spray25

Members
  • Content Count

    98
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by spray25

  1. Thank you BV80. I looked on naca.net and unfortunately there is only one attorney listed in my state and he is a long ways away. Is PRA's continued reporting to the credit bureaus (and not showing it as disputed) continued collection activity as well? Possibly generating additional violations? I think we need to send PRA another letter confirming that we do still dispute the validity of the debt so that they don't just summarily close their "investigation". We also received discovery, request for admissions, and interrogatories in yesterdays mail along with some attached documents including a bill of sale and affidavit. The documents are quite interesting and I will need to do some heavy duty research on how to handle them. The both documents refer to additional documents that were of course not included. I'm not really sure how to word my discovery requests. My primary goal being to have them prove standing and to provide more information on the signer of the affidavit. I have a lot of suspicions concerning the applicability of this affidavit to this case.
  2. Hello all. My fiancé was recently served. The suit was filed by Johnson Mark LLC representing Portfolio Recoveries. We are in the state of Idaho and my fiancé does not remember the alleged debt. OC is claimed to have been US Bank. We could use some help in making sure we handle this correctly. Here is somewhat of a timeline of events and information. I received the complaint and summons from a process server at our home in mid June. The complaint itself was filed back in January. Interestingly, the process server very much wanted to speak to my fiancé and twice told me that it was no big deal and that she didn’t even need to respond to the complaint, that instead my fiancé should just call the toll free number and talk to Johnson Mark about it. Man do I wish I had some way to prove this is what he did! The complaint strikes me as typical boiler plate stuff. It alleges my fiancé entered into a contract with US Bank ending in xxxx1234 (no date given), defaulted, owes $4,000 to plaintiff plus interest, and that written demand was made upon defendant more than 10 days before this action (not true). The very same day as the service when I checked the mail there was a letter from Johnson Mark dated the first of May. Remember this was mid-June and I don’t buy for a second that it took their letter 6 weeks to arrive. There was no post mark only a bar code. The letter was a typical collection letter with very generic information about the alleged debt. It gave the standard 30 day notice, although it said that their client did not have to wait the 30 days to pursue their contractual rights to collect the alleged debt. The letter went on to say that “At this time, no attorney with this firm has personally reviewed the particular circumstances of your account, and no decision has been made to file a lawsuit.” Obviously, this is completely false as they filed a suit 5 months earlier and had it served the very day this letter showed up. The letter went on to say this is an attempt to collect a debt and that the communication is from a debt collector. I checked and Johnson Mark is not licensed as a debt collector in Idaho. Idaho does, however, offer a partial exemption to attorneys. We pulled credit reports and PR does show on all three. We sent validation letters to both Johnson and PR and started on an answer. As soon as the green cards were returned we filed disputes with the three bureaus, PR had not changed the status of their reporting. (currently waiting for disputes to be finished) Johnson responded very quickly to the validation request. They sent a letter stating that they were providing verification, they had looked at information provided by their clients, and that they had determined that my fiancé owes the money. They again identified themselves as a debt collector. They attached documents to the letter. 1) A print out that looks like they simply typed containing my fiancé’s name, current address, social, date of birth, the amount sought (original amount plus $150 in costs), creditor PR, the OC and address and an account number. 2) A document that looks like it may have been part of a data dump from an OC. In addition to the information on the first document it contained open date, delinquency date (2011), a notation that it was a visa and etc. 3) Two statements that are allegedly from US Bank. The statements were somewhat interesting. The first is from July of 2011 and show a $100 payment and a balance owed of approximately $4,000 which is the exact amount of the suit. The next statement is dated February of 2012. That statement shows a credit of $1,000 that says “interest reversal”, then it says “charge off $3,000”, and “total new balance $3,000”. So if the “total new balance” was $3,000 why is PR suing for $4,000? I helped my fiancé write and file an answer. County of residence was admitted, the claim of them making demand 10 days in advance of the suit was denied, and all other items were denied for lack of knowledge. The answer also contained sort of a kitchen sink approach of affirmative defenses. Yesterday PR sent a response to the request for validation. Their letter states that the account was “sold, assigned, and transferred by the seller to PRA.” It goes on to say that on that date of the sale the seller said it was $4,000 and there were no un-credited payments, counterclaims, or offsets against the account. They specifically show the aprox $4,000 amount and say fees are $0 yet they filed a lawsuit 6 months ago showing an amount that is $4,000 plus fees. They say if we want a payment history to contact them (already asked for this in validation letter). They then say that if we wish to dispute this that we need to send them documents and that if they have not heard from us by July 21 they will close the investigation. In big bold letters they state that this is NOT an attempt to collect a debt. At this point I need some input and help. I need to respond to PR, but am not 100% sure how to respond. I need help figuring out if there are any FDCPA violations (there seem to be false statements in the communications and have they continued to collect without validation?) Should I bother to file a complaint against Johnson Mark for not being licensed or will the attorneys at law factor make that a non-starter? Finally I need help on discovery requests. I’m not sure when I will need them, but I want to be prepared. I am sorry for such a long post and I thank you in advance for any help you can provide.
