Search the Community

http://www.dfs.ny.gov/legal/regulations/adoptions/dfsf23t.pdf A summary of changes; § 1.2 Required initial disclosures by debt collectors. (2) the following written notice: “If a creditor or debt collector receives a money judgment against you in court, state and federal laws may prevent the following types of income from being taken to pay the debt: 1. Supplemental security income, (SSI); 2. Social security; 3. Public assistance (welfare); 4. Spousal support, maintenance (alimony) or child support; 5. Unemployment benefits; 6. Disability benefits; 7. Workers’ compensation benefits; 8. Public or private pensions; 9. Veterans’ benefits; 10. Federal student loans, federal student grants, and federal work study funds; and 11. Ninety percent of your wages or salary earned in the last sixty days. § 1.3 Disclosures for debts for which the statute of limitations may be expired. (a) A debt collector must maintain reasonable procedures for determining the statute of limitations applicable to a debt it is collecting and whether such statute of limitations has expired. © The following language satisfies the notice requirement contained in section 1.3( of this Part: “We are required by regulation of the New York State Department of Financial Services to notify you of the following information. This information is NOT legal advice: Your creditor or debt collector believes that the legal time limit (statute of limitations) for suing you to collect this debt may have expired. It is a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., to sue to collect on a debt for which the statute of limitations has expired. However, if the creditor sues you to collect on this debt, you may be able to prevent the creditor from obtaining a judgment against you. To do so, you must tell the court that the statute of limitations has expired. Even if the statute of limitations has expired, you may choose to make payments on the debt. However, be aware: if you make a payment on the debt, admit to owing the debt, promise to pay the debt, or waive the statute of limitations on the debt, the time period in which the debt is enforceable in court may start again. If you would like to learn more about your legal rights and options, you can consult an attorney or a legal assistance or legal aid organization. (1) If the consumer disputes the debt orally, the debt collector must: (i) make reasonable efforts to inform the consumer, in the conversation in which the dispute was communicated, how the consumer can make a written request for substantiation of the debt in writing; and (ii) within 14 days of the consumer disputing the debt, provide the consumer clear and conspicuous written instructions on how to request substantiation of the debt; or (2) If the consumer disputes the debt in writing, within 21 days of the debt collector receiving that writing, the debt collector must provide the consumer clear and conspicuous written instructions on how to request substantiation of the debt. ( A debt collector must provide the consumer written substantiation of a charged-off debt within 60 days of receiving a request for substantiation of the debt and must cease collection of the debt until written substantiation has been provided to the consumer. A debt collector must substantiate a charged-off debt pursuant to this section only once during the period that the debt collector owns or has the right to collect the debt. © Substantiation of a charged-off debt shall include shall include a copy of a judgment against the consumer or: (1) the signed contract or signed application that created the debt or, if no signed contract or application exists, a copy of a document provided to the alleged debtor while the account was active, demonstrating that the debt was incurred by the debtor. For a revolving credit account, the most recent monthly statement recording a purchase transaction, payment or balance transfer shall be deemed sufficient to satisfy this requirement; (2) the charge-off account statement, or equivalent document, issued by the original creditor to the consumer; (3) a statement describing the complete chain of title from the original creditor to the present creditor, including the date of each assignment, sale, and transfer; and (4) records reflecting the amount and date of any prior settlement agreement reached in connection with the debt pursuant to section 1.5 of this Part. (d) If a consumer requests substantiation of a charged-off debt pursuant to section 1.4(a) of this Part, the debt collector must retain the following documentation until the debt is discharged, sold, or transferred: (1) evidence of the consumer’s request for substantiation; and (2) all documents the debt collector provided in response to the request.

My brother, who lives in Albany NY has a couple of old charge off accounts approaching the SOL for NY state (6 years). HE showed me his credit report and it read date of first delinquency 9/2008. Most are small under $1000.00 but one from Cap One is 7K. He hasn't been contacted by any of them, but he moved a few times and hasn't worked. HE credit reports have old addresses on them. So what to do? I don't see that the big one has been assigned to any collection agency (not showing on his report). What are the chances that the SOL will pass in 2 months? Anyone have any advice?

http://www.insidearm.com/daily/debt-buying-topics/debt-buying/two-huge-debt-buyers-to-vacate-16-million-in-judgments-in-ny-ag-action/

http://www.businessw...ot-y-dot-accord Quote this all Ties back to PRA v King , a state appeals court ruling citing the NY Borrowing Statute. Even though NY has a 6 year SOL, they apply the lenders home state Statute of Limitations to the account, because that is where the economic injury occured, http://www.ag.ny.gov...s-unlawful-debt Quote Sherman Financial group is AKA; LVNV Funding, PYOD, Resurgent Capital Services. $16 Million in Judgments, $475K fine.

