Texas Question about Bonding Companies

[needhelp15]

Cach is reporting an old debt on my CR and I am currently in the process of writing a TX DV letter as I am a resident here. My question is about the bonding company section in the letter. Cach, per the TXSoS site, does not have an active bond anymore; however, square two financial, the parent company, does. Would you include the fact that Cach, LLC is in violation because they are the ones reporting and don't have the active surety bond, or should I just include it as Square two financial and send their active bond company a copy?

 

Thanks.

[Sandscrit]

If Cach is actively acting as the collection agency, they should be bonded. Square Two functions as a seperate company. Both are considered collection agencies. Use a combination of the FDCPA and the TFC392. The reason is they mutualy compliment each other and there is no conflict between the two laws

[fumduck]

I respectfully disagree. Please read the Texas Law master thread...as I remember there are some really good posts on the WHOLE PROCEDURE. It is around here somewhere, maybe somebody can help me post some links. The whole bite/teeth in Texas law comes with using the DTPA as a tie in statute, along with the Insurance Company bond as leverage. The forum poster on this site who helped many of us learn this (I think she was an attorney out of Austin as I remember....she was very wise on the Texas method.) describes the process in detail. The Texas master thread was BY FAR the best thing that I have ever learned on CREDITBOARDS!!! IT IS AWESOME!!!

 

She was also VERY CLEAR, that when doing the Texas method, make NO MENTION of Federal Law. Do not get "federal law on the brain." ...that was her quote. So many people don't study their state laws & want to default to FCRA/FDCPA. Keep it simple.....TRUST ME IT WORKS WAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYY better that the all of the Federal debt validation letters you will ever send. Keep in mind, the main reason that you want to keep federal law out of your letter, is to have the ability to fight removal from state to federal court (if and when it comes time to file suit) as this is a favorite tactic of any CA/Creditor/CRA once you sue....cause they know federal law is much more forgiving that Texas law. Good luck!

Edited January 10, 2015 by fumduck

[needhelp15]

Thanks for the reply. I've looked through the Texas Master Thread about three times right now and I didn't see where this issue arose. I will not be using federal law in my letter, but I also don't want to call out Cach as not being bonded when it is in fact Square two. The interesting thing is that CACV, Square two, and another subsidiary is bonded, but Cach isn't. It seems odd to me that the others would be but not Cach. Not sure if there is anyone out there who has experienced this?

[breeze]

Centex is not a lawyer.

[fumduck]

Breeze, my bad...I could have sworn somebody on this board mentioned that a long time ago. Did I have the Austin, TX part right at least? LOL... Oh well, regardless...Centex did have great advice on Texas state law debt validation, and many of us have benefited from that over the years.

 

Needhelp15 -- Just send the letter to CACH, LLC (aka Square Two Financial) on the letter & envelope, letting them know that you are aware of their "other names." They are one in the same for sure. Use the Texas SOS info for the Square Two Financial bond. This will work just fine.

 

Actually, I just now checked the Texas SOS site...where are you getting this??? I'm looking at it right now...it says (date filed: 12/18/2013, status: active, bond # W150177056, Old Republic Surety Company.

 

BTW, all I did was just put "cach" in the "principal name" search field. Hope this helps.

Edited January 10, 2015 by fumduck

[breeze]

No problem. Centex may have become a lawyer since then, but at that time, she was not. We have many lawyers who post here, but they avoid giving outright legal advice. Most of the people who do give "legal advice" do it based on their own experience with the courts and their own study of various laws. We try to get them to use language to that effect, but not everyone remembers to do that in the "hustle and bustle" of answering a lot of posts. Some of our members just have that kind of mind - they read the laws for fun and entertainment.

[fumduck]

Ha, so she was a she!! You had me thinking I was crazy!! lol. Yes, you are correct...I will hereby give the legal disclaimer...."I am not giving legal advice." There, I said it. I have however successfully fought JDBs, CAs, CRAs, etc in court Pro Se...but you results may vary (or as they say on here YMMV). I rarely post on here, but have read for 10+ years or so. I just feel compelled to give back advice whenever I feel someone can benefit from my jibberish. Thanks for the clarification Breeze.

[breeze]

Ha, so she was a she!! You had me thinking I was crazy!! lol. Yes, you are correct...I will hereby give the legal disclaimer...."I am not giving legal advice." There, I said it. I have however successfully fought JDBs, CAs, CRAs, etc in court Pro Se...but you results may vary (or as they say on here YMMV). I rarely post on here, but have read for 10+ years or so. I just feel compelled to give back advice whenever I feel someone can benefit from my jibberish. Thanks for the clarification Breeze.

 

I never thought you were "giving legal advice" inappropriately.

[needhelp15]

Fumduck--Thanks for the info. I didn't remove the comma before the LLC part so that is what was throwing it off. Thanks.

[fumduck]

You got it Needhelp15, good luck & keep us posted. Trust me, the Texas plan works! Cheers!