Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
walterg55

Texas law seems to require CA to Delete if They fail to Respond to DV

Recommended Posts

TFC section 392.303 (2) states that:

 

Sec. 392.303. UNFAIR OR UNCONSCIONABLE MEANS. (a) In debt collection, a debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means that employ the following practices:

 

...(2) collecting or attempting to collect interest or a charge, fee, or expense incidental to the obligation unless the interest or incidental charge, fee, or expense is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the obligation or legally chargeable to the consumer; or

 

so if the JDB is constantly increasing the balance monthly w/o explanation, it can be used as one of the violations too? they have been asked for some accounting of how the balance was calculated before, with no answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TFC section 392.303 (2) states that:

 

Sec. 392.303. UNFAIR OR UNCONSCIONABLE MEANS. (a) In debt collection, a debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means that employ the following practices:

 

...(2) collecting or attempting to collect interest or a charge, fee, or expense incidental to the obligation unless the interest or incidental charge, fee, or expense is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the obligation or legally chargeable to the consumer; or

 

so if the JDB is constantly increasing the balance monthly w/o explanation, it can be used as one of the violations too? they have been asked for some accounting of how the balance was calculated before, with no answer.

which begs the question of what your reading of the original agreement suggests was permitted...and if you have NOT done so, then you are already behind the eight-ball as you are being REACTIVE instead of PROACTIVE.

 

Also missing is what response WAS received to date and whether the 30-day window (and the 60-day notice to cure) have run...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that and have been unable to find the original terms but did find an old statement w/ terms that did not address this particular issue. The debt is from a CC from one of the larger well known banks. It dates back to 2000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would need to get your hands on the original T&C's from that time period. They usually aren't too hard to find if you look hard enough. You might also want to create a new thread and see if someone can help you dig up a copy. Knowing exactly what the original contract states is essential in knowing whether or not the interest is allowable or not.

 

-jaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You would need to get your hands on the original T&C's from that time period. They usually aren't too hard to find if you look hard enough. You might also want to create a new thread and see if someone can help you dig up a copy. Knowing exactly what the original contract states is essential in knowing whether or not the interest is allowable or not.

 

-jaz

 

It is not necessarily the ORIGINAL that is needed but rather the Terms and Conditions in effect at the time of the default...still a multi-page document and still a document that too many people never bother reading, much less keeping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I received the experian and Transunion reports today and MCM is still off of TU since i disputed last year and got them deleted. The EX report shows Terms: 1 month. What is the significance of this item on the tradeline? It also only says the last verified and updated on 4/2009. Does this mean they have not updated since last year?

 

Also, after the initial DV I sent last year, I proceeded to dispute with the CRA's as soon as I got the Green card back from MCM. They did verify with EX and EQ and then sent me a generic letter stating that they owned the debt on their letterhead. I believe I can use that as another TFC violation to list in my new letter.

Edited by frequency213

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I got laid off back in July, 09 and wasn't able to keep up the payments on my old WAMU card. Since WAMU went BK, they have a company called Midland Funding, LLC. trying to get money for them. They contracted with G. Reynolds Sims and Assoc. to try to waggle some money out of me. I believe that when I defaulted, the balance was around $800.

 

I received the first call, didn't know what the CID was, and they told me about it and I told them that I was unemployed and couldn't pay.

 

I got the letter below in the mail four days later and have gotten two, maybe three more calls.

 

Actual letter contents:

Please be advised that MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC. an assignee of WAMU has retained our office to collect the alleged debt of $1,257.72. According to our client's records, MB34 incurred expenses for defaulting in credit card payments to WAMU and defaulting on payment of same, in total amount due and unpaid $1,257,72

 

UNLESS YOU NOTIFY US WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER THAT THE VALIDITY OF THIS DEBT, OR ANY PORTION OF IT IS DISPUTED, WE WILL ASSUME THAT THE DEBT IS VALID. IF YOU DO NOTIFY US OF A DISPUTE, WE WILL OBTAIN VERIFICATION OF THE DEBT AND MAIL IT TO YOU OR, IF A DEBT IS FOUNDED UPON A JUDGMENT A COPY OF A JUDGMENT. ALSO, UPON YOUR WRITTEN REQUEST WITHIN 30 DAYS, WE WILL PROVIDE YOU WITH THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE ORIGINAL CREDITOR IF DIFFERENT FROM THE CURRENT CREDITOR.

 

This letter is from G. Reynolds Sims & Associates, P.C., who is a debt collector. You are put on notice that we are attempting to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose.

 

At this time no attorney with our law firm has personally reviewed the particular circumstances of your account.

