LVNV - Indiana need advice on next steps

[RockDaddy]

Originally Posted by BV80

Unless Indiana has such a requirement, a signature is not required for credit card debt. Use of the card would indicate a "contract".

But I agree that if the OP didn't use the cards, they'll have a hard time showing that purchases and payments were made.

BV-

Good point. I had merely meant that by never signing anything, that the OP could prove, in court, that she had never had any agreement with the OC and could subpoena that if needed.

I do have a question though - what if her *ex* had in fact used the card, fraudulently? What then? I mean, it would look exactly as if she'd used the card, thus the implied contract use. If you see what I mean.

With Regards,

RD

[BV80]

Originally Posted by RockDaddy

BV-

Good point. I had merely meant that by never signing anything, that the OP could prove, in court, that she had never had any agreement with the OC and could subpoena that if needed.

I do have a question though - what if her *ex* had in fact used the card, fraudulently? What then? I mean, it would look exactly as if she'd used the card, thus the implied contract use. If you see what I mean.

With Regards,

RD

I understand what your saying, but what do we sign? We don't sign a contract. In most cases, we don't even sign an application. The "implied agreement" is the standard.

Regarding the ex, unfortunately that happens all too often. In those cases, I recommend an attorney. Unless you have evidence to support your defense, or you're a go-getter who has time to research and can stand your ground with an attorney and judge, your own attorney is best. Without evidence, I'm not sure I could defend myself under such circumstances.

We have to remember that civil cases are based on the preponderance of the evidence. It's whoever has the best evidence and argument. If you can't disprove or cast doubt on their evidence, they win.

[retmar]

BV80,

Thanks, I had missed that. I guess I better reread the whole thing. Normally, I use California's own reporting statute, which is the same as the FCRA, so, don't refer to the FCRA that often. I know, I'm bad. Lesson learned.

[BV80]

Originally Posted by retmar

BV80,

Thanks, I had missed that. I guess I better reread the whole thing. Normally, I use California's own reporting statute, which is the same as the FCRA, so, don't refer to the FCRA that often. I know, I'm bad. Lesson learned.

Please don't feel badly. I learn something new every time I look at a law or statute. For instance, until a couple of years ago, I didn't know that my state's collection statutes included the original creditor. However, my states credit reporting statute mirrors the FCRA with no differentiation.

In addition, many laws (statutes, whatever) are not easy for me to understand. In reference to the FCRA, I don't know about you, but depending upon the wording, I have to read certain parts a number of times and take them apart in order to understand them. If I still have trouble, I look up case law.

In any case, don't take my word for this. Keep researching. Like you, I want to provide the correct information. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it.

[retmar]

BV80,

Same for California. The OC is liable if they try to collect their own claim. Most OC's here do not know that. PLUS, California says that IF you violate state, you automatically violate federal. Also, when filing complaints with the AG, if your county DA has a civil attorney on staff, you may file with them. Process moves so much faster.

Regarding that section of the FCRA, I'm going to see what I can find as, to me, it appears they are contradicting themselves.

Like you, having to reread some statutes is absolute due mainly as to how they are worded. This is why you find me mentioning to others not to read into a statute what isn't there to begin with. The 30 day dispute is the most often misunderstood section of all statutes, with the CA's being the worst violator. In fact, when I filed my claim with the state on that collector I went after, the agent, who claimed to have spent over 9 weeks training of the FDCPA, refused to believe me, until I simply asked her to show where it says a dispute is forbidden after 30 days. Yep, she apologized. Also, 807(8) is another the CA's miss. Actually, it is my favorite. I've got so many people here better resolutions using that one alone. All due to the CA calling, being informed the claim is disputed, then, did not respond accordingly. Do note there is no written requirement in that section.