I am going to sue...

[Ravenous Wolf]

I have made up my mind. I am going to sue.

Using debt validation, I got TU and EX to delete a paid collection. Since the CA never responded, I just sent copies of all the green cards to TU and EX and both of them promptly deleted the trade line.

Since I had been hassling the OC, the OC sent me a letter stating that all they have is an itemized computer print out. They admit that they don’t have any signed contracts or an instrument bearing my signature, just the print outs.

I know that the FTC opinion states that is not good enough. I mailed the CA a copy of the OC letter. Still, nothing. The CA has never responded to a single request.

Now, I am [EXPLETIVE DELETED]!

I am no longer interested in getting EQ to delete the trade line. I believe that I have a solid case against the CA and I want to sue for maximum compensation.

Below, is a copy of a letter that I just sent certified mail. I know that the CA is going to ignore it just like everything else.

What do I have to do to put this in small claims court?

How soon after today can I start this suit in small claims court?

Suppose that the CA just requests EQ to delete the trade line even like one day before a court date, does that kill my case (and my 79 clam court fee)?

Even if the CA does delete the trade line, they still have absolutely no signed contract or an instrument bearing my signature that this debt ever existed even though I paid it. Will I be able to sue to recover what I did pay them as well as any miscellaneous damages? I still have my EQ credit reports from years ago as well as the letter from the OC stating that they don’t have jack.

Any ideas or opinions would be appreciated.

* * * * * * *

THIS IS YOUR FINAL NOTICE

This is your final notice that I am demanding that you remove the following trade line from my credit report:

Paid Collection

........... : Client – St. Mary’s University, Account # blah…blah, Assigned 01/98, Amount – 296.00

Your client, St. Mary’s University admits that they do not have:

* Copies of a signed contract or an instrument bearing my signature.

* An explanation on how a calculation was made on what I purportedly owed.

* An explanation of the procedures used to inform me of such an outstanding balance.

Enclosed is a copy of a signed letter from your client, St. Mary’s University stating that:

… I have no current documents with signatures for the balance paid by you.

Your client, St. Mary’s University admits that all they have are computer generated statements which is clearly and unequivocally not permissible as stated by the following Federal Trade Commission (FTC) opinion:

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/wollman.htm

According to Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) Section 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g], a debt collector must show proof positive that this debt did in fact exist. A computer printout is not proof.

In addition, below are all my attempts that I have used to contact you:

12/04/2002 – Collections Unlimited: First Class Mail

02/03/2002 – Collections Unlimited: First Class Mail

02/18/2003 – Collections Unlimited: Certified Letter with Return Receipt Requested

03/28/2003 – Collections Unlimited: Certified Letter with Return Receipt Requested

04/15/2003 – Collections Unlimited: Certified Letter with Return Receipt Requested

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) allows for an individual to sue a negligent collection agency in small claims court and I intend to do so for the maximum compensation allowed by law. You will have to explain to a judge about this signed letter from your client, St. Mary’s University demonstrating that they have no signed contract or an instrument bearing my signature. In addition, you will have to explain all the unanswered Return Receipts I have in my possession.

Remove this trade line from my credit reports or I will see you in court.

[Edit by Ravenous Wolf on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 @ 03:13 PM]

[Ravenous Wolf]

Actually, I am not going to send that letter. I was going to run out the door and send it certified mail.

I already mailed out something similar (without the lawsuit threat). I think I am just going to do the small claims right away.

I called up the small claims court. They told me that since I am in San Antonio and the defendant is in Houston, they have to call up constables in Houston to get the price on the fee to serve papers.

I am off this Friday so I will go to the courthouse and pay the fee.

At first, I had big huevos to do file a small claims lawsuit. Now, my huevos are about the size of when I step out of the shower.

[Ravenous Wolf]

§ 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g]

section (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

* * * * *

Does this section of the law apply to a consumer who has paid the debt?

I have paid this collection like six years ago and I get the impression that section exempts the debt collector from providing verification.

And by the way, what is verification?

A lot of ink has been spilled about verification but I don’t see it in the FDCPA clearly defined. All this time, I have been under the assumption that proof positive is a “signed” contract or an instrument bearing my signature.

I know the CA doesn’t have jack because the OC admitted that they don’t have jack.

Finally, about two and four years ago. Like, this dispute has to have occurred within two years or in certain circumstances, four years ago.

I paid this off over almost six years ago, although it is showing up on Equifax which is what I am claimed that I am being wronged.

