Debtor rights AFTER 30 days

[kdee92]

I've read so many posts about DVing and that it should be done within 30 days of receiving dunning letter other communication from CA BUT what is you do NOT send a DV letter within 30 days? I read on one post that it can still be sent but they can continue to collect. This is where what I read is getting fuzzy to me.

 

For account 1 I didn't DV within 30 days because I had a debt settlement company working on it. Now I'm working on it myself but is well beyond 30 days. Do I still DV and if so how will that help me? Will it help me for court later in the event I am sued?

 

For account 2 I didn't DV BUT I never received anything in writing from them at my home. However, it is likely I DID receive something from them VIA the debt settlement co. In other words I did receive something, but just didn't know it.

 

For account 3 same as 2 except I don't believe the CA/JDB ever contacted the debt settlement co. I received a statement from a CA in Aug but it wasn't the entity that was on my CR (I just discovered recently). The CA that sent a statement in Aug was ASG but the account owner per CR is LVNV. I just sent a DV to LVNV. I consider that within 30 days becuase it was within 30 days of finding them on my CR. Am I right in my thinking or did I fail to DV within 30 days because ASG sent something in Aug.? They dont' seem to be the entity collecting now since it is NAFS that is calling my house, although I "technically" don't know they are collecting for LVNV but...

 

Now, because my DS company was in communication with CA in Account 1 and 2 does that mean I've admitted anything because they had POA?

 

I know my questions are kind of specific and technical but I've searched and can't quite find a post with the same scenario (leaving debt settlement - what are my rights now).

 

Any input I can get on these issues would be GREATLY appreciated. If there is a post that I have missed in my search just point me to it.

[kdee92]

bumping...cause I really need some direction

(I did my homework but I guess I'm slow)

[bstone]

you can DV at any point, even after you have begun "payments"

[kdee92]

What are the legal differences of DVing within 30 days or after?

[unionmenace]

I've been told the difference is that they don't HAVE to validate if you DV after 30 days, they just can't collect until they do.

[kdee92]

Oh my goodness that is totally difference than what I read somewhere. I read in a post that if you can DV after 30 days but they can continue collection efforts. That's why I'm trying to figure out what the benefit of DV-ing after 30 days is....is it for evidence in court later?

[StupidCredit]

What are the legal differences of DVing within 30 days or after?

They aren't required to cease collections or obtain verification of the debt should your dispute not be timely.

 

Of course, if you dispute the debt, they still most communicate to all parties that the debt is disputed and failing to do so is a violation of 1692e(8) and 1692e(10). You can generate failure to investigate violations under the FCRA if you dispute with the CRAs that the furnisher did not list the tradeline as in dispute.

Edited March 7, 2006 by StupidCredit

[kdee92]

So there is no way for me to get any accounting on this debt that they say is now significantly higher since CO?

[CramItCCCAs]

What are the legal differences of DVing within 30 days or after?

They aren't required to cease collections or obtain verification of the debt should your dispute not be timely.

 

Of course, if you dispute the debt, they still most communicate to all parties that the debt is disputed and failing to do so is a violation of 1692e(8) and 1692e(10). You can generate failure to investigate violations under the FCRA if you dispute with the CRAs that the furnisher did not list the tradeline as in dispute.

 

SC is correct, but just to add a little...

 

After 30 days a CA can assume the debt is yours because their was no timely dispute. The problem is that many CA's think you only have 30 days and that's it, then they no longer are obligated to validate. it's your job/challenge to convince them otherwise.

 

Bottom line is you never loose your right to validate, but it's always more fruitful to DV in the first 30 days if you can, but if you didn't it just takes more persuasion to get what you need.

[kdee92]

Cramit - Thanks for that post. At least I know I have a right to DV.

What about in my case #2 above where I have never received anything until last week from the CA BUT my debt settlement company has been speaking with them over the past 8 months? I'm I still in the 30 day window or am I out of luck because the DS co. had POA and they didn't DV?

[gweedoh]

What are the legal differences of DVing within 30 days or after?

They aren't required to cease collections or obtain verification of the debt should your dispute not be timely.

 

Of course, if you dispute the debt, they still most communicate to all parties that the debt is disputed and failing to do so is a violation of 1692e(8) and 1692e(10). You can generate failure to investigate violations under the FCRA if you dispute with the CRAs that the furnisher did not list the tradeline as in dispute.

What about 1682s-2(a)(3)?

Duty to provide notice of dispute. If the completeness or accuracy of any information furnished by any person to any consumer reporting agency is disputed to such person by a consumer, the person may not furnish the information to any consumer reporting agency without notice that such information is disputed by the consumer.

So can you claim this as 3 separate violations at $1000 each or is it considered a single occurance?

[CramItCCCAs]

Cramit - Thanks for that post. At least I know I have a right to DV.

What about in my case #2 above where I have never received anything until last week from the CA BUT my debt settlement company has been speaking with them over the past 8 months? I'm I still in the 30 day window or am I out of luck because the DS co. had POA and they didn't DV?