  3. My Blue Sky is at $30k and my Delta is at $1k (moved it to Blue Sky). Is Amex still difficult to get above $30k? Should I ask for a bump above $30k or bump the Delta and then move is to the Blue Sky? I intend on closing the Delta before the annual fee is due. As much as I want my Blue Sky bumped up I would prefer to not go through the financial review.
  4. You found the G-Spot, your timing is just off. I got my luv bump the night before last.
  5. I've been away from the forum for a while, but thought I should update that I got a bump on my BS to $27,500!!!!
  6. Looks like the system is back up this morning. I had to leave $1000 on Delta, but I was able to move the rest. Is there a max AMEX will go on one card? I know a financial review is a possibility with them at some point. Is it typically based on overall limits or the limit on one card? Probably both I would guess, but I want to figure out if I close Delta and keep raising the limit on Blue Sky at what point am I asking for trouble? Have any self employed people had a FR? Will they only accept tax returns? For mortgages etc I do stated income and/or provide bank statements. Never tax returns.... I guess my accountant does to good of a job
  7. Sky your knowledge of AMEX is getting scarry!! Unfortunately: We're Sorry... We are currently upgrading our site to improve American Express Online Services. During this time you may experience intermittent system delays.
  8. Now that I have my Blue I really don't want my Delta. I will never use it and I don;t want to pay the annual fee. Is there such a thing as moving my CL from Delta to Blue to increase the total limit on Blue? If yes I will do it and close the Delta. Or, do I have to just close Delta and keep asking for CLI on my blue?
  9. Yes it asks you what you want your new CL to be and it asks your income. That's all. I have read here that there is a "long" form that some people have had pop up and that if you use that one it will pull an inquiry.
  10. Hey Sky, I got the Blue Sky today. I activated it online and then asked for a bimp to $15k. I GOT IT!!!!
  11. Yes they are having computer problems. the person I spoke with said they are doing a lot of upgrading and have been having issues not only with the internet, but also their internal programs. I had to call several times over the last 10 days, but they seem to have it all figured out now.
  12. $10k!!! YIPEE!!! I had been down in the dumps because I closed my Orchard card last week. The annual fee was billed at $59 and I could not get them to waive or even reduce it. The CL was $850 and the lady said she could increase it by $500. BFD!! I was sad because it was my oldest current card (over 2 years), but somehow AMEX has made me feel better about now!!
  13. They approved me for the Blue Sky card. I had to straighten out some confusion on my address, but then the guy said "ok I'll go ahead and approve you, you should have your card in about a week." I forgot to ask the limit though.
  14. I applied for a Blue Sky and it has been "in progress" for 3 days
  15. UPDATE -- A few days after activation I ask for a CLI to $5,000 via internet. I got it immediately. Just now I asked for $3,500 more and GOT IT!!! Scores are the same. 0% util and I made a small charge on the AMEX that I PIF.
  16. JA thanks for the input in both of your posts. The one I quoted is very interesting. In my state there is a statute that basically says if you buy the debt when it is altready in default then you are a collection agency. Does the FDCPA have similar language? It seems to me that if you are a CA under the FDCPA it would be tough for you to argue that you should not be required to send "mini mirandas" because OC's are not required to. There are two classifications OC's and CA's. It is hard for me to beleive that a judge would allow you to switch back and forth between being a CA or OC at your will so that you only have to abide by the rules that you want to. Isn't that what you are essentially saying some JDB may be trying to do in your quoted post? I can see the JDB saying "Judge I am an OC so I am not required to send out the Miranda." So the judge says then you need to give notice of negative information being entered on a CR and the JDB responds "But your honor I am a CA and that requirement does not apply" It seems to me that the JDB wants his cake and to eat it too. Am I over analyzing this?
  17. This paragraph was taken I beleive from the edcombs website: A debt collector which reports a debt to a credit reporting agency but does not have direct communications with a debtor could still be in violation of Section 1692e(8) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, according to a ruling by a federal District Court. The court said that the FDCPA broadly defines the term "communication," and that the reporting of a debt to a credit reporting agency could be seen as a communication in connection with the collection of a debt. (Sullivan v. Equifax Inc., et al., No. 01-4336 (E.D. Pa. 04/19/02).) They seem to know their stuff and I tend to side with them. Somewhere I have some case law which says that reporting to a CRA is a collection tool to put pressure on a person to pay just like a dunning letter. Without finding it and reading it again I think it draws a conclusion that it is therefore a communication. I am not 100% behind that though unless I can find the case again and re-read it.
  18. Isn't it possible that this is the very reason for the 5 day rule? With some forms of "communication" ie verbal and reporting to CRA's it is not possible or practical to include a mini miranda. Therefore, the CA is given 5 days to provide the mini miranda.
  19. Definitions [15 USC 1692a] (2) The term "communication" means the conveying of information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to ANY person through ANY medium. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g] (a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing -- (1) the amount of the debt; (2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed; (3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector; (4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and (5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor. ( If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. If what you are saying is true then a CA can put something on your CR, but never send you a letter and can then argue that they do not have to verify/validate because no 30 day period ever started. The overall ruling in Sullivan may have been focused else where, however, the court did state/clarify that reporting to a CRA IS a communication. I have seen even more vague citings used with success. Based upon my experience, that clarification along with the plain language in 1692[A] & [G] gives you a fighting chance in court. You can certainly disagree...... That's what makes America Great.
  20. I disagree with you and so does at least one court. Sullivan v. Equifax Inc., et al., No. 01-4336 (E.D. Pa. 04/19/02).) A debt collector which reports a debt to a credit reporting agency but does not have direct communications with a debtor could still be in violation of Section 1692e(8) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, according to a ruling by a federal District Court. The court said that the FDCPA broadly defines the term "communication," and that the reporting of a debt to a credit reporting agency could be seen as a communication in connection with the collection of a debt. More............. The court said the FDCPA broadly defines the term "communication" in Section 1692a(2) as "the conveying of information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium." The court noted that legal commentators have opined that debt collectors use the reporting of a debt as a powerful tool to gain compliance from a debtor with payment terms. "Because reporting a debt to a credit reporting agency can be seen as a communication in connection with the collection of a debt," the court reasoned, "the reporting of such a debt in violation of the provisions of Section 1692e(8) can subject a debt collector to liability under the FDCPA."
  21. Yes, you can DV them. Also, keep in mind that reporting to a CR is considered a communication. As with any initial communication they only have 5 days to give you your min miranda. I'm betting they did not so there is your first violation.
  22. I activated online and then asked for an online CLI to $5,000 and got it!!! No hard pull.
  23. I'm still chuckling over the use of "ignoramous"............. EQ has a habit of deciding (for various unconfirmed reasons) that your credit file is to big for their computer system. To rectify this they "split" your file into one or more files. There seems to be no rhyme nor reason for how they split it or why they put certain TL's in one file vs. the other. This becomes a problem when applying for credit. If you should happen to have your less favorable TL's in one file and the creditor should happen to get that file when they pull your CR then the creditor sees a horrible score.