 

G. REYNOLDS SIMS & ASSOCIATES, P.C. IS ONLY LICENCED TO PRACTICE LAW IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN.

 

 

Very truly yours,

yada, yada, yada...

 

I intend to send them a DV using Texas rules. The letter states that they are only allowed to practice

law in the state of Michigan, so why would they be sending me a letter trying to sue me if I live in Texas?

 

Anyone ever dealt with them at all??? They are bonded in TX by Hartford. Midland Funding, LLC is also bonded but I'm not sure if they are a CA.

 

P.S. I love the misspelled words in the letter from a law firm!!!

 

Ok, so I sent them the following letter, essentially copied from one other in this thread but modified slightly to remove most of the FDCPA/FRCA stuff:

 

G. Reynolds Sims and Associates

Troy, MI

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam:

 

I am writing to you today in reference to your letter, dated 3/17/2010.

 

Pursuant to Texas Finance Code §392.202(a), I hereby inform you that I dispute the validity of this alleged debt and that I am a consumer as defined by the Texas Finance Code §392 and G. Reynolds Sims and Associates is hereby required, under Texas Finance Code §392.202(a), to perform an investigation and to obtain verification from the original creditor that all aspects of this alleged debt are true and accurate.

 

Upon the successful completion of your investigation please provide me with a complete and accurate reporting of your findings including, but in no way limited to, the original amount of the alleged debt, a complete accounting of any monies due in excess of the original amount, the full name of the debtor as listed on the contractual documents, the source used to confirm the identity of the debtor, the full address of the debtor, the date that the original account was created, copies of the original contractual documents, if available, please advise if they are not, the date of the first default which contributed to the collection activity, the name and address of the original creditor, the complete account number the original creditor assigned to the original account.

 

Furthermore, Texas Finance Code §392.101(a) states that any debt collection company operating in the State of Texas must obtain a surety bond in the amount of $10,000. Please provide me with the name and address of the company who holds said bond for G. Reynolds Sims and Associates as well as the reference number for the bond.

 

Pursuant to Texas Finance Code §392.202(B), if after no more than 30 days the investigation is unable to conclusively prove the accuracy of this alleged debt, then G. Reynolds Sims and Associates is obligated under Texas Finance Code § 392.202(a) to cease all collection activities and communications which include, but are in no way limited to, reporting information that may be viewed as derogatory to any credit reporting agency or any other entity.

 

In accordance with Texas Finance Code §392.202(d)(1), if the investigation is not completed within the span of 30 consecutive days beginning with the receipt of this letter, my request is that any and all information being reported in relation to this debt be immediately removed from any credit reporting agency, or any other data collection service, used by G. Reynolds Sims and Associates which includes, but is in no way limited to, Transunion, Experian, Equifax.

 

Also, pursuant to The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act §805(a)(1), I hereby inform you that telephone communications are inconvenient. Please do not contact me via telephone for any reason regarding this alleged debt. Written communications delivered via the United States Postal Service, or other professional delivery service, are acceptable.

 

Respectfully,

 

MB34

 

I got the green card back dated 4/10.

 

Got a phone call on my machine from them on 4/16. AND today, they called my cell phone. I have an UNPUBLISHED cell phone and have never released it to WAMU or any other creditor.

 

I am thinking that this would be considered a violation of FDCPA §805(a)(1) due to them violating my limited C&D. I question whether this would also be considered harassment as they obtained my cell phone number from other sources.

 

When I answered the cell phone call and he stated who it was, I told him that he was violating FDCPA §805(a)(1) by calling me on the phone.

 

He asked who my attorney was and I told him that I didn't need an attorney and if they called me again, I'd be hiring one to sue them.

 

I certainly have not received any validation of the debt from either source. The next letter will go out to them AND the bonding agent, Hartford Casualty Insurance Company.

 

What is my next move here? Any more advice?

Edited by MB34

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, deviations from the Texas plan produce results that could have been foretold from the beginning...

 

The underwriter should have been included from the very beginning. The Texas plan is SPECIFIC for a reason!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any input on MCM reporting as "Terms: 1 Months" on EX? I do not believe that this is not correct but trying to find what the significance is.

Edited by frequency213

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any input on MCM reporting as "Terms: 1 Months" on EX? I do not believe that this is not correct but trying to find what the significance is.

 

As far as the Texas plan, no comment. The 1-month is addressed ad nauseum in other threads...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The statements put the amount into controversy. However, they CAN serve as a basis to litigate upon the 'account stated' theory if you do not raise the issues of the balances. This is particularly important if the matter is still within the limitations period...

