summons before validate?

[Anonymous]

I've been hit again. Got a collections in the mail in Feb. Sent a c/d with validation letter on which they signed the CRRR green card on Feb 24th. They never validated and are now looking to summons me to court. What's wrong with these CA's? Don't they ever follow the laws? I'm already being garnished, have another summons I'm fighting and now these idiots think they can do whatever they want?

Thought I'd read here that they had to validate before filing? Am I right?

[Anonymous]

Spears vs Brennan covers filing suit during validation

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

From FTC opinion letters:

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

In answer to question #2: in view of the recent Supreme Court case, Heintz et al v. Jenkins, (No. 94-367; 1995 U.S. Lexis 2840), decided April 18, 1995, which considered litigation activity to recover a debt to be "collection activity" covered by the FDCPA, it does not appear that a debt collector may attempt to reduce a disputed claim to judgement without obtaining the verification required by Section 809(.

[Swede]

Actually, they can sue before the 30 days has passed, however, if they debtor requests validation, the lawsuit must be stayed until validation has been provided. Check this case.

Bartlett v. Heibl

Although the question whether a dunning letter violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act does not require evidence that the recipient was confused--or even, as we noted earlier, whether he read the letter--the issue of confusion is for the district judge to decide, subject to light review for "clear error." The cases, however, leave no room to doubt that the letter to Bartlett was confusing; nor as an original matter could we doubt that it was confusing--we found it so, and do not like to think of ourselves as your average unsophisticated consumer. So the judgment must be reversed. But we should not stop here. Judges too often tell defendants what the defendants cannot do without indicating what they can do, thus engendering legal uncertainty that foments further litigation. The plaintiff's lawyer takes the extreme, indeed the absurd, position--one that he acknowledged to us at argument, with a certain lawyerly relish, creates an anomaly in the statutory design--that the debt collector cannot in any way, shape, or form allude to his right to bring a lawsuit within thirty days. That enforced silence would be fine if the statute forbade suing so soon. But it does not. The debt collector is perfectly free to sue within thirty days; he just must cease his efforts at collection during the interval between being asked for verification of the debt and mailing the verification to the debtor. 15 U.S.C. sec. 1692g(. In effect the plaintiff is arguing that if the debt collector wants to sue within the first thirty days he must do so without advance warning. How this compelled surprise could be thought either required by the statute, however imaginatively elaborated with the aid of the concept of "overshadowing," or helpful to the statute's intended beneficiaries, eludes us.

This is also address in the following case

Sprouse v. City Credits

Based upon the language of § 1692g, the Seventh Circuit has concluded that a debt collector is free to file suit within the 30-day period set forth in that statute and that collection activity must cease only if the debtor disputes the debt. Bartlett v. Heibel, 128 F.3d 497, 501 (7 th Cir. 1997). See also, Ditty v. CheckRite. Ltd., Inc., 973 F. Supp. 1320, 1328 (D.Utah 1997) (unambiguous language of § 1692g requires a debt collector to stop collection activity, only if the debtor disputes the validity of the debt); Rabidue v. Management Adjustment Bureau, 805 F. Supp. 1086, 1094 (W.D.N.Y. 1992) (same). This Court finds the result reached by the Seventh Circuit to be persuasive. It comports with the language employed by Congress when it enacted the FDCPA, which only requires the cessation of collection activity, if the debtor has challenged the validity of the debt.

[Anonymous]

So what I understand here is that validation is bullshit!

Twice in the last three months at the advice of people on this forum, I have sent letters of request for validation only to be served summons by my local justice court within a few weeks. Does anyone know Nevada State Law as it seems the Federal law doesn't work? Or is the majority of this board working for the CA's and their scumbag attornyes?

What now Einsteins?

(By the way Swede & Ironman, thanks for the info, though disappointing)

[LadynRed]

Easy pal, the people here do NOT work for CA's and attorneys. Validation DOES work, but the problem is not the advice you've received here, its with the CA's themselves. Thanks to boards like this one, people have learned their rights to validation and are using it more. Unfortunately, the CA's are also getting wise to it and rather than go thru the trouble and argument of providing validation, some of them are suing when they get a validation letter - they think they'll win an EASY victory that way. The fact remains that once you have requested validation, they MUST produce it, even if they sue you in the meantime and take you to court. If they don't produce it prior to court, then YOU must use that fact in court and force them to obey the FDCPA and produce it for a judge. If the judge asks if its your debt, you say 'I don't know, Your Honor, I have requested validation and proof of the debt per Section 809 of the FDCPA (as you produce a copy of it for the judge) and they have not yet produced it'- and you produce a copy of your validation demand letter and the green card receipt that proves they got your demand.

A lot more judges are coming around and unless he/she is a complete moron, the judge will turn to the attorney and say 'well, where's your proof ?'. Sadly, there are some judges out there who won't do that, hopefully you don't live in one of those backwater-type places.

The other sticking point here, too, is that even though validation DOES work, people HAVE gotten excellent results, if you're within your State's SOL for being sued for a debt and you DO owe the money, you run the risk of being sued. At some point, we're all faced with paying the piper. If you're going to play the game, you must accept the risks -- or you don't play.

Use the laws that are in place to your advantage now. You've requested validation prior to being sued so they MUST follow FEDERAL law and produce it... and that means ceasing collection until they do ! It may mean a postponement of a lawsuit, or it could mean dismissal and they re-file, but the FEDERAL LAW is STILL on your side, you just have to be prepared to use it and possibly educate a judge in the process.

Good Luck

[Edit by LadynRed on Friday, March 28, 2003 @ 08:45 AM]

[Edit by LadynRed on Friday, March 28, 2003 @ 08:47 AM]

[Anonymous]

Thank you Lady for pulling in my temper. I apologize for the outburst. Had a bad, bad, day. I too know how you feel about CA's, that's why I always come back here to read this forum.

[Swede]

<blockquote>Originally posted by Swede

<blockquote>Originally posted by oneshot

Thank you Lady for pulling in my temper. I apologize for the outburst. Had a bad, bad, day.

</blockquote>

LOL, we should have a section for TEMPER TANTRUMS!