Tehama Law Group, P. C.

[maudie]

Hi board!

 

Does anyone have experience with the Tehama Law Group? My friend received a letter from them a couple of months ago for an outstanding debt from a credit union. I’m trying to help him out a bit, but nothing is turning up here. Any input welcome!

 

OC: Patelco

DOFD: ~6/2018

Amt: ~$4,500

He lives in California.
 

Thanks! 

[hegemony]

what kind of debt is it? credit card?

 

 

[maudie]

Yes, credit card.

[IndyPoolPlayer]

Was this just a collection letter on lawyer letterhead or a litigation threat?

[maudie]

One bit reads “Your file will be reviewed to determine the appropriate action to take in order to secure the balance due and owing. Please take note that action may be taken against you without further notice.”
 

But other than that it appears more like a collection letter on lawyer letterhead. 

“You have 30 days to dispute the validity...”, “This is a communication from a debt collector...”,  and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act wording. 

[centex]

It is fresh paper, relatively speaking, from a large credit union that is very apt to litigate.  Only you will know how close to accurate the total is that is being sought and also whether you have other assets with the credit union that can be attached through cross-collateralization. 

 

You've got more than two years before the litigation expiry window has closed.  It is, therefore, entirely up to you as to whether you want to follow the guidance to send a professionally-styled and detailed-to-your-situation letter disputing the claim.  For close to $5K, it won't just go away.  The likelihood is that Patelco still owns the paper and has not sold it off.  The current contingency firm could be directed to move it to litigation or they could close the file in their office and return it to the credit union, after which it will go elsewhere and the game begins anew. 

[maudie]

By “other assets”, you’re meaning other accounts with the OC, as in a savings or checking account? I’ll ask. If that is the case, and there were monies there at the time of charge off, would those monies be used toward the outstanding debt? And if they weren’t, could they be? 
 

The letter is from September of last year, so isn’t the dispute window somewhat closed? Plus I don’t know how much he wants to dispute it, he just doesn’t have the money to pay right now and doesn’t want to get sued.

Based on the wording I believe that it has not been sold - “your file has been forwarded to Tehama for collections” - so given that he wants to pay the debt, I was hoping for some precedence for interactions with these people.
 

He’s tending toward reaching out and trying to arrange a payment plan, but I’m not sure that’s a great idea and asked him to wait while I checked in here. His credit isn’t really that messed up, but I wouldn’t want this collections tradeline to appear while he’s making payments.

[centex]

1 hour ago, maudie said:

By “other assets”, you’re meaning other accounts with the OC, as in a savings or checking account? I’ll ask. If that is the case, and there were monies there at the time of charge off, would those monies be used toward the outstanding debt? And if they weren’t, could they be? 
 

The letter is from September of last year, so isn’t the dispute window somewhat closed? Plus I don’t know how much he wants to dispute it, he just doesn’t have the money to pay right now and doesn’t want to get sued.

Based on the wording I believe that it has not been sold - “your file has been forwarded to Tehama for collections” - so given that he wants to pay the debt, I was hoping for some precedence for interactions with these people.
 

He’s tending toward reaching out and trying to arrange a payment plan, but I’m not sure that’s a great idea and asked him to wait while I checked in here. His credit isn’t really that messed up, but I wouldn’t want this collections tradeline to appear while he’s making payments.

Other assets would potentially include ANYTHING held by Patelco, to include checking and savings accounts or even items in a safe-deposit box or that had been used as collateral on anything or kept to be used as collateral (as an example, dad used to keep a certificate for a thousand shares of Exxon stock with the credit union so that, if he was out and about and found a vehicle he wanted, they could just write the LoanLiner and fax it knowing that there was substantial collateral already on hand. 

 

The window to dispute is never actually 'closed,' There are some States that actually have laws which provide a far greater protection to residents than exist under federal law and the individual who has defaulted is FAR better served to focus on those State laws.  An individual who used the protections to their advantage can forestall a number of collection activities.  Those who choose NOT to protect their interests tend to suffer consequence...

 

There are PLENTY of companies that don't sell off fresh paper.  Negotiations are not unique to a particular group.  There are steps that work where an OC still owns the paper and there are avenues one might choose to follow once paper has been sold off.  To get hung up on a third-party title is like my parole clients that get hung up on low approval rates.  If you look at the wrong thing and bleat about it, then the battle was lost before you even step foot on the playing field. 

 

Why in the hell would you think establishing a payment plan was not a good idea?  ANYTHING that resolves a matter with an OC outside of litigation is a good idea.  And there should NEVER be a notion that it is a bad idea for someone to step up to the plate and make an agreement to pay what they owed.  Hell, if he did so right now with all of the other covidiocy going on, he might actually get a discount compared to what he gets sixty to ninety days down the road...I fully expect to see an uptick in litigation since judgments begin accumulating interest the day the gavel bangs.  And while someone may be financially screwed in two or three months, there is no reason to believe they would never recover.  Where an account is being worked on a contingency basis, only the OC is going to be reporting.  There is not double-dipping that goes on where a third-party who has it on a contingency basis can also report a balance...once it gets sold, however, then there WILL be a chance of a second tradeline showing up that reflects the collection.  The RESPONSIBLE consumer tries to resolve matters with the original creditor...

[maudie]

His concern is that if he defaults again, it resets the DOFD. Is that not correct? That’s why I wanted to check the payment plan idea here first. I’m all for him paying what he owes, I’m doing the same thing. I just don’t want him to get screwed in the process. 
 

If he were to get a discount, wouldn’t it likely result in a “settled for less than owed” notation? For my part, I’m getting some offers for discounts, but I may want to do business with these entities again, so I’m planning to pay them in full. Especially as they continue to consolidate.

[hegemony]

has he reached out to Patelco?

[centex]

56 minutes ago, maudie said:

His concern is that if he defaults again, it resets the DOFD. Is that not correct? That’s why I wanted to check the payment plan idea here first. I’m all for him paying what he owes, I’m doing the same thing. I just don’t want him to get screwed in the process. 
 

If he were to get a discount, wouldn’t it likely result in a “settled for less than owed” notation? For my part, I’m getting some offers for discounts, but I may want to do business with these entities again, so I’m planning to pay them in full. Especially as they continue to consolidate.

Issues related to timelines for litigation will depend on State law.  I don't practice in California, so I have no idea what a subsequent default on already-delinquent paper does on SOL.

 

If he already has been charged off, then 'settled for less;' should be the LEAST of his concerns.  If it WAS NOT already charged off, then he should ALREADY have been working on resolution in order to AVOID such a notation...

 

Or maybe he would rather have a charge-off AND a JDB reporting...because that is the next place this goes since they don't apparently have an interest in taking the necessary steps to protect their own interests...or worse, charge-off AND a judgment. 

[maudie]

Hegemony - He has not reached out to Patelco. He was an ostrich until now which is why I’m trying to get him onto these boards. At this juncture does it make a substantial difference if he pays them directly (if he can) or goes through the CA? 

 

Centex- The account charged off 1/2019. But if any notation other than paid in full precludes his doing future business with a company or puts him on a blacklist, he should at least know that when making his payment decisions.

[hegemony]

IMHO the main goal here should be to avoid a lawsuit and potential judgement. Paying the OC directly is preferred. I would worry less about credit reporting and being on Patelco's blacklist and more about getting sued. Did Patelco cross collateralize any deposits?

[maudie]

Cross collateralize? Not sure. He did have checking and savings with them as well, to the tune of ~$200 total, which he did not get back. Other than that, he had no other products with Patelco.