Does anyone have an example modification to the Centex Texas Plan Letter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The statements put the amount into controversy. However, they CAN serve as a basis to litigate upon the 'account stated' theory if you do not raise the issues of the balances. This is particularly important if the matter is still within the limitations period...

Does anyone have an example modification to the Centex Texas Plan Letter?

 

in what manner are you seeking a modification?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there anything that forces a CA to abide by TFC over FDCPA? After contacting the CA citing the TFC they came back with a response that cited the FDCPA. After reading the previous responses, was including the underwriter the only way? Is there anything that can be done now that the damage has been done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there anything that forces a CA to abide by TFC over FDCPA? After contacting the CA citing the TFC they came back with a response that cited the FDCPA. After reading the previous responses, was including the underwriter the only way? Is there anything that can be done now that the damage has been done?

 

Courts IN Texas and at the Federal level have held that a claim with no arguments under federal law could be remanded to State court to address an action that alleged ONLY violation of Texas law. One of the best Motions to Remand was the Marcelino Davila case in the Southern District a few years back...Collectech (IIRC) sought to remove the action from State court to federal...it was bounced BACK to the State court. Texas law offers MORE protection than federal law...and that is what the Courts tend to look at when assessing the matters...

 

If your letter IN ANY MANNER referenced federal statute, then you shot yourself in the foot. But if you did not follow the Texas plan as it has been layed out, then you get to recover from the flesh wound and get back in the batter's box...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought I would post in this thread too, since it is texas related.

 

 

DV'd a Texas CA twice (1st reply was not proper validation) they did not even reply to the 2nd DV letter which asked for the Bond holder/etc.

 

This alleged debt is also outside the Texas SOL for litigation(4yrs).

 

So I am moving forward and writing a letter to the Bond Holder (CMRR) and the CA (regular mail?) as below:

 

 

 

BONDING COMPANY ADDRESS

 

Bond # #######

 

To Whom it may concern:

 

Please find the enclosed copy of the letters sent to TEXAS_BASED_CA, in Dallas, TX. The Texas Secretary of State has indicated that your offices provide the coverage in the form of a surety bond that is required under the relevant under chapter 392.202 of the Texas Finance Code.

 

Notice is being afforded to your offices so that you may be aware of a potential claim against the bond should further actions be required to resolve this matter. The enclosed materials will provide you with a synopsis of the issue. TEXAS_BASED_CA is attempting to collect on an alleged debt which they have failed to validate per state law. Despite my having exercised my rights under the Texas Finance Code, TEXAS_BASED_CA has opted to disregard relevant portions of the statute and failed to meet the requirements set forth in the Texas Finance Code, in fact they have failed to respond to my written communications. As you will see I have sent my communications via certified mail with return receipt to ensure they received my letters, those details are listed below as well.

 

TEXAS_BASED_CA violations as of April 10th 2010

1. TEXAS_BASED_CA has failed to validate the alleged debt as required by per Chapter 392.202 of the Texas Finance Code.

2. TEXAS_BASED_CA has not complied with the cease and desist letters sent on January 13th 2010, February 10th 2010, March 5th 2010.

3. TEXAS_BASED_CA is operating from an address not listed on the bond

4. TEXAS_BASED_CA has attempting to collect a debt outside the statutes of limitations.

 

Certified mail received by TEXAS_BASED_CA:

USPS Certified Mail Receipt Number: #### #### #### #### ####

USPS Certified Mail Receipt Number: #### #### #### #### ####

 

 

As your staff is very likely aware, Texas law provides that a claim may be made against the bond. I am requesting information from your company on making a claim against their bond should I need to pursue additional actions against TEXAS_BASED_CA. Since TEXAS_BASED_CA is already in violation of the Texas Finance Code as outlined in my attached letter(s), I am within my rights to file a claim at any time against them. I am certainly amenable to discussions pertaining to settlement in the event that your company opts to intervene on behalf of your client.

 

If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at the address reflected below

 

Sincerely,

 

My Name/Address

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Centex, no, my letter did not address any federal regulations. I sent the company a TX DV and they ignored, then I contacted them through the BBB. The person who responded had the title of Esq. She stated that due to the FDCPA they were under no obligation to send me any information since the request for information was not timely. She goes on to say that if I have any evidence that the information being reported is not correct, she'd be more than willing to assist me :P I have an idea of how I'm going to respond, but does anyone have any suggestions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you Centex, no, my letter did not address any federal regulations. I sent the company a TX DV and they ignored, then I contacted them through the BBB. The person who responded had the title of Esq. She stated that due to the FDCPA they were under no obligation to send me any information since the request for information was not timely. She goes on to say that if I have any evidence that the information being reported is not correct, she'd be more than willing to assist me :rofl: I have an idea of how I'm going to respond, but does anyone have any suggestions?

