Jump to content

Big Time

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Big Time last won the day on February 3 2008

Big Time had the most liked content!


  • Occupation
    Zone Trooper

Profile Fields

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Big Time's Achievements

500 posts and hasn't been banned yet....

500 posts and hasn't been banned yet.... (6/6)



  1. You're missing the point. You never give a CA anything. You never acquiese to anything. You advised the OP to just roll over and accept flimsy validation and that's what I disagree with. When you don't pay a CA, there is always a chance you will be sued, so you want to give yourself as much hope as possible to beat them in court. Sometimes people are either unable or unwilling to pay (or both) so then their mission becomes to get the CA to leave them alone, and to do that they have to convince the CA that they aren't ever going to pay willingly and a lawsuit will be defended against and have a countersuit attached to it. Asserting that they did not properly validate, then violated when they continued collection activity and quoting that case law and the FCPCA in certified letters to them is a good way to accomplish this. At least that's worked for me every time so far. The only time I got sued by a JDB was when I didn't include that case law in my initial letters to them, but when I used it in my defense and counter suit they wanted a mutual dismissal with a release form. This is all why it's often a necessary evil to request validation within the 30 day time frame, so you can use it against them when they are lazy about it. If you just accept that they have validated, you have prevented yourself from having that leverage. I know all this has been criticized as an immoral guerrilla tactic, but if they don't want a debtor to have a cause of action against them, they need to follow the FDPCA and actually obtain verification and mail it to the debtor like it says to do. I also know that some misuse validation to try to get the CA to prove the debt actually exists or that they have the right to collect it, which isn't what validation is for, but that's no worse than the methods CA's often use. These aren't honorable people we're dealing with. I'm curious as to the amount the OP is being asked to pay, because if it's a lot, then an FDCPA counter-suit may not offset it by much, though.
  2. I disagree with you guys' conclusions because I have real experience using those cases to get rid of debt collectors, both in and out of court. It may have been because I was right, or because they just didn't want to go through the trouble or expense in arguing it, but whatever, it always gets rid of them. The confirmation in writing that Chaudry received was a complete accounting of the debt and it came from the original creditor. Additionally, that quote was made as an 'obiter dictum' statement by the judge, so it isn't even a binding legal precedent. A lot of sleazy debt collectors have used that quote for years as a Jedi mind trick to avoid having to properly validate. The validation that Mahon and Clark received was also a complete accounting of the debt that came from the original creditor and the Spears v Brennan case helped defined debt validation even further after the debt collection attorney sent a copy of the signed contract to the debtor: We cannot agree.  The contract in no way provides sufficient verification of the debt.   A review of the document reveals that it identifies only the terms of Spears' loan, including a 17.99% annual interest rate and the original loan amount of $2,561.59.   The loan agreement contains no accounting of any payments made by Spears, the dates on which those payments were made, the interest which had accrued, or any late fees which had been assessed once Spears stopped making the required payments. (In that particular case, it was ruled that obtaining a default judgement against the debtor was continuds collection activity after failing to properly validate.) The FDCPA itself requires a debt collector to obtain proper validation. It doesn't say what or from whom, but when they just write a letter caliming the debt is valid, they haven't obtained anything. In any case, I don't think a debtor should just roll over when a CA or JDB just arbitrarily declares a debt to be valid. We should hold them to higher standards.
  3. I've been out of the loop for awhile, and don't mean to get this thread off track, but when did we decide that was enough for validation? What happened to case law in our favor like Spears v Brennan and Mahon v Whoeverthatwas and Clark v Capital Credit and even the correct interpretation of Chaudry v Gallerizo? All those make it clear that attempts at validation that don't contain some sort of itemized statement that comes directly from the original creditor, that is then forwarded to the debtor by the CA, that indicates how the balance was computed, isn't proper validation.
  4. I've heard the legal theory that there is no account stated when it comes to debt collectors due to the part of the FDCPA that says "The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer." I've never seen the theory tested, however. If the CA is stating that you didn't object in writing to the billing statements from the OC, there might be an account stated, but you're free to ignore any 'statements' from a CA without having one. If they are claiming the account stated is from the billing statements from the OC, then you put them on the spot and demand they produce them. A CA working directly with the OC would be able to provide them, but a JDB may not.
  5. The FCBA requires credit card companies to send monthly bills, but I can't find any laws that require any medical debts to be sent to a patient on a regular basis, unless I'm missing something.
  6. Well MyFico is stupid. You can either buy all three reports together for $60 or buy all three reports individually for $20 each. :derr: < If you choose the single report and score option for all three indivudually, you can use S1403STL20FST for a 20% discount.
  7. I've looked everywhere and can't find a code that works for all three reports and scores.
  8. That sentence doesn't make much sense. I'm guessing your overall score is low because of your utilization, are you close to your borrowing limit on your credit cards? I'll try to get this moved to the credit repair forum so you'll get more people to help you.
  9. pfft. I have good prospects in Houston. I'll just drive there from Nashville if I have to, it's about a 12 hour drive. Iunno about Phoenix, though. That's a two day drive.
  10. Good Info. Thanks! What about an American Express? That's the one card I would consider carrying.
  11. I haven't had a credit card in years and don't really want one, but I have my resume out all over the country and may need to rent a car on short notice if I get an interview. How difficult is it to rent a car without a real credit card? I have a debit Mastercard from my bank, but there is probably a way they can tell it's not an actual line of credit. Should I just get a card with a small limit? Or maybe a secured card?
  12. My mistake, only the first legal document is free.
  13. http://www.rocketlawyer.com/ I signed up and am playing around with it. It has a lot of free wizards you can use to make affidavits, etc and save them. I can't find where you can make general legal pleadings, though. Newer Microsoft Word doesn't have the Legal Pleadings wizard anymore, but I did find a few pleading templates for Open office.
  14. True dat, but I still learned a lot from reading the threads there and enjoyed when educated consumers would irritate them.
  • Create New...