Jump to content

VALIDATION!!! IT IS YOUR SAVIOR!!!


The last post in this topic was posted 2087 days ago. 

 

We strongly encourage you to start a new post instead of replying to this one.

Recommended Posts

  • 9 months later...

  • Replies 290
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Here is the throwback Thursday thread bump I have chosen for today. Very good stuff here

Always assess the facts before paying, negotiating or validating. Determine the best way to leverage what you have to work with.   The List - Before Taking Action   1. What is the DOFD? Was the d

And...   Always look for the verbage in the letter that states whether the debt is too old to report and too old to take legal action.   Some CA's and JDB's are required to state this.   (I said

New Standards in Validation requirements.

 

Haddad v. ALEXANDER, ZELMANSKI, DANNER & FIORITTO, PLLC, Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit

 

 

Chaudhry, 174 F.3d at 406. Thus, the court held that the verification requirements under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(B) were met where the debt collector "forwarded a copy of the [creditor]'s computerized summary of the Chaudhrys' loan transactions. . . . includ[ing] a running account of the debt amount, a description of every transaction, and the date on which the transaction occurred." Id.

 

In Mahon v. Credit Bureau of Placer County Inc., 171 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 1999), a Ninth Circuit panel acknowledged in dicta that a creditor had "properly verified the debt" where, in response to a debtor's request for verification, the debt collector contacted the creditor, "verified the nature and balance of the outstanding bill, learned that monthly statements had been sent . . . to the [debtor] for over two years, and established that the balance was still unpaid. The [debt collector] then promptly conveyed this information to the [debtor], along with an itemized statement of the account." Id. at 1203. In a subsequent Ninth Circuit case, a different panel was asked "to hold that Mahon sets a standard below which a debt collector's verification efforts must not fall."

 

Clark v. Capital Credit & Collection Servs., 460 F.3d 1162, 1173 (9th Cir. 2006). The Clark court characterized the Mahon dicta as "one way to provide verification," but "decline[d] to impose such a high threshold." Id. Instead, it explicitly "adopt[ed] as a baseline the more reasonable standard articulated by the Fourth Circuit in Chaudhry." Id. Yet, even in Clark, the debt collector did far more than verify in writing that the amount the debt collector is seeking is the amount the creditor claims is owed. Instead, the debt collector, when asked for verification, "obtained information from [the creditor] about the nature and balance of the outstanding bill and provided the [debtor] with documentary evidence in the form of the itemized statement." Id. at 1174.

 

 

The Third Circuit similarly approved of the practice of providing an itemized accounting as verification of the debt. In Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F.2d 107 (3d Cir. 1991), the debt collector sent a notice stating the name of the creditor and the amount of the unpaid debt ($80). Id. at 109. The debtor requested verification of the debt. The verification listed a different date and described the services provided as "E.R. Extended Service." Id. Enclosed with the verification was a bill and computer printout for an additional debt of $35 for services provided on another date. Id. A Third Circuit panel held that the debt collector satisfied the verification requirement, because "[t]he computer printouts provided to [debtor] were sufficient to inform him of the amounts of his debts, the services provided, and the dates on which the debts were incurred." Id. at 113.

 

 

A decision from the Eighth Circuit confirms that the verification requirement is satisfied where the debtor "could sufficiently dispute the payment obligation." Dunham v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 663 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2011). There, the debt collector, a debt collection agency that purchased debt portfolios,

 

 

These cases suggest that the "baseline" for verification is to enable the consumer to "sufficiently dispute the payment obligation." Although the answer to that question depends on the facts of a particular situation, the cases reflect that an itemized accounting detailing the transactions in an account that have led to the debt is often the best means of accomplishing that objective. Intuitively, such a practice makes good sense. In fact, it would likely lead to faster resolutions of disputes with those consumers who act in good faith, because it will either show a valid debt that a consumer acting in good faith will actually pay, uncover an error in the record of the debt leading to the cancellation of the debt, or reveal the underlying dispute between the parties that can then be resolved. Finally, such an approach is consonant with the congressional purpose of the verification provision

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

New Standards in Validation requirements.

 

Haddad v. ALEXANDER, ZELMANSKI, DANNER & FIORITTO, PLLC, Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit

 

 

Chaudhry, 174 F.3d at 406. Thus, the court held that the verification requirements under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g( B) were met where the debt collector "forwarded a copy of the [creditor]'s computerized summary of the Chaudhrys' loan transactions. . . . includ[ing] a running account of the debt amount, a description of every transaction, and the date on which the transaction occurred." Id.

 

In Mahon v. Credit Bureau of Placer County Inc., 171 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 1999), a Ninth Circuit panel acknowledged in dicta that a creditor had "properly verified the debt" where, in response to a debtor's request for verification, the debt collector contacted the creditor, "verified the nature and balance of the outstanding bill, learned that monthly statements had been sent . . . to the [debtor] for over two years, and established that the balance was still unpaid. The [debt collector] then promptly conveyed this information to the [debtor], along with an itemized statement of the account." Id. at 1203. In a subsequent Ninth Circuit case, a different panel was asked "to hold that Mahon sets a standard below which a debt collector's verification efforts must not fall."

 

Clark v. Capital Credit & Collection Servs., 460 F.3d 1162, 1173 (9th Cir. 2006). The Clark court characterized the Mahon dicta as "one way to provide verification," but "decline[d] to impose such a high threshold." Id. Instead, it explicitly "adopt[ed] as a baseline the more reasonable standard articulated by the Fourth Circuit in Chaudhry." Id. Yet, even in Clark, the debt collector did far more than verify in writing that the amount the debt collector is seeking is the amount the creditor claims is owed. Instead, the debt collector, when asked for verification, "obtained information from [the creditor] about the nature and balance of the outstanding bill and provided the [debtor] with documentary evidence in the form of the itemized statement." Id. at 1174.

 

 

The Third Circuit similarly approved of the practice of providing an itemized accounting as verification of the debt. In Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F.2d 107 (3d Cir. 1991), the debt collector sent a notice stating the name of the creditor and the amount of the unpaid debt ($80). Id. at 109. The debtor requested verification of the debt. The verification listed a different date and described the services provided as "E.R. Extended Service." Id. Enclosed with the verification was a bill and computer printout for an additional debt of $35 for services provided on another date. Id. A Third Circuit panel held that the debt collector satisfied the verification requirement, because "[t]he computer printouts provided to [debtor] were sufficient to inform him of the amounts of his debts, the services provided, and the dates on which the debts were incurred." Id. at 113.

 

 

A decision from the Eighth Circuit confirms that the verification requirement is satisfied where the debtor "could sufficiently dispute the payment obligation." Dunham v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 663 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2011). There, the debt collector, a debt collection agency that purchased debt portfolios,

 

 

These cases suggest that the "baseline" for verification is to enable the consumer to "sufficiently dispute the payment obligation." Although the answer to that question depends on the facts of a particular situation, the cases reflect that an itemized accounting detailing the transactions in an account that have led to the debt is often the best means of accomplishing that objective. Intuitively, such a practice makes good sense. In fact, it would likely lead to faster resolutions of disputes with those consumers who act in good faith, because it will either show a valid debt that a consumer acting in good faith will actually pay, uncover an error in the record of the debt leading to the cancellation of the debt, or reveal the underlying dispute between the parties that can then be resolved. Finally, such an approach is consonant with the congressional purpose of the verification provision

Wow ICAN! I was just looking over some of the posts I've made over time and noticed that u answered my posted question at some time. Thank u so much for clearing that up. And I must also chime in that I agree with what everyone says about u; u are so damn knowledgeable about these often times very very difficult queries regarding the laws and policies and nuances about credit and, for most of our needs regarding credit and the rehabilitation of the process, the difficult tasks associated with rectifying it. Gosh u are so damn cool! lol Thank u so much ICAN.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

New Standards in Validation requirements.

 

Haddad v. ALEXANDER, ZELMANSKI, DANNER & FIORITTO, PLLC, Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit

 

 

Chaudhry, 174 F.3d at 406. Thus, the court held that the verification requirements under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g( B) were met where the debt collector "forwarded a copy of the [creditor]'s computerized summary of the Chaudhrys' loan transactions. . . . includ[ing] a running account of the debt amount, a description of every transaction, and the date on which the transaction occurred." Id.