Look at page 4 of this thread.

Edited by carltonbanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thought I would post in this thread too, since it is texas related.

 

 

DV'd a Texas CA twice (1st reply was not proper validation) they did not even reply to the 2nd DV letter which asked for the Bond holder/etc.

 

This alleged debt is also outside the Texas SOL for litigation(4yrs).

 

So I am moving forward and writing a letter to the Bond Holder (CMRR) and the CA (regular mail?) as below:

 

 

 

BONDING COMPANY ADDRESS

 

Bond # #######

 

To Whom it may concern:

 

Please find the enclosed copy of the letters sent to TEXAS_BASED_CA, in Dallas, TX. The Texas Secretary of State has indicated that your offices provide the coverage in the form of a surety bond that is required under the relevant under chapter 392.202 of the Texas Finance Code.

 

Notice is being afforded to your offices so that you may be aware of a potential claim against the bond should further actions be required to resolve this matter. The enclosed materials will provide you with a synopsis of the issue. TEXAS_BASED_CA is attempting to collect on an alleged debt which they have failed to validate per state law. Despite my having exercised my rights under the Texas Finance Code, TEXAS_BASED_CA has opted to disregard relevant portions of the statute and failed to meet the requirements set forth in the Texas Finance Code, in fact they have failed to respond to my written communications. As you will see I have sent my communications via certified mail with return receipt to ensure they received my letters, those details are listed below as well.

 

TEXAS_BASED_CA violations as of April 10th 2010

1. TEXAS_BASED_CA has failed to validate the alleged debt as required by per Chapter 392.202 of the Texas Finance Code. In and of itself, this is not a violation given that TFC does not outline what is required. As with federal law, the threshold is actually very low which is YET ANOTHER reason why the DISPUTE necessarily needs to be SPECIFIC

2. TEXAS_BASED_CA has not complied with the cease and desist letters sent on January 13th 2010, February 10th 2010, March 5th 2010. was it a limited cease or a full cease?

3. TEXAS_BASED_CA is operating from an address not listed on the bondIn and of itself, this is not a violation

4. TEXAS_BASED_CA has attempting to collect a debt outside the statutes of limitations.this is not a violationat either the State OR federal level

 

Certified mail received by TEXAS_BASED_CA:

USPS Certified Mail Receipt Number: #### #### #### #### ####

USPS Certified Mail Receipt Number: #### #### #### #### ####

 

 

As your staff is very likely aware, Texas law provides that a claim may be made against the bond. I am requesting information from your company on making a claim against their bond should I need to pursue additional actions against TEXAS_BASED_CA. Since TEXAS_BASED_CA is already in violation of the Texas Finance Code as outlined in my attached letter(s), I am within my rights to file a claim at any time against them. I am certainly amenable to discussions pertaining to settlement in the event that your company opts to intervene on behalf of your client.

 

If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at the address reflected below

 

Sincerely,

 

My Name/Address

 

You also do not even indicate whether they are reporting. If they are not reporting, then the obligations are even less onerous for the third-party entity. If they are reporting, then you need to outline that a specific modification was requested, whether that modification occurred...you also need to illustrate WHY the material provided thus far does not resolve the dispute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you Centex, no, my letter did not address any federal regulations. I sent the company a TX DV and they ignored, then I contacted them through the BBB. The person who responded had the title of Esq. She stated that due to the FDCPA they were under no obligation to send me any information since the request for information was not timely. She goes on to say that if I have any evidence that the information being reported is not correct, she'd be more than willing to assist me :wave: I have an idea of how I'm going to respond, but does anyone have any suggestions?

 

You will note from my previous posts not only in this thread but elsewhere on the board that I think the BBB is a waste of time and energy, and this holds true in the realm of consumer debt. Worthless as teets on a boar hog if you ask me.

 

I fail to see where you included the underwriter in your initial letter or even as a follow-up letter.

 

When people choose to deviate from the Texas plan as discussed by Walter and myself for at least three or four years now, it should NOT be a surprise when less-than-expected results are returned...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thought I would post in this thread too, since it is texas related.

 

 

DV'd a Texas CA twice (1st reply was not proper validation) they did not even reply to the 2nd DV letter which asked for the Bond holder/etc.

 

This alleged debt is also outside the Texas SOL for litigation(4yrs).