Texas allows me to sue up to $5000, which is what I am going to do.

My collection is $296.00. My contention is that since no proof exists, I want my money back.

Second, since I have EQ credit reports stretching back years and letters from creditors turning me down for credit, I am going to claim that this collection harmed me for years, like $4704 worth (5000 – 296).

Do I have a leg to stand on or I am jerking my own chorizo with this lawsuit?

[lisak72]

Brennan vs. Spears outlines what is considered validation. It's interesting reading...but here's a quote and the site...

Brief of Appellee at 13. Specifically, Brennan claims that a copy of the consumer credit contract between Spears and American General attached to the notice of claim provided sufficient verification of the debt within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(. 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. Indeed, the existing unpaid contract balance at the time Brennan sent the debt collection notice was at least $350.00 more than the original loan amount.

http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/archive/03260101.ewn.html

BTW...the above site is unavailable right now. don't know whassup with that, but I'm sure if you do a search, you can find it somewhere else.

Brennan vs. Spears basically tells you that a signed contract is not enough. Hope that helps and good luck! I would tend to agree with you that you've done everything you were supposed to do and that if you feel it requires going to court to resolve it, then I would trust that feeling.

Question, though, did EQ verify this? Can't you also take them on in court showing that they haven't removed something after you gave them proof that the records no longer exist for this? I would look into that too...

[Ravenous Wolf]

Does anyone else know where I can go to get a printout of Brennan vs Spears?

Yes, EQ verified what the CA says. They have been verifying them for years. TU and EX immediately the trade line once I presented them copies of my green cards.

Something else I got to find out is how do I present evidence in a small claims court?

I want to be able to present these FTC opinions.

And I want to be able to present the letter that the OC (the CA's client) stating that they do not have a signed contract or an instrument bearing my signature.

And of course, my green cards. The green is as good as gold.

Friday around noon, I am going to the Justice of the Peace to file my small claims lawsuit.

Any opinions and ideas within the next 24 hours would be greatly appreciated.

[ADSOFT]

Hey RAV,

Can you at least communicate with them verbally? or by fax?

Have you tried contacting the FTC, ATTG. I think you have enought evidence for that?

... waiting for your response.

[Edit by ADSOFT on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 @ 09:56 PM]

[sisflomi]

I can email that letter to you if you like.

[ADSOFT]

<blockquote>Originally posted by sisflomi

I can email that letter to you if you like.

</blockquote>

That might be a good Idea, and threaten them with FTC, BBB.

Those guys might be able to get through.

[Ravenous Wolf]

Hey ADSOFT... Thanks for responding. I really appreciate it.

In many ways, I really don't want the EQ trade line deleted.

In fact, since the CA has ignored me, I want to sue for the maximum amount.

I paid 296 clams almost six years ago. I am filing to reclaim that since no proof exists.

And then up to 5000 clams since that is the maximum allowed by law. Like pain and suffering for that bad trade line...

However, I have been looking into who owns the CA and it is a guy who has like 30 years in the debt collecting business. It is still a small outfit but knowledge and experience can run circles around anyone.

[ADSOFT]

<blockquote>Originally posted by Ravenous Wolf

Hey ADSOFT... Thanks for responding. I really appreciate it.

In many ways, I really don't want the EQ trade line deleted.

In fact, since the CA has ignored me, I want to sue for the maximum amount.

I paid 296 clams almost six years ago. I am filing to reclaim that since no proof exists.

And then up to 5000 clams since that is the maximum allowed by law. Like pain and suffering for that bad trade line...

However, I have been looking into who owns the CA and it is a guy who has like 30 years in the debt collecting business. It is still a small outfit but knowledge and experience can run circles around anyone.

</blockquote>

Well, I posted a response on possible charges, 2 days ago did any of the VETERANS or other agree with stuff????

I need to know what they said, last night I saw no response from SWEDE, she usually gets on my case when I cross the line, so I assume that that was OK??????????

[Ravenous Wolf]

Hey sisflomi, if you can shoot me that letter, I would appreciate it.

A little bit more pressure and I think I can get the EQ trade line deleted, especially with getting the Texas AG, BBB, etc involved.

However, I am going to sue for the full $5000 plus court fees.

Getting the EQ tradeline may turn this case into a moot point, thus my filing fees go out the window.

That is why I didn't send out that letter I had listed above. I felt I was tipping too much of my hand because I actually want to be in the court room instead of having the EQ trade line deleted.

I will have to decide when I wake up Friday morning.

[ADSOFT]

Well, I posted a response on possible charges, 2 days ago did any of the VETERANS or other agree with stuff????

I need to know what they said, last night I saw no response from SWEDE, she usually gets on my case when I cross the line, so I assume that that was OK??????????

[Ravenous Wolf]

Hey lisak72, what my trump card is would have to be the letter from the OC stating that they do not even have a signed document from me. Only computer printouts.

If the OC doesn't have proof, much less the the CA that I am suing.

That is the whole basis of my lawsuit. No proof exists. I paid this collection and now I realize that no proof exists.

I would like to be able to present this Brennan letter because that would solidify my case. That Brennan opinion sounds very interesting because I need to know what verification and validation is all about and how to use it to my advantage.

The devil is in the details, though...

This was paid almost six years ago. I had to pay it because there would be no way for me to enroll in the university without this collection being paid.

And in case anyone is wondering, no I am not going to sue the university, even if I were to win this lawsuit against the CA.

This university has the only law school in town and two-thirds of all the attorneys and judges have graduated from it.

In fact, in the court room, I will adamantly stress that my beef is with the collection agency. Not the university. It is a very strong chance that the judge will have graduated from there...

[Ravenous Wolf]

ADSOFT, I actually took down a list of all of the charges that you stated in that post. In fact, that is what I believe that I can use as compensation of up to $5000.

My basic plan is that this collection agency has had this negative trade line for almost six years and caused me all this pain and suffering (or all the legal damages), thus I am entitled to 5000 clams.

Or, I wonder if the judge will say that I am only entitle to $296 because that is what I originally paid them.

I really need to know exactly how to explain to the judge why I am entitled to $5000 of a dispute for $296.

[sisflomi]

wolf, I emailed you from this site, there is no way to attach though. I need you to email me your actual if you want the letter.

[ADSOFT]

<blockquote>Originally posted by Ravenous Wolf

ADSOFT, I actually took down a list of all of the charges that you stated in that post. In fact, that is what I believe that I can use as compensation of up to $5000.

My basic plan is that this collection agency has had this negative trade line for almost six years and caused me all this pain and suffering (or all the legal damages), thus I am entitled to 5000 clams.

Or, I wonder if the judge will say that I am only entitle to $296 because that is what I originally paid them.

I really need to know exactly how to explain to the judge why I am entitled to $5000 of a dispute for $296.

</blockquote>

Hey Rav

I'm glad you appreciate my opinion, but I would run it through call lawyer.

I'm not sure I you want to get money out of this guy or just get the TL of your record.

If you just want to clear the TL: Call the FTC, BBB, ATT G., you know the usual group.

I've you want to take this bozo to court:

1. Run it by Cal Lawyer.

2. Get some emotional distress in the picture.

1. Go apply for a loan and if you get turned down, embarrasment, emotional distress.

2. You can't sleep well, at night, you and your financie??? ... kind of joking, ha,ha. But, there is some truth to that. You know I've been HERE and some people have logged on and they can't type because somebody f***up thier CREDIT REPORT.

So, having a witness, can't sleep well when you were qualifing for house, ... some truth.

... Any how run it by a lawyer first, You might want to wait a few days to make sure.

... AND, talk to some people who have won in court before you. You can't arque with success, and you want advice from experienced winners (and some losers:not what to do), don't just talk to wanna be's.

Anyhow I hope this helps, and There was something else I forgot to add to the list. I'll create a new post in second!!

[ADSOFT]

§ 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2]

(a) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information.

(1) Prohibition.

(A) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors. A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or consciously avoids knowing that the information is inaccurate.

( Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors. A person shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if

(i) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate; and

(ii) the information is, in fact, inaccurate.

© No address requirement. A person who clearly and conspicuously specifies to the consumer an address for notices referred to in subparagraph ( shall not be subject to subparagraph (A); however, nothing in subparagraph ( shall require a person to specify such an address

... Hey does section C) mean they have to provide a mailstop and answer mail.

... if so, you have them on 3 flagrant violations!!!!?????

[Edit by ADSOFT on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 @ 10:49 PM]

[Widget]

Rav, just in case you still need the spears v. brennan I found it here.

http://www.state.in.us/judiciary/opinions/archive/03260101.ewn.html

[Ravenous Wolf]

Thanks for the Brennan site.

I got busted at work so I can no longer surf to this web site anymore.

I was planning on doing most of my research today but that went out the window. In fact, I won't use the internet much at all while I am work. So it may be a while before I can go and file the lawsuit.