 

IMHO,

it doesn't matter if they had POA, they are going to claim it's past the 30 days anyway. Lots of CA's just put the TL on your report and nothing else, they wait for you to see it then tell you they sent a letter months ago and that it's way past the 30 days. That will be their claim, who cares, DV them anyway! And after the 3rd letter tell them you'll let a judge decide

[gweedoh]

Bottom line is you never loose your right to validate

I've yet to come across anything that supprots this, actually. Anything I have found in the FDCPA identifies a 30 day period in which the consumer must act to prevent a collector from reporting until they validate. I've found nothing stating any restrictions on the CA after the 30 day period. They do not have to validate AND they can continue to report if they do not get a timely DV.

 

The FCRA says a consumer may dispute and a CA has to report this dispute to the CRA, but I've found nothing stating the CA has to validate.

[CramItCCCAs]

Bottom line is you never loose your right to validate

I've yet to come across anything that supprots this, actually. Anything I have found in the FDCPA identifies a 30 day period in which the consumer must act to prevent a collector from reporting until they validate. I've found nothing stating any restrictions on the CA after the 30 day period. They do not have to validate AND they can continue to report if they do not get a timely DV.

 

The FCRA says a consumer may dispute and a CA has to report this dispute to the CRA, but I've found nothing stating the CA has to validate.

 

 

Yeah and you won't find anything specific that makes this concrete either, but just to be clear the FDCPA doesn't say after 30 days validation is no longer an availible, it says

"© The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section (30 days) may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer."

so when you ask for verification of these debts and the CA claims "you are past the 30 days" simply stating you still have a right to documented proof is really powerful and sets up the CA for further scrutiny.

 

They still have an obligation to deal in good faith, providing this documented proof would be good faith in MANY judges eyes. Failing to provide it would raise questions. CA's don't want o go to court and tell a judge, "they have to pay, cause I said so"

[gweedoh]

Yeah and you won't find anything specific that makes this concrete either, but just to be clear the FDCPA doesn't say after 30 days validation is no longer an availible, it says

"© The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section (30 days) may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer."

so when you ask for verification of these debts and the CA claims "you are past the 30 days" simply stating you still have a right to documented proof is really powerful and sets up the CA for further scrutiny.

 

They still have an obligation to deal in good faith, providing this documented proof would be good faith in MANY judges eyes. Failing to provide it would raise questions. CA's don't want o go to court and tell a judge, "they have to pay, cause I said so"

 

Haha...yeah, good point. I was just thinking for the purposes of saying "You are in violation of ABC(x)(Y)(z) which states ..."

 

Thanks for pointing this out.

[kdee92]

I should have said in in my original post that neither account 1 or account 2 are being reported to the CRAs via the CA. They are both collecting attorneys and what is on the CRs are just the OCs (charged off). No TL for CA, however they keep upping the amount owed and I don't understand where they get their numbers, hence one of the reasons I want validation/accounting.

 

My goal is to get these settled so I don't have the worry of future legal action. I am well IN the SOL. I just don't want this over my head, however I don't want to get screwed paying their inflated balances. I also know there is a possibilty I could get sue at any time which is why I'm trying to do all the things I am supposed to do.

 

Thanks for all the replies.

[StupidCredit]

After 30 days a CA can assume the debt is yours because their was no timely dispute. The problem is that many CA's think you only have 30 days and that's it, then they no longer are obligated to validate. it's your job/challenge to convince them otherwise.

 

Bottom line is you never loose your right to validate, but it's always more fruitful to DV in the first 30 days if you can, but if you didn't it just takes more persuasion to get what you need.

If you can back this up with some caselaw where a judge ruled that the consumer sent an untimely DV (by some decent amount, not a few days) but the CA was still obligated to obtain verification, I'd love to add that to my collection of court holdings.

 

I mention this because CAs have caselaw on their side that states they are NOT obligated to obtain verification of the debt if a written dispute has not been received within 30 days. They even have a few case holdings that state that if a previous CA sent a 30 day notice and the consumer did not dispute, the subsequent CA is not bound by 1692g because the consumer passed on their one and only chance to dispute the debt and trigger 1682g (there's also contra holdings on this one, but be warned).

 

The idea that you can dispute passed that 30 day mark and they still have to obtain verification is just a theory (that I don't necessarily disagree with since it makes sense) that I've yet to see backed up with caselaw (FTC opinion letters are unpersuasive on the issue) and I'm just warning the newbies out here who ask about it that a judge could very well toss your 1692g violations.

[pryan67]

Bottom line is you never loose your right to validate

I've yet to come across anything that supprots this, actually. Anything I have found in the FDCPA identifies a 30 day period in which the consumer must act to prevent a collector from reporting until they validate. I've found nothing stating any restrictions on the CA after the 30 day period. They do not have to validate AND they can continue to report if they do not get a timely DV.

 

The FCRA says a consumer may dispute and a CA has to report this dispute to the CRA, but I've found nothing stating the CA has to validate.

 

 

there's also nothing stating that the CA has to wait 30 days to report.

[captaincredit]

Sorta OT, but if you're in the ninth circuit and timely DV, a CA MUST provide validation even if they cease collection activity, or they violate the FDCPA.

 

It's new caselaw, see this thread: http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=160817

[CramItCCCAs]

 

After 30 days a CA can assume the debt is yours because their was no timely dispute. The problem is that many CA's think you only have 30 days and that's it, then they no longer are obligated to validate. it's your job/challenge to convince them otherwise.

 

Bottom line is you never loose your right to validate, but it's always more fruitful to DV in the first 30 days if you can, but if you didn't it just takes more persuasion to get what you need.

If you can back this up with some caselaw where a judge ruled that the consumer sent an untimely DV (by some decent amount, not a few days) but the CA was still obligated to obtain verification, I'd love to add that to my collection of court holdings.

 

I mention this because CAs have caselaw on their side that states they are NOT obligated to obtain verification of the debt if a written dispute has not been received within 30 days. They even have a few case holdings that state that if a previous CA sent a 30 day notice and the consumer did not dispute, the subsequent CA is not bound by 1692g because the consumer passed on their one and only chance to dispute the debt and trigger 1682g (there's also contra holdings on this one, but be warned).

 

The idea that you can dispute passed that 30 day mark and they still have to obtain verification is just a theory (that I don't necessarily disagree with since it makes sense) that I've yet to see backed up with caselaw (FTC opinion letters are unpersuasive on the issue) and I'm just warning the newbies out here who ask about it that a judge could very well toss your 1692g violations.

 

it's all theory SC, not going to get into it with you again, we all know how you feel about Chaudhry and DV. Old Post I happen to disagree with you, we've been over this. You decided long ago that case law is all you'll go by, that's fine, but let me assure the newbies that they are well within their rights to insist on verifying documentation and having a judge decide what's prudent. I did SC, sometimes there is no case law, that's just the way it is.

Edited March 7, 2006 by CramItCCCAs

[kdee92]

If I were ultimately to get sued it is best that I attemtped to validate even if it was past the 30 days. In 2 of my 3 accounts that will be a matter of opinion because I say I wasn't notified (even though my debt settlement company might have been). That is were it is fuzzy for me.

 

Regardless of whether they were continuing collection actitivies or not, wouldn't they have to validate if they sue? They can't just come to court and say "debtor didn't ask for validation last year so we don't need to validate now"...can they?

[pryan67]

they'd have to show the judge some sort of validation...which you're then able to attempt to refute.

 

for example, if they produce an affidavit of debt, you could then produce an affidavit of your own, stating that you have no knowledge of ever opening an account with XYZ collections. Or, have it dismissed as hearsay

[kdee92]

The affadivit was what they used on my last suit. In this case the CA is a collecting attorney and it is not quite clear to me if they are direct counsel to the OC or if they were hired like a collection agency. Only the OC is on my CR and it has been a year now since charge off. So when I send a DV to the CA that states they are representing OC, then am I really allowed to do this or is it an attempt to DV to the OC via counsel?

 

If the balance is so much higher than what my CR states at CO, then wouldn't they have to provide accounting for that (via DV) no matter when the DV was sent? I mean even "if" I didn't dispute the debt w/i 30 days I DO dispute the balance now.

 

i.e. Let's say I owed $20,000 in June 2005 and I got a letter from collecting attorney. This balance basically matches OC balance on CR at CO. Let's also say I don't DV then BUT I then am told in Jan. 2006 that I owe 26,000. Now, because I didn't DV in June that means I didn't dispute that I owed 26,000??? I DO dispute that.

 

These numbers are just examples, but my issue is the same.

[pryan67]

if the attorney is acting as a CA (ie dunning you, etc) then you can generally DV them

 

if you just got served, no nothing else, and they ARE working for the OC, then you can STILL request proof of the alleged debt, and an accounting of it, from the attorney.

 

odds are they won't have it though

[stickyfingers]

it's all theory SC, not going to get into it with you again, we all know how you feel about Chaudhry and DV. Old Post I happen to disagree with you, we've been over this. You decided long ago that case law is all you'll go by, that's fine, but let me assure the newbies that they are well within their rights to insist on verifying documentation and having a judge decide what's prudent. I did SC, sometimes there is no case law, that's just the way it is.

C^4As...I'm not trying to be argumentative with you, but am I missing something..?

 

Case law, at its most basic level, is simply a "judge deciding what is prudent" (to borrow your wording), yes?

 

If so, if there is no case law on our side here, how can one reasonably expect a judge to rule as you seem expect - if there is no precedent for that..? What I'm getting at is, if one cannot point to any such ruling, why should one "expect" that a judge will be "prudent"? Isn't that unreasonable, not reasonable..?

 

I could be exceedingly thick, but I'm interested and not trying to pick a fight w/anyone...

 

TIA.