Anonymous Posted August 14, 2002 Report Share Posted August 14, 2002 In June, I received a collection notice from an attorney representing a company who purchases debt from the original creditor. I mailed a request for debt validation and the name of the original creditor. About a week later, I received a response from them saying that they will send copies of any documentation that includes my signature to a contract as soon as they can obtain it from the creditor. They also gave me the name of the original creditor.Last week the county sherrifs dept. delivered a notice that I was being sued by this company. What are my rights in this matter? The company filing suit against me never valadated the debt as requested. Please Help. [Edit by clearingitup1983 on Wednesday, August 14, 2002 @ 12:23 PM] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admin Posted August 14, 2002 Report Share Posted August 14, 2002 They can't sue you until they have provided you with debt validation. Their prior letter to you was inadequate. File a countersuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymous Posted August 15, 2002 Author Report Share Posted August 15, 2002 Thanks Admin, I thought that would be the correct course of action that I should take.Once I file a countersuit, what should I expect to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadynRed Posted August 26, 2002 Report Share Posted August 26, 2002 Ok.. this is confusing.. what IS it then ? According to this FTC Staff Opinion letter, they CAN sue you during the 30-day period:http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/berger.htm"2) We interpret the "thirty-day period" as a period within which consumers must dispute their debts in writing in order to avail themselves of their Section 809( rights, but not as a "grace" period. Thus, we believe that there is nothing in the Act that prevents you from filing suit during this period, so long as you do not make any representations that contradict Section 809(. "However, according to another Staff Opinion Letter, they say that litigation IS considered 'collection activity':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(." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admin Posted August 27, 2002 Report Share Posted August 27, 2002 They can iniate a lawsuit after the 30 days a collection agency first notifies you that you are in collections UNLESS you you send them a request for debt validation. [Edit by admin on Wednesday, August 28, 2002 @ 12:07 PM] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadynRed Posted August 28, 2002 Report Share Posted August 28, 2002 Thanks Admin I knew there had to be some interpretation that makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted August 30, 2002 Report Share Posted August 30, 2002 As much as I hate to bring this up, the same thing happened to me. After a long search I hooked up with a very nationally well known FDCPA attorney. According to him filing a law suite is not considered an FDCPA violation as long as sometime before, or either during the law suite the standard required FDCPA notices are given to you.Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admin Posted August 30, 2002 Report Share Posted August 30, 2002 The FTC seems to differ with him...there is also case law that I am digging up on this as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymous Posted August 30, 2002 Author Report Share Posted August 30, 2002 Terry, I may be interested in talking to this FDCPA lawyer of yours. Could you email me with contact information and how your experience was with him/her?Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymous Posted May 20, 2003 Author Report Share Posted May 20, 2003 <blockquote>Originally posted by adminThey can iniate a lawsuit after the 30 days a collection agency first notifies you that you are in collections UNLESS you you send them a request for debt validation. [Edit by admin on Wednesday, August 28, 2002 @ 12:07 PM]</blockquote>BUT, if you request validation 3-4 years after the debt occured does that mean they can sue since it's past the inital 30 days from contact? The reason I ask is because I have a large bill with a CA that I made a few payments on a few year ago and now i am requesting validatiion because they added another account to my CR (the amount that the insurance claim denied) BUT no response. i am wondering if they have a law suit in the works... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bingo Posted May 20, 2003 Report Share Posted May 20, 2003 In Sprouse vs City Credits they may sue but, are supposed to stay the suit until they provide validation.http://www.licatalaw.com/articles/article_collection.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercrusader Posted May 20, 2003 Report Share Posted May 20, 2003 <blockquote>Originally posted by bingoIn Sprouse vs City Credits they may sue but, are supposed to stay the suit until they provide validation.http://www.licatalaw.com/articles/article_collection.htm</blockquote>Yes, and good luck on trying to get them to stay the suit once it's in the works. Thanks for reminding me, Bingo, I forgot about this violation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted May 20, 2003 Report Share Posted May 20, 2003 <blockquote>Originally posted by bingoIn Sprouse vs City Credits they may sue but, are supposed to stay the suit until they provide validation.http://www.licatalaw.com/articles/article_collection.htm</blockquote>Also Bartlett v. HeiblAlthough 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercrusader Posted May 20, 2003 Report Share Posted May 20, 2003 Whoa, Swede. That was a lightning fast post. I felt the wind on that one.Thanks, for that case. I never read that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted May 20, 2003 Report Share Posted May 20, 2003 <blockquote>Originally posted by cybercrusaderWhoa, Swede. That was a lightning fast post. I felt the wind on that one.Thanks, for that case. I never read that one.</blockquote>LOL Bartlett v. Heibl is mentioned in the case that Bingo posted. Here's the link to the entire opinion on Sprouse. v City Credits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymous Posted May 21, 2003 Author Report Share Posted May 21, 2003 wow, that went way over my head. you guys make me feel like a blooming idiot. now i have some reading to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts