Jump to content

Bluesie58

Members
  • Content Count

    239
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

82 profile views
  1. The article is incorrect on at least one point. How to Respond to the Lawsuit First, verify the debt. While your liability should be clear if your credit card company sues you directly, sometimes it's not that straightforward. Debt collectors you've never heard of can purchase your debt and sue you for it, and the debt may be inflated by fees and penalties. Mistakes or outright fraud can happen. So even if you know you owe the debt, request documentation of it if you're being sued by a debt collector. The federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act provides the right to request verification of a debt, but you must put your request in writing – and send it, ideally, by certified mail. The debt collector will be required to produce a copy of the original written agreement between you and the credit card company and proof that it has been assigned the debt. If these documents can't be produced, you can ask to have the lawsuit dismissed, and you may have the right to countersue for failure to verify the debt. The author screwed up.
  2. No. SC is 3 years from the date of last payment.
  3. Bluesie58

    Best way to get free report from EQ

    Yea! 👏
  4. A mechanic’s lien does not usually require a judgment. However, what the poster suggested is considered to be fraud.
  5. Bluesie58

    Debt Validation Ignored - Now Getting Sued

    You don’t know every debt collection attorney. You only know what took place in your situations. To to imply that all or most debt collection attorneys are less than capable offers false hope. If debt collection attorneys are as incompetent as you claim, there would be no state and federal court rulings in favor of debt collectors.
  6. Bluesie58

    Debt Validation Ignored - Now Getting Sued

    Filing a lawsuit before responding to a timely DV request violates the FDCPA. The debt collector is perfectly free to sue within thirty days; he just must cease his efforts at collection during the interval between being asked for verification of the debt and mailing the verification to the debtor. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b). Bartlett v. Heibl, 128 F.3d 497, 501 (7th Cir.1997). If the debt collector chooses not to wait until the end of the validation period to commence debt collection litigation, an explanation of the lawsuit's impact — or more accurately, lack of impact — on the disclosures made in the validation notice must be provided. This explanation should be set forth in either the validation notice itself, or in a notice provided with the summons and complaint. The best practice is to provide an explanation in both the validation notice and the summons and complaint. Clarifying that commencement of a lawsuit does not trump the validation notice will come at little or no cost to debt collectors and will ensure that the consumer rights secured under the FDCPA are not overshadowed or contradicted. Ellis v. Solomon and Solomon, P.C., 591 F.3d 130, 137 (2d Cir. 2010).
  7. If you made a payment in June, 2015, you reset the SOL SECTION 15-3-120. Effect of new promises in writing or part payments. No acknowledgment or promise shall be sufficient evidence of a new or continuing contract whereby to take the case out of the operation of this chapter unless it be contained in some writing signed by the party to be charged thereby. But payment of any part of principal or interest is equivalent to a promise in writing. BTW, contrary to what is reported elsewhere, SC is NOT a "last item" state.
  8. Bluesie58

    Sent validation request, no response - now what?

    I assumed that the OP disputed the debt when he sent his DV request. That's my fault for assuming.
  9. Bluesie58

    Sent validation request, no response - now what?

    That's nonsense. They most certainly do have to respond if they want to continue collection efforts. What you just listed is required in 1692g(a) in an initial communication. (1) the amount of the debt; (2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed; (3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector; (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; and (5) a statement that, upon the consumer’s written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor. Look at #4. Why would that be included if the rest of the information is enough to validate the debt? 1692g(b) (b) Disputed debts If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. Why would Congress have included both #4 in subsection (a) and the above (subsection b) if, again, an initial communication could validate the debt? Where's the case law that supports your claim?
  10. Bluesie58

    Help Please. Big collection just appeared

    Edeh v. Midland was a ruling in MN (8th Circuit). In that ruling, Midland continued to update (report) after receiving notice of Edeh's dispute. In Wilhelm v. Credico, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a debt collector need not report a debt as disputed if it learns of the dispute after it has already reported the debt to the CRAs. Reading these provisions together, as we must, the relevance of the portion of § 1692e(8) on which Wilhelm relies — "including the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed" — is rooted in the basic fraud law principle that, if a debt collector elects to communicate "credit information" about a consumer, it must not omit a piece of information that is always material, namely, that the consumer has disputed a particular debt. This interpretation is confirmed by the relevant part of the Federal Trade Commission's December 1988 Staff Commentary on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act: 1. Disputed debt. If a debt collector knows that a debt is disputed by the consumer ... and reports it to a credit bureau, he must report it as disputed. 2. Post-report dispute. When a debt collector learns of a dispute after reporting the debt to a credit bureau, the dispute need not also be reported. FTC Staff Commentary, 53 Fed.Reg. 50097-02, 50106 (Dec. 13, 1988)(emphasis added), followed in Black v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43264 at * 12-13 (N.D.Ga.2005), and in Hilburn v. Encore Receivable Mgmt., Inc., 2007 WL 1200949 at *4 (D.Or.2007). As for the claim against Pinnacle, Wilhelm did submit evidence that Pinnacle reported credit information to credit reporting agencies in December 2003 without reporting that the debt was disputed. However, even crediting the Credico employee's affidavit, there is no evidence that these reports were made after Pinnacle learned of the dispute in mid-December. In the 8th Circuit, if a collection agency reports, learns of a dispute, then doesn't update (continue to report), it doesn't violate the FDCPA. But the OP is in the 6th Circuit which has made no ruling on this particular issue.
  11. Bluesie58

    Next Steps (Old CA crept up)

    I think you misunderstood me. You don't have to state that the debt is or sn't yours. You just simply refuse to pay. I don't understand how refusing to pay is an acknowledgement of a debt. Laws seem to be based upon an intent to pay. How is a refusal an intent to pay?
  12. Bluesie58

    Next Steps (Old CA crept up)

    Unless one's state law says that a "refusal to pay" is acknowledgment of a debt, it's not. However, one can still simply request a cease of all communication without the mention of statutes, etc. Unless one's state law says that a "refusal to pay" is acknowledgment of a debt, it's not. However, one can still simply request a cease of all communication without the mention of statutes, etc. you're wrong on that. You wouldn't refuse to pay a debt that's not yours? So how could that restart an SOL? Do you have statutes or court precedent?
  13. Bluesie58

    Next Steps (Old CA crept up)

    Unless one's state law says that a "refusal to pay" is acknowledgment of a debt, it's not. However, one can still simply request a cease of all communication without the mention of statutes, etc.
  14. Bluesie58

    Help! Threatened to be sued?

    Do you have anything in writing indicating the payment arrangements?

About Us

Since 2003, creditboards.com has helped thousands of people repair their credit, force abusive collection agents to follow the law, ensure proper reporting by credit reporting agencies, and provided financial education to help avoid the pitfalls that can lead to negative tradelines.
×

Important Information

Guidelines