can give this to a lawyer for evalution. Reporting on a debt they cannot legally prove they own is probably an FCRA violation.
  19. "The IRS has provided some guidance regarding whether the issuance of a 1099-C cancels a debt. In Information Letter 2005-0207, the IRS explained: "The Internal Revenue Service does not view a Form 1099-C as an admission by the creditor that it has discharged the debt and can no longer pursue collection." The Information Letter was addressed to a company "in the business of purchasing debts in large pools at a significant discount" in answer to its "request [for] information concerning the reporting obligations under section 6050P(c)(2)(D), [the IRS Code section for Returns Relating to The Cancellation of Indebtedness by Certain Entities,] for an organization that purchases debt."
  20. Most likely they are some boiler room operation, and you'll never find out who they are. Even if you do, they won't have any assets and you'll be wasting your time suing them. Just block their numbers.
  21. I would send the receipt. If they still don't remove it, then it is time to pursue a remedy under the FCRA for incorrect reporting. You have to short circuit the "we didn't know" line of garbage they will use. It is their obligation to know what they are buying. Lack of knowledge is on them, not the consumer.
  22. They will argue that cashing that check constitutes a full settlement of the issue. It's up to you to prove otherwise.
  23. Reporting is only considered collection activity in a couple of circuits. Better check your case law before trying any lawsuits, the "violation" may not be one. In other words, until they dun you or take other legit collection activity (I don't see that in your post) they have no obligation to provide DV. In fact, if they provided you with the name of the creditor and the amount, they satisfied DV already, or will when they send a collection letter. Issue two; you, like everybody else here, won't say where you live until we pry the information out of you. With a default date of March 2016, this is beyond any state with up to a 6 year SOL. They may never try to colllect for that very reason. If they do, well, then you may have a violation for collection on a time barred debt. The reporting should drop off around next March; this may not be worth a legal battle. It'll be extinct before you can get them into court.
  24. Providing them an email constitutes permission for them to send you information that might be seen by third parties, IE anyone who has access to your email, you forget to close the screeen and somebody sees it, etc. There was a big case about this years ago involving Ford Credit.
  25. "I don't like the fact that you're ruining my score after I burned you for 55K" won't cut it. As you were told, as long as the information is accurate, they can report for 7 years after charge off. Even if it isn't accurate, they get the option to correct it. You need a VALID reason pursuant to the FCRA to have things removed, and the scope is very narrow. You can ask, but it is very unlikely you will receive. That may sound harsh, but reality in the legal world often is. The only hope for you is maybe a pay for delete.
  • Create New...

Important Information