From an article on Inside ARM: New York State Courts Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman Wednesday announced a set of reforms aimed at increasing requirements for collection agencies and debt buyers who file suits to recover debts from consumers in the state. Although open for public comment, the new rules are expected take effect in June. The reforms, detailed at the link below, are being issued for a 30-day public comment period, to expire on May 30, with implementation expected by mid-June 2014. http://www.nycourts.gov/rules/comments/PDF/ConsumeCreditPC-Package.pdf Requirements that creditors submit affidavits containing detailed proof in support of default judgment applications ensuring that the substantive and evidentiary standards for default judgments required under New York law are met. Statewide rules and policies to stop the practice of suing on debt when the statute of limitations has expired as well as to prevent “sewer service” in consumer debt cases. Procedures and user-friendly forms ensuring that unrepresented consumers who appear in court have access to comprehensible information and resources so that they can understand the claims against them and formulate appropriate defenses. Partnerships with bar associations and law schools to increase pro bono representation of defendants in consumer credit cases in the hardest hit areas.

I have lost my job a few months ago, got behind on bills and racked up a few judgements (one from an eviction). My only money is my unemployment that is direct deposited into my Fidelity Checking account. I have a a small (its being rapidly depleted to pay bills) IRA with Fidelity. I know in NY the law is that about $2500.00 of money in a checking account is protected from levy's if its direct deposited unemployment. Here is my concern; Fidelity is not a bank, its a brokerage. Also, Fidelity uses various clearing banks across the country to hold funds. So with this in mind, is the money in Fidelity still covered under New York's garnishment and levy laws?

Hi All, Thanks for reading my thread, I hope I am not over doing it by posting too many threads ( this is my third one) . Ok here is my dilemma, 1. I had a JDB pop up on my CR, sent Validation they responded. In a nutshell can't validate will request for removal with CRA and they will remove my info from their database. A month to date, still on my CR . Last week Thursday called the CRA told them what has transpired, I gave info over the phone, name of the reporting CA, date of letter the CA sent it to me, and the name of the person who signed it ( which was a manager). Was told to mail it. I did the same day I am now kicking myself in the butt cause I sent it regular snail mail. I was too anxious. As of today the neg acct. is still there and it is not even marked as disputed! Is this a violation? On both parties? 2. Since I had 2 CA reporting the same debt I requested validation from both, last one Diversified has yet to answer my letter, not only that, they are reporting wrong dates, acct term and had the nerve to report one month as no information to report?? They haven't even reported to the CRA its in dispute... So do I: a. send a letter YES CMRR, to the CRA stating that they failed to validate debt, send a copy of the green card and the tracking confirmation from USPS? b. Do the above AND give a list of all the errors that the CR is reporting about this acct ( I read here that doing this will cause them to have to delete it cause its so many listed errors they wouldn't know what to chose from:http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=313560 ) c. or just send a letter stating that the CRA is reporting inaccurate information. List all the errors and demand it be deleted. 3. Will freezing all CR's look odd while disputing? I was able to get my unsecure cc so I am happy for now, I don't want any surprise I ran your credit report like Lexis-Nexis has done to me! 4. I also heard that if a CA do not mark the acct on our credit report as a dispute by the consumer once you have requested validation them it is a violation...is this correct? If so can any one site this violation? 5. I am open to reading any threads that may educate me and help me please post them!!!!! I thank you all for your help!

MONIQUE SYKES et al., Plaintiffs, v. MEL HARRIS AND ASSOCIATES, LLC, et al., Defendants. No. 09 Civ. 8486 (DC). United States District Court, S.D. New York. September 4, 2012. In this case, four plaintiffs allege that a debt-buying company, a law firm, a process service company, and others engaged in a scheme to fraudulently obtain default judgments against them and more than 100,000 other consumers in state court. Defendants allegedly acted in concert to defraud these consumers in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the "FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., New York General Business Law ("GBL") § 349, and New York Judiciary Law § 487. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and damages on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals. They move for class certification. The motion is granted. Specifically, the "Leucadia defendants" include Leucadia, L-Credit, LLC, LR Credit, LLC, LR Credit 10, LLC, LR Credit 12, LLC, LR Credit 14, LLC, LR Credit 18, LLC, and LR Credit 21, LLC, Joseph A. Orlando, Philip M. Cannella, and LR Credit John/Jane Does 1-20. (See Third Am. Compl. ¶¶ 22-31). The "Mel Harris defendants" include Mel Harris, Michael Young, David Waldman, Kerry Lutz, Todd Fabacher, and Mel Harris John/Jane Does 1-20. (See id. ¶¶ 14-21). The "Samserv defendants" include Samserv, William Mlotok, Benjamin Lamb, Michael Mosquera, John Andino, and Samserv John/Jane Does 1-20. (See id. ¶¶ 32-38).