 

So I am moving forward and writing a letter to the Bond Holder (CMRR) and the CA (regular mail?) as below:

 

 

 

BONDING COMPANY ADDRESS

 

Bond # #######

 

To Whom it may concern:

 

Please find the enclosed copy of the letters sent to TEXAS_BASED_CA, in Dallas, TX. The Texas Secretary of State has indicated that your offices provide the coverage in the form of a surety bond that is required under the relevant under chapter 392.202 of the Texas Finance Code.

 

Notice is being afforded to your offices so that you may be aware of a potential claim against the bond should further actions be required to resolve this matter. The enclosed materials will provide you with a synopsis of the issue. TEXAS_BASED_CA is attempting to collect on an alleged debt which they have failed to validate per state law. Despite my having exercised my rights under the Texas Finance Code, TEXAS_BASED_CA has opted to disregard relevant portions of the statute and failed to meet the requirements set forth in the Texas Finance Code, in fact they have failed to respond to my written communications. As you will see I have sent my communications via certified mail with return receipt to ensure they received my letters, those details are listed below as well.

 

TEXAS_BASED_CA violations as of April 10th 2010

1. TEXAS_BASED_CA has failed to validate the alleged debt as required by per Chapter 392.202 of the Texas Finance Code. In and of itself, this is not a violation given that TFC does not outline what is required. As with federal law, the threshold is actually very low which is YET ANOTHER reason why the DISPUTE necessarily needs to be SPECIFIC

2. TEXAS_BASED_CA has not complied with the cease and desist letters sent on January 13th 2010, February 10th 2010, March 5th 2010. was it a limited cease or a full cease?

3. TEXAS_BASED_CA is operating from an address not listed on the bondIn and of itself, this is not a violation

4. TEXAS_BASED_CA has attempting to collect a debt outside the statutes of limitations.this is not a violationat either the State OR federal level

 

Certified mail received by TEXAS_BASED_CA:

USPS Certified Mail Receipt Number: #### #### #### #### ####

USPS Certified Mail Receipt Number: #### #### #### #### ####

 

 

As your staff is very likely aware, Texas law provides that a claim may be made against the bond. I am requesting information from your company on making a claim against their bond should I need to pursue additional actions against TEXAS_BASED_CA. Since TEXAS_BASED_CA is already in violation of the Texas Finance Code as outlined in my attached letter(s), I am within my rights to file a claim at any time against them. I am certainly amenable to discussions pertaining to settlement in the event that your company opts to intervene on behalf of your client.

 

If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at the address reflected below

 

Sincerely,

 

My Name/Address

 

You also do not even indicate whether they are reporting. If they are not reporting, then the obligations are even less onerous for the third-party entity. If they are reporting, then you need to outline that a specific modification was requested, whether that modification occurred...you also need to illustrate WHY the material provided thus far does not resolve the dispute.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the reply, will update you all with the results when they come in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you Centex, no, my letter did not address any federal regulations. I sent the company a TX DV and they ignored, then I contacted them through the BBB. The person who responded had the title of Esq. She stated that due to the FDCPA they were under no obligation to send me any information since the request for information was not timely. She goes on to say that if I have any evidence that the information being reported is not correct, she'd be more than willing to assist me <_< I have an idea of how I'm going to respond, but does anyone have any suggestions?

 

You will note from my previous posts not only in this thread but elsewhere on the board that I think the BBB is a waste of time and energy, and this holds true in the realm of consumer debt. Worthless as teets on a boar hog if you ask me.

 

I fail to see where you included the underwriter in your initial letter or even as a follow-up letter.

 

When people choose to deviate from the Texas plan as discussed by Walter and myself for at least three or four years now, it should NOT be a surprise when less-than-expected results are returned...

 

I thought that I had admitted that I didn't include the underwriter, I sure meant to (not being smug, the truth is the truth).

 

Thankfully, I have had success by contacting the BBB--Paragonway and AFNI deleted their entries from my reports.

 

I do very much respect and appreciate how much effort and time you and Walter have put into tuning the TX DV process, though (and anyone else who has contributed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, bit of confusion here.

 

http://www.creditboards.com/forums/lofiver...hp/t299560.html

I was reading off of this ^ and am wondering does the outside 30 day window just apply to CA in Texas... because I'm having issues with one in PA with Penn Foster - but I'm in Texas. :mellow:

 

Then you are in the right place :rofl:

 

There is no need for the third-party to be IN Texas, just that they comply with Texas law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could any one of you read my topic "Won't provide any information on financial history" and give me some insight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  




  • Today's Birthdays

    1. pks3541
      pks3541
      Age: 63
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      178,020
    • Most Online
      2,046

    Newest Member
    sterngegill123
    Joined

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.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines