Search the Community

I recently sent a Comprehensive Texas DV to Midland Funding / Midland Credit Management for a debt they are claiming is owed to a cell phone company that I've never had a contract with. In the DV, I stated that I disputed the debt in its entirety, and requested validation of the account with proof that I have some contractual obligation to pay Midland Funding the reported amount via: 1. A contract bearing my signature that shows my obligation to pay debts on the alleged account; 2. Itemized billing statements from the inception of this alleged account through the account closing date; and 3. Proof that you are entitled to collect the alleged debt on the original creditor's behalf. I also stated that no federal questions were being raised, and that my dispute was under TFC 392. I received a response today, within the 30 days alloted under TFC 392. It consisted of a one-page letter stating, "Please be advised that we have determined that our credit file and credit reporting o fthe above-referenced account is accurate..." blah blah blah, and stating they would be resuming collection activities. Sometime within the last few days, they have updated the tradeline so that the Balance section is blank. Midland did NOT include any documentation regarding the account aside from their letter. I don't see where TFC requires the CA to provide validating documents, only that they are required to respond and admit/deny the accuracy within 30 days. Should I now send a validation request under FDCPA/FCRA, or is there a clause that encourages me to proceed under TFC 392? I'm 100% certain that they don't have the required documents because I never signed up for service with the original creditor.

And yet another reason why Pro Se litigators need to do thier homework or hire it out... NEVRIK BERBERYAN v. ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC Case No. CV 12-4417-CAS (PLAx). United States District Court, C.D. California. March 18, 2013. Ashley Fickel, Attorneys Present for Defendants. My highlights: ____ In opposition, plaintiff argues that defendant "communicated" with her through its alleged reporting of a debt that appeared on her credit report, but plaintiff offers no authority that supports such an expansive reading of the term "communicated." Opp'n at 6. Defendant must do something more than allegedly place notice of a disputed debt on plaintiff's credit report to trigger its disclosure duties. And even if such disclosure duties were triggered by plaintiff's letter that disputed defendant's right to collect on any debt, see 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(, plaintiff has not alleged that defendant was engaged in any "collection activities" at the time of her letter. Furthermore, plaintiff fails to allege that defendants employed any cognizable "deceptive means" in connection with the collection of any debt; there are no allegations that defendant committed any deceptive actions, other than reporting a debt to a CRA. Id. Because plaintiff alleges facts that demonstrate that defendant did not violate the Act, bare recitals of the elements of a claim under the FDCPA are not sufficient to survive defendant's motion to dismiss. In support of her claims, plaintiff alleges that defendant violated section 1681s-2( (1) by "failing to conduct a proper investigation," after receiving notice from a CRA that plaintiff disputed the information in her report. FAC ¶ 31. Had defendants conducted such an investigation, plaintiff alleges that defendant would have realized they "could not collect upon [her] account." Id. Indeed, without offering "proof of the right to collect upon [a] debt" before allegedly verifying that debt for a CRA, plaintiff contends that defendant violated the FCRA. Id. ¶ 30. The Court concludes that plaintiff fails to state a claim under the FCRA. Plaintiff fails to offer any factual allegations supporting her contention that defendant's investigation of her disputed account was unreasonable. First, there is no duty on the part of the furnisher to provide proof of its right to collect upon a debt under the plain language section 1681s-2( . As plaintiff herself alleges, she received confirmation from the CRAs that Asset had verified the account appearing on her credit report as valid. FAC ¶ 16. Plaintiff cannot attempt to impose a further requirement of "validation" in section 1681s-2( , above and beyond that of "reasonable investigation," where none exists

I am trying to get rid of an OC charge-off. It is still well within SOL and not in the hands of a CA (I assume since no CA is reporting or calling me about it). I have already tried the following: 1. CRA dispute 2. OC validation 3. PFD offer What should I try now?

Hello, i looked at my CRs and i have to send out some verification and some validation letters. anyone have one that I could use? Thank you