Jump to content

Mahon v. Credit Bureau of Placer County


Recommended Posts

I did a previous post on debt validation on this issue and no response so maybe calalawyer or someone could give me an opinion.

I filed a counterclaim on a suit for FDCPA violations and validation and the opposing attorney came back with a motion to dismiss the counterclaim based upon the fact that my attorney didn't state a claim and with the opposition using the above court case, Mahon v. Placer County, using it as an argument that their client was under no obligation to provide validation of the debt which I requested CMMR.

They argue using this court case that since their client sent the initial communication letter via mail and I didn't request validation until 17 months after the thirty day period, they were under no obligation to provide proof of the debt, and therefore, were not in violation of the FDCPA.

In this case, the judge also argued that the mailbox rule applies and therefore they did not need to show proof that they sent the letter or I had received it.

From everything I've read, this doesn't make sense at all in that this case therefore states, that if a consumer doesn't validate within the 30 day period, these parties are not obligated to validate the debt after this period.

I'm looking for an opinion on this and hopefully a recent court case to serve as a rebuttal when my attorney files a brief in argument of the motion.

We need to respond in a few days so hopefully someone can assist me in getting some affirmative response. Thanks all!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.