sharpenu

Members
  • Content Count

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About sharpenu

  • Rank
    Newbie

core_pfieldgroups_99

  • Interests
    SCUBA Diving
  • Occupation
    Firefighter/Paramedic

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Orlando, FL
  1. The legal term "assignee" can mean that. The problem here is that you were denied access to information to defend yourself. It looks to me that by denying you the right to discovery, you can appeal on the grounds that you were denied due process. I could be wrong. Any of you attorneys wanna jump in here?
  2. I have heard of that, but it is VERY rare.
  3. My point being that the debt isn't mine to begin with. That is why they cant validate. They apparently dont need to prove it is mine as far as the IRS is concerned.
  4. Last year, I fought with a bank who bought a loan from an OC. Through the validation process, they eventually backed down when I threatened suit under FDCPA, FCRA and state collection laws. They couldnt validate, so they backed down. I won, right? WRONG!!! They filed a 1099 C (report of cancelled debt) with the IRS, showing the "unpaid balance" as income! Now the IRS is after me for back taxes and penalties for the "undeclared income". According to the IRS, they don't have to prove anything, the burden of proof is on me, to prove I DON'T owe the taxes. The sticky part is, a tax attorney will cost more than the tax bill. So, I guess I have to pay it? Apparently, all a business has to do is file the 1099 and you owe. The IRS told me that you MUST owe the money, or how would the bank have gotten your SSN, address, etc.? I was ready to sue a year ago, and I guess I will have to now, unless I want to eat this tax bill. I will be including the $667 the IRS says I owe in the damages!
  5. I sued a CA back in October. The CA and I settled before trial for deletion and satisfaction. The account was deleted from all 3 CRA's, and then reinserted into my CR (on EQ only). I called them, they assured me it was deleted, and sent me a copy of a deletion letter. I disputed and EQ verified. I disputed again, EQ verified again. I sent the CA an intent to sue. They called and told me that they were never contacted by the CRA. They also pulled my CR on all 3 reports. If I have to sue, I may sue EQ and/or the CA. Eq for faking the investigation and the CA for pulling my CR without permission. I will be checking into this to see if EQ really didn't contact the CA.
  6. You misunderstand. Read the section I refrenced. If they delete an item, they are required to follow the reinsertion procedure.
  7. Good advise, except for one thing. The FDCPA covers you as soon as a third party collector attempts to collect. There is no requirement that the debt has to be charged off first. The OC can even be subject to the FDCPA if they attempt to collect using a name other than their own, as that misleads consumers into believing that a third party collector is involved. From the FDCPA: (6) The term "debt collector" means any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another. Notwithstanding the exclusion provided by clause (F) of the last sentence of this paragraph, the term includes any creditor who, in the process of collecting his own debts, uses any name other than his own which would indicate that a third person is collecting or attempting to collect such debts.
  8. I had a similar case with an account. What you should do is send them a validation request for the account. Don't give them any account numbers, just your name and address. When you get the green card back, start the dispute mentioned above. When CIT verifies the account, they have violated the FCRA under sec 623(, as the account is not "complete and accurate" and they have a duty to investigate. They have also violated sec 807 (8) and (10) of the FDCPA, by falsly claiming a debt. When you get that, threated to sue. If they don't delete then, go ahead and sue in small claims. I can't see them going to court for $85 to risk losing $2000, they will settle. Don't get greedy, though. Be willing to settle for deletion and POSSIBLY court costs. [Edit by sharpenu on Wednesday, February 5, 2003 @ 05:36 AM]
  9. Not only that, but the reporting of a debt is considered to be continued collection activity, which is prohibited until they have validated. Also, many people are confused about the 30 day thing, so I have quit calling it a "30 day letter", "15 day letter", etc. There is nothing in the law that says a CA has 30 days to validate. What it says is that a CA must not attempt to collect after a validation letter is received, until validation is sent to the debtor. Once the CA has attempted to collect after validation has been requested, but not provided, they have violated the law. OTOH, if a CA never again attempts to collect, they don't EVER have to validate. The 30 day limit was set as a "reasonable" time to wait for validation. I don't personally follow that. What I do is wait for the green card for my validation letter and then file my dispute with the CRA. If they verify, the CA has violated and if they don't, it gets deleted. It worked every time for me.
  10. OK, here is the deal. I have been in the cleanup process since June. I have had great success with this, except for 2 accounts listing as paid collections. One of them claims to be for a bounced check for $12.42 with a $25 bounced check fee from Nov2000. They say I promised to pay May 2002 and finally paid Aug2002. I have no recollection of this account. They refuse to delete, numerous validation notices later, no validation. They told me they no longer have a copy of this "check", as it was sent to me when I "paid" it. They have verified with the CRA's every time. What do I do now? If I decide to sue, what law can I sue under? It is my understanding that they are not trying to collect, as they are not asserting there is any money due, they are just reporting a transaction, so the FDCPA and Florida FDCPA doesn't apply. EDIT- They have been reporting this as a apid collection since June 18, 2002. [Edit by sharpenu on Tuesday, February 4, 2003 @ 08:40 AM]
  11. If they verified after receiving the validation letter, but before validating, the CA has just violated. Send a second validation request, pointing out they haven't validated yet. Don't let them know that you have them on a violation. Let them rack up a few violations, and then go get 'em.
  12. Read the FCRA under reinsertion of items deleted as a result of disputed accuracy. ยง611(a)(5). CRA has just violated. Let them know in a letter, they should back down.
  13. I can also point out that Asset Acceptance is not legally allowed to collect in Florida. (No license as required by ss 559) Check with your state and see if that is the case there.
  14. The one where the contract was entered into.