 

In Mahon v. Credit Bureau of Placer County Inc., 171 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 1999), a Ninth Circuit panel acknowledged in dicta that a creditor had "properly verified the debt" where, in response to a debtor's request for verification, the debt collector contacted the creditor, "verified the nature and balance of the outstanding bill, learned that monthly statements had been sent . . . to the [debtor] for over two years, and established that the balance was still unpaid. The [debt collector] then promptly conveyed this information to the [debtor], along with an itemized statement of the account." Id. at 1203. In a subsequent Ninth Circuit case, a different panel was asked "to hold that Mahon sets a standard below which a debt collector's verification efforts must not fall."

 

Clark v. Capital Credit & Collection Servs., 460 F.3d 1162, 1173 (9th Cir. 2006). The Clark court characterized the Mahon dicta as "one way to provide verification," but "decline[d] to impose such a high threshold." Id. Instead, it explicitly "adopt[ed] as a baseline the more reasonable standard articulated by the Fourth Circuit in Chaudhry." Id. Yet, even in Clark, the debt collector did far more than verify in writing that the amount the debt collector is seeking is the amount the creditor claims is owed. Instead, the debt collector, when asked for verification, "obtained information from [the creditor] about the nature and balance of the outstanding bill and provided the [debtor] with documentary evidence in the form of the itemized statement." Id. at 1174.

 

 

The Third Circuit similarly approved of the practice of providing an itemized accounting as verification of the debt. In Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F.2d 107 (3d Cir. 1991), the debt collector sent a notice stating the name of the creditor and the amount of the unpaid debt ($80). Id. at 109. The debtor requested verification of the debt. The verification listed a different date and described the services provided as "E.R. Extended Service." Id. Enclosed with the verification was a bill and computer printout for an additional debt of $35 for services provided on another date. Id. A Third Circuit panel held that the debt collector satisfied the verification requirement, because "[t]he computer printouts provided to [debtor] were sufficient to inform him of the amounts of his debts, the services provided, and the dates on which the debts were incurred." Id. at 113.

 

 

A decision from the Eighth Circuit confirms that the verification requirement is satisfied where the debtor "could sufficiently dispute the payment obligation." Dunham v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 663 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2011). There, the debt collector, a debt collection agency that purchased debt portfolios,

 

 

These cases suggest that the "baseline" for verification is to enable the consumer to "sufficiently dispute the payment obligation." Although the answer to that question depends on the facts of a particular situation, the cases reflect that an itemized accounting detailing the transactions in an account that have led to the debt is often the best means of accomplishing that objective. Intuitively, such a practice makes good sense. In fact, it would likely lead to faster resolutions of disputes with those consumers who act in good faith, because it will either show a valid debt that a consumer acting in good faith will actually pay, uncover an error in the record of the debt leading to the cancellation of the debt, or reveal the underlying dispute between the parties that can then be resolved. Finally, such an approach is consonant with the congressional purpose of the verification provision

Wow ICAN! I was just looking over some of the posts I've made over time and noticed that u answered my posted question at some time. Thank u so much for clearing that up. And I must also chime in that I agree with what everyone says about u; u are so damn knowledgeable about these often times very very difficult queries regarding the laws and policies and nuances about credit and, for most of our needs regarding credit and the rehabilitation of the process, the difficult tasks associated with rectifying it. Gosh u are so damn cool! lol Thank u so much ICAN.
Yes. The question is.. how does she KNOW all this stuff! (It is a mystery, to us.) ;-)
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 year later...

Always assess the facts before paying, negotiating or validating. Determine the best way to leverage what you have to work with.

 

The List - Before Taking Action

 

1. What is the DOFD? Was the debt charged off?

2. Is the status, amount, and payment history accurately reported to the CRAs?

3. Who is attempting debt collection - the OC, a CA or JDB? Was the debt sold or assigned to the CA or JDB?

4. Has the CA or JDB sent the initial debt notice (aka mini-miranda)?

5. Is the debt in or out of the correct statute of limitations (SOL)

6. Is arbitration a viable option?

7. What are the federal legal violations (if any?) made by the CA or JDB?

8. Are there additional state laws that apply to my situtation?

9. Is this non-consumer debt that requires special handling? (Taxes, Child Support, Traffic Violations, etc.)

10. Was a CRA dispute unsuccessful? (Should I challenge the OC through a 623 letter?)

Edited by tmcgill
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

The last post in this topic was posted 2087 days ago. 

 

We strongly encourage you to start a new post instead of replying to this one.

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.





  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      182,977
    • Most Online
      2,046

    Newest Member
    jamesmichael12
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines