Ronalddog

Your debt validation strategy has a flaw!!

Recommended Posts

I am a seasoned litigation paralegal and it seems that your debt validation letters will not win a judgment against a collection agency. According to the FDCPA 809(B) - you can only request validation thirty (30) after the collection agency has sent you a validation letter - thus you cannot write a validation letter and expect to sue in court.

Please prove me wrong - give me case cites of people who have sued and won.

Take a look at this in the case of Mahon v. Credit Bureau, Inc., 171 F.3d 1197.

We conclude the evidence established, without a genuine dispute of any material fact, that [**15] the Notice sent to the Mahons on September 21, 1995 was received by them shortly thereafter. They did not request verification of the debt to Dr. Bowen until June 5, 1996, almost nine months later. For their request to have been effective, it had to be made within [*1203] thirty days from the date they received the Notice from the Credit Bureau. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(3). The Mahons' tardy request for verification of the debt, therefore, did not trigger any obligation on the part of the Credit Bureau to verify the debt. Even if it did, however, the Credit Bureau, when it received the June 5, 1996 request, promptly contacted Dr. Bowen's office, verified the nature and balance of the outstanding bill, learned that monthly statements had been sent from Dr. Bowen's office to the Mahons for over two years, and established that the balance was still unpaid. The Credit Bureau then promptly conveyed this information to the Mahons, along with an itemized statement of the account. Although the Mahons did not request verification of the debt within the time provided by the statute, the Credit Bureau properly verified the debt anyway.

Therefore all the collection agency has to do is state that it sent the original verification letter to the debtor and then you will not have a right to sue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everyone who sends a validation letter expects to sue in court. I would think you would want to have the CA on several violations before suing.

CA's can rack up multiple violations of FDCPA and state laws regardless of when or if validation letter was sent.

You can sue for damages for violations of FDCPA without requesting validation.

Send the validation request within 30 days, and there should be no problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides validation is accomplished after the 30 days, some collection agencies do process these after the 30 days.

It is more to help the consumer understand billing issues before paying. And to prove that the debt is theirs, some of these are sent for ID Theft means, even though there are other methods for this part as well. Collection agencies have been known to back down if not sucessfully validating & in some cases - it is a wake up call for collection agencies that may have neglected to remove asigned debt should the original creditor had recalled the debt back to them.

So it serves many purposes here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of things:

I think the point is to NEVER fail to dispute within the 30-day period.

The verification system as described in the website at

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/rebuild/debt_validation.shtml

is flawed and misleading. It does not state the obvious fact that you must request validation within the 30-day period or you are done.

What I see on many of the posts giving advice is recommendations to send a verification letter on old debts that are two to three years old (i.e. ones past the initial 30-day verification period).

Obviously you have agreed with my point that you will not be able to sue. Therefore, what good does it do to threaten a lawsuit if your suit has no basis? Aren't the first and second verification letters useless since their whole basis is to threaten lawsuit? Where is the leverage against the CA?

Also I have noticed a couple of problems with the law as is has been adjudicated in federal court.

Case in point: You look at your credit report and you see an account from a CA you have never seen before. You dispute it and it comes back verified. What you do you then? Write a debt verification letter? All the collection agency has to do is prove that they sent you the original dunning letter and five day collection letter and you have no standing to sue using the verification letter. The proof is as easy as saying they have a system to send letters automatically. You are done with no way

Case no. 2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also what violations of the FDCPA could you possibly find without the verification letter?

If they are actively collecting on you after the 30 day period and you send a verification letter they will just ignore it. So you are just wasting $4.62 CMRRR everytime you send a letter.

Isn't the verification letter the crux of the entire credit repair advice given on this website?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

As a paralegal I would think that you would know MORE than what I have seen in your posts so far.

the FDCPA says in No uncertain terms that © 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.

Now.. I know you might have that court case that says you have to do it but there are FTC opinions that state otherwise. There are also State cases {Take a look at Spears Vs Brennan} that show that validation is a very important thing.

If you never lose your right to request validation ((if you arent admitting liabilty then you can dispute.. at least in my opinion.))

And if a CA doesnt send you a dunning letter certified then how can they prove they sent the first letter, or what if you moved, or what if your mail was destroyed???

I could just as easily tell a judge that I DID send a DV letter. I have no more proof that I did than they do.

CA's 9 times out of 10 will violate the FDCPA when you request verification..even if the debt is 1 yr or 100 years old. They dont know what they are doing and make mistakes that only put us at a better advantage.

I was not trying to bash you but as a paralegal I would think you would know how to play technicalities and angles better than what I have seen so far and know that CA's arent in the business to be good guys..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as for that loony 9th Circuit Mahon decision (only 1 of 3 decisions of theirs that has NOT be overturned, I might add), the Mahons did NOT lose because they failed to request validation in the initial 30-day period, their case failed for many OTHER reason, the topmost being that they hung their entire case on something that was entirely ridiculous ! Their continued insistance that they never got the letters and that the plaintiff couldn't PROVE they got them was doomed from the outset. They had resided at their address for many years and its a well-known precedent of law that when something is mailed via the US post office and you have had an established address, then it assumed that you DID receive it and the courts accept that ! They were on shaky ground from day 1 and their lawyer was, from what I can see, a complete idiot !!!

I would definitely NOT use any 9th Circuit case and if you're going to quote a case like Mahon, you should know better how to pick apart why they REALLY lost the case - it wasn't untimely demand for validation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also what violations of the FDCPA could you possibly find without the verification letter?

Too numerous to list, but here are some examples: http://www.pennlawyer.com/fdcpa.htm.

Debt validation is only one part of the FDCPA that contains many rights for consumers.

If they are actively collecting on you after the 30 day period and you send a verification letter they will just ignore it. So you are just wasting $4.62 CMRRR everytime you send a letter.

Read through this site thoroughly and you will see many instances of people sending DV with success long after 30 day period. Many CA's don't have a clue what the law is, or they are just stupid and lazy. $4.62 is cheap compared to some of the balances claimed by CA's.

Isn't the verification letter the crux of the entire credit repair advice given on this website?

No! Actually, I cant speak for Admin, but I have found that the exchange of ideas and total knowledge of credit repair on this site is enormous. Debt validation is a very useful tool, but only part of the big picture. I have a new credit card with $2000 limit that I would not have qualified for 6 months ago thanks to the info on this site, that had little to do with validation.

The system is not flawed because a section does not include all of the information you want or you disagree with that info. Again, read through the entire site and do research on other sites, and you will be overwhelmed with the knowledge available. Gather as much info as possible and put together a plan that works best for your situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If they are actively collecting on you after the 30 day period and you send a verification letter they will just ignore it. So you are just wasting $4.62 CMRRR everytime you send a letter.

This is ridiculous. The reason why CA's ignore validation letters is because they're either dumb or they don't have the proof! Besides, as a "seasoned litigation paralegal" you should have some idea that there are no guarantees in court. Therefore, wouldn't it make sense to honor a consumer's request for validation even after the 30 days have elapsed instead of purposely ignoring the request and potentiallly losing in a courtroom (say, in front of a bird brained small claims judge)? Get real!

Furthermore, I would think that a CA with proof would EAGERLY provide it to the consumer so as to facilitate the collection of the debt, REGARDLESS of when the DV request was made. Actually, this is what the smart CA would do. Mahon vs. Credit Bureau is usually cited (out of context) by the CA that doesn't have the goods.

I've cleaned my credit using the validation strategy posted on this website. Most of the DV letters I mailed were way beyond the 30 days.

Not one CA ever validated a debt.....this includes requests I made within the 30 days. If they had the proof, don't you think they would've sent it to me?

Luckily, I never had to sue. But, if I had to, I would've sued the CRA, not the CA. In the meantime, those CA's who ignored my requests lost out because they could not prove to me that I owed them money. And now the SOL ran out and so too did their chance of getting a judgment against me. Too bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys - I didn't come here to pick on you but to ask questions.

I would think that an adult conversation of the actual law and facts would help us all out immensely. I am trying to get everything out in the open where a novice can look at these posts and say "Wow - that really helped me."

Therefore please give me the authorities whether in federal law, California law or case law in federal or state court on the following contentions that I see several times throughout this site:

1. That a collection agency has to respond to your validation letter after the dunning letter and the 30-day period is up.

2. What protection do you have if the collection agency lies and said it sent the dunning letter and the validation notice with the FDCPA language?

3. That a lawsuit would prevail against a collection agency for not responding to a validation letter sent after the 30 day period.

4. How one would get the attention of an original creditor to force them to remove a erroneous entry off a credit report.

5. How one would get the attention of the credit reporting agencies to remove a erroneous entry of a credit report.

Be nice and lets discuss this fully without the abuse and obtuse comments eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Therefore please give me the authorities whether in federal law, California law or case law in federal or state court on the following contentions that I see several times throughout this site:

3. That a lawsuit would prevail against a collection agency for not responding to a validation letter sent after the 30 day period.

You will have to check your own state statutes, but statutes in Texas specifically state a CA must respond in 30 days.

4. How one would get the attention of an original creditor to force them to remove a erroneous entry off a credit report.

Check out the Fair Credit Billing Act http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/credit/fcb.htm that pertains to OC's and provides for correct reporting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I thought - more smoke and mirrors.

The reason I am trying to get you guys to give the actual law in this case is because if you sue in federal court and lose, you have to pay the other side's attorney's fees (which could be real big!!!)

Suing in small claims might not be a problem but it would be a waste of time to get there and find out you had no case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

1. That a collection agency has to respond to your validation letter after the dunning letter and the 30-day period is up.

Well if they ever took you to court and you had proof that you asked for all this and showed it to the judge, do you think the judge is going to just say Oh well, you asked for this too late? Some people do't realize that they have protection under the law. Some people think there is nothing they can do and some people dont even UNDERSTAND validation, let alone know they have to ask for all this stuff in writing. The burden of proof in a court case is on the Plaintiff in a case like this. They have to prove that they did everything the right way and provided everything they had to by law. Esp with the wording in the FDCPA that not disputing is not an admission by the consumer that this clears this up.

2. What protection do you have if the collection agency lies and said it sent the dunning letter and the validation notice with the FDCPA language?

What protection does the collection agency have if I say I DID send a validation letter to them and they ignored it?? This is a pointless question.

3. That a lawsuit would prevail against a collection agency for not responding to a validation letter sent after the 30 day period.

I dont think anyone ever said it was a sure fire way but they usually delete the entry once you show them you arent duped by the dumb CA. And if anyone DID sue in Small Claims over this it is not a court of record so nothing is going to show on this.

4. How one would get the attention of an original creditor to force them to remove a erroneous entry off a credit report.

Well that would be the FCRA

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

You send them an intent to sue letter. Worked wonders for me.

5. How one would get the attention of the credit reporting agencies to remove a erroneous entry of a credit report.

That would be the FCRA too. I dont think I need to post the entire thing here but ask Xanthos or some of the other guys here who have sued the CRA's and won for stupid things. How do you get their attention. YOU SUE THEM. You have every right under Federal Law to do so. If you want specific court cases that prove this then go to LexisLaw and do a search under the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals for FCRA. There are quite a few examples there. I believe one in particular is Kimber Vs (Some big Company)

I dont have time to do all these searches to prove these things because I am too busy countersuing a company but they are there....trust me.

Take a real good look at Spears Vs Brennan in the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like I thought - more smoke and mirrors.

The reason I am trying to get you guys to give the actual law in this case is because if you sue in federal court and lose, you have to pay the other side's attorney's fees (which could be real big!!!)

Suing in small claims might not be a problem but it would be a waste of time to get there and find out you had no case.

This is getting stupid now. I won't do all the research for you. If you think the whole system is flawed because of one sentence in the FDCPA then I don't think anyone here can help you. All I can say is my score is up 100 points in 6 months on Equifax using the info here. I have sent out DV letters to every collector, and although I haven't sued, I have them all on violations that I could sue for, and I use that as leverage for deletions. Works great for me. I was under the impression the legal profession was taught how to research case law. I would think working in that field you would have much more access to tools that allow you to find the cases you need to support your ideas. Have a nice day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked you to keep this cordial and you continue to belittle anyone asking substantive questions.

The whole point is if you do not dispute within the 30-day period and attempt your DV letter scheme you really don't have any violations. You cannot point me to the authorities because you don't have any.

I have done the research and there is little or no law on debt validation after the dunning letter and the 30-day validation request.

In law, if you cannot give the authority you are an idiot and wrong. The Spears case that you have referenced is completely not on point.

Go back to working at the 7/11 on and spreading your snake oil because you cannot prove that the DV letter scheme works. Stop giving out inaccurate and bogus advice. Take the time to document exactly what does work and why and you will win people over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, guess I am going to give a try. Please bear with me - I am not legally minded in these matters. Just that I have worked in the credit reporting industry and have been a member for sometime to get an over all feel for what this part has the potential of doing.

This really a complicated subject which I have but a few times stepped into, there are so many possible ways to run with this - so please bear with my ramblings here and just follow me along - ok,

I have looked over the FDCPA & I tend to agree that the verbage only addresses validation within the first 30 days of 1st communication, any thing after that is reaching for straws.

But that is why the DV letter makes mention to possible id theft it is a tactic to appeal to the collection agency to validate, but I don't see them being required to do so after the initial 30 days of 1st communication.

When making reference to ID Theft:

A creditor / collection agency does not have to give the consumer their time especially if the debt is over 2 years old because they already know the consumer has no legal ground on this part to prosecute the offending party, they can still pursue proving and disputing with the creditor / collection agency the fact of the matter though.

There was a case in the courts sometime back on making creditors accountable beyond 2 years, but the CRA won out on this matter stressing that they should not have to keep records further back in these matters and that 2 years should be sufficent to address ID Theft issues.

Ok, Now the FTC has just come out with their new report on stats regarding ID Theft. New laws are on the floor right now - re-visiting consumer rights. I know there will be some changes, but the report by the FTC is coming out just a bit late for the FCRA re-enactment coming up. So maybe they will add some provisions, because they have just gotten a real look at the seriousness of this problem finally!!!

Hopefully this will drive consumers rights to validation way after the 30 day mention in the FDCPA. Another thing to note:

© 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.

So - by this the consumer does still have grounds to try validation after the initial 30 days - just that it may have to go to court and request relief by the court to accomplish this.

And as I mentioned earlier - a consumer can still send debt validation prior to court, for the simple fact that some collection agencies will comply and not make an issue of the 30 day rule!!!

Anything in my view prior to court, is just posturing, and if you keep everything in writing you may gain documentation if you want to nit pick for violations to counter sue. But usually only if the collection agency or creditor pushes it that far to take into court. Otherwise for most people suing is just not going to happen. Extra work on their part, is good but mostly will come to not. It is still by every means recommended I do understand how important this is none the less.

Then even then, if you catch them on the details of not verifying properly with the CRAs to update or if they fail to note account in dispute --- this is just small beans. And on the subject of failure to validate and to bring this point up in court - especially if after the initial 30 days of 1st communication. You are just hoping that the creditor does not point this fact out and that it slides past the judge for him to grant you a stay until the creditor validates the debt. Then you get into picking on the interpetation of what is proper validation. Which I firmly believe does not nessesitate signed contracts because other reasonable means can show that you did actively use this account proving you were in the right place at the wrong time.

But the question here is what do you owe verses what you can gain, it may just be a toss up, that the judge rewards you payment on violations but you still owe the creditor what is due. So does the gains out weight the loss... or will you just take the judgement and not pay. Or try to negotiate at the last minute for settlement with out the filing. Which most likely at this point won't be accomplished from pissing the collection agency or creditor off.

The idea is to present the creditor or collection agency with the cards you have against them, let them know what could happen & you want to negotiate settlement with some conditions attached - namely not filing judgement and / or removal of existing tradelines. It can play so many ways - depending on the power struggle of who thinks they have the upper hand in the matter. CREDITOR CAN BE COWARD < JUST BY NOT KNOWING THE LAW, I have seen people here accomplish that time & time again. You really need to read the old boards to see what I mean.

Unfortunately we a missing some good members from months back that contributed greatly to this area. The board had some complications changing servers or some just accomplished what they came for and faded out over time. But do read the old board - you will most likely find legal references used in past posts.

My thoughts on this matter, is that sueing for not being able to validate or for FDCPA / FCRA violations is not the prime goal of credit repair - to try and make money, that is a side issue here.

I look at violations as being a tool to negotiate better credit ratings and reduced settlement offers! Don't throw the first punch - if the creditor takes you to court, then they just made the costly mistake. Use what you have at that time to counter their claims and hit them hard. That is the proper time to use it.

Otherwise if you never go to court, great!!! Cause you don't want to go there, the idea is to out run the creditor and wear them out. Only fight dirty if they want to take it there.

Very important to note: I have seen a few members here ---- accomplish making money outside of court through reverse settlements because the creditor did not want to fight, and rather pay to make the problem go away. So that way, is still a door open for profit.

Yes, there are some cases that the consumer is entitled to sue, I do acknowledge this... like when they can show damages & have real errors contained in the report. But to make creditors which they owe a target, that is not smart.

I am not an agressive person, I have seen a few members with the gumption and luck to accomplish exactly what I would otherwise see as a terrible odds. You have to be selective in weighting all pros and cons before picking your fights - it comes down to just that. Know when to fight, know when to walk away, and know when to run.

Credit repair is first / profit is second - the idea is to walk away with the best results. And remember each persons circumstances are different and will need fine tuning along the way. There is no set rules here, and new ideas are presented and used on a daily basis, you have tons of options always.

Most important to investigate and know what your needs are, if you are still within the statute of limitations and if you have the means to pay, should you take on fighting a creditor (that can accomplish validation). Each person has their own course to find here, no two cases are exactly alike in these matters. ok.

Thanks,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Go back to working at the 7/11 on and spreading your snake oil because you cannot prove that the DV letter scheme works.

Actually, I can prove to you that it works. Unfortunately, I would have to invite you over to my house and have you review my debt validation file along with my confidential credit reports from the past year.

I've also successfully defeated a CA and their attorneys in court and got $1,500 out of them to boot. Albeit, they sued me originally, but I countersued them for not providing me with validation, among other things. (No doubt, graduates of the we-won't-provide-any-validation-if-the-request-is-made-past-the-30-days school of collection just like you) They claimed to have mailed me their 1st communication 2 years prior to filing the suit. In other words I asked for validation nearly 24 months after the 30-day period had expired. Did I have no basis for filing a counterclaim? HARDLY. If I would've relied on your so called "seasoned" legal advice, I would've lost my case, no doubt.

And by the way, I can absolutely prove this too. Unfortunately again, I would have to reveal my true identity which I'm not prepared to do.

If there's anything that's flawed, it's your insistance that the strategy does not work because there is no basis for it in the law. Using that naive and shortsighted mentality, I could say that cheating on your taxes is not possible because the Internal Revenue Code expressly prohibits it. Does this mean that it doesn't happen or it's not possible?

The way you presented the information in your posts, I would have to agree with you. Any consumer who would file such a thin and shallow suit based soley on one violation such as the way you've described it (in Federal Court no less) deserves to lose. No one does that and that's part of the reason why you'll never find the legal proof you're asking for.

However, if you want to continue to say that the strategy is flawed and doesn't work, you are wrong......DEAD WRONG. In fact, I've been on this board for close to one year and the only one I've heard complain about the strategy is you. Let's see 1 complaint compared to 4,965 threads. I'd say that's a pretty damn good ratio, wouldn't you?

Come back doggy, when you know how the REAL WORLD works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Knock knock.. hello McFly..

Did you not see my responses to your post. I dont think my second response was all that mean or insulting.

We have told you OUR EXPERIENCE AND OUR SUCCESSES.

Why is it that you cant take that as something that works??

And the reason we cant find any case law on this is because 90% of CA's settle out of court on these kind of things.

I would think that as a "Seasoned Paralegal" you would know that settlement is always the best option instead of letting someone knock you on yer a&#036;&#036; in a court of law.

Now we can end this discussion here and end it on nice terms or you can continue to complain about something that has worked for almost every person on this board.

I think ending it sounds good..

how about you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I asked you to keep this cordial and you continue to belittle anyone asking substantive questions.

I thought I was being cordial until you made the "smoke and mirrors comment". I have tried to answer your questions, but you keep going back to that one section of the FDCPA. Go back to my first post where I stated it was my opinion that you should have multiple violations before suing and to be safe you should DV in 30 day period.

The whole point is if you do not dispute within the 30-day period and attempt your DV letter scheme you really don't have any violations. You cannot point me to the authorities because you don't have any.

I gave you a link to help you find the many violations other than DV. Harassment, abuse, mental anguish, calling employer when instructed not to, failing to cease and desist when requested, etc, etc, etc,......

I have done the research and there is little or no law on debt validation after the dunning letter and the 30-day validation request.

Then send it within 30 days. I already agreed with you on this point.

In law, if you cannot give the authority you are an idiot and wrong. The Spears case that you have referenced is completely not on point.

Go back to working at the 7/11 on and spreading your snake oil because you cannot prove that the DV letter scheme works. Stop giving out inaccurate and bogus advice. Take the time to document exactly what does work and why and you will win people over.

Look who's not being cordial now. I never called you any names.

You seem to have a problem with this site based on one small part of it. If you like, we can post links to other credit sites that have good information. You can go to those links to see if you can find the case law you need.

Once again, the majority of people here do not send out a DV letter and then go to court. I would bet that over 90% will never go to court to sue a CA. That is a very small part of the credit restoration process, which is different and unique to each persons credit repair process.

Good luck on your research.

BTW, I went back and reread the thread. The link you provide http://www.creditinfocenter.com/rebuild/debt_validation.shtml clearly shows section 809 (B) of the FDCPA in the text which outlines the 30 day validation period. And it is 809 (B) not 803 (B) as you stated. So, it appears that your research is flawed. Not this site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tone of the majority of your comments in response to my logical questions were insulting - I was just asking for direction and you insulted my professional competence numerous times.

Also it seems quite a few of you fail to answer questions fully and directly but seems to take out a small phrase and make outrageous comments and insinuations. Socrates would have been proud of the nonsensical remarks made by CyberCrusader and Pale Rider (and to a lesser extent Sky Warner).

You attacked me for asking the questions that you don't want to give the real answers to - mainly does Debt Validation after the 30-days have any basis in law to file a lawsuit upon. I don't really care to hear "how it has worked for you" unless I can see the evidence. I am reminded of the phrase "SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!" Why shouldn't I be skeptical?

I reject the argument that "gee, since Debt Validation has worked for me" (but and I can't prove it to you empirically because of privacy) and "Debt Validation has worked for over 4500 posts on this site" that it is actually based in the law (or it actually works). SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!!

Also another problem I see is there isn't anyone who actually documents their entire experience using the DV scheme - we just get bits and pieces.

But I have attempted the same scheme as it has been put on this site and with three DV letters, one CA withdrew the tradeline, the had the OC put the collection back on my account (this is not my account by the way). I wrote a letter to the OC threatening suit. The other two CA have not responded and I have just sent my second letter to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take a look at this in the case of Mahon v. Credit Bureau, Inc., 171 F.3d 1197.

We conclude the evidence established, without a genuine dispute of any material fact, that [**15] the Notice sent to the Mahons on September 21, 1995 was received by them shortly thereafter. They did not request verification of the debt to Dr. Bowen until June 5, 1996, almost nine months later. For their request to have been effective, it had to be made within [*1203] thirty days from the date they received the Notice from the Credit Bureau. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(3). The Mahons' tardy request for verification of the debt, therefore, did not trigger any obligation on the part of the Credit Bureau to verify the debt. Even if it did, however, the Credit Bureau, when it received the June 5, 1996 request, promptly contacted Dr. Bowen's office, verified the nature and balance of the outstanding bill, learned that monthly statements had been sent from Dr. Bowen's office to the Mahons for over two years, and established that the balance was still unpaid. The Credit Bureau then promptly conveyed this information to the Mahons, along with an itemized statement of the account. Although the Mahons did not request verification of the debt within the time provided by the statute, the Credit Bureau properly verified the debt anyway.

THIS CASE HAS NOT BEEN OVERTURNED AND IS UNIVERSALLY CITED. I verified using Shepards on Lexis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RONALDDOGG, WE DID'NT COME HERE TO BE PARALEGALS :!: NO ONE IS TRYING TO INSULT YOU,BUT YOU ARE VERY RUDE AND OBNOXIOUS. THERE ARE REPORTS ON THE BOARD ALREADY THAT PEOPLE HAVE GAVE WHEN THEY FIRST STARTED THEIR CASE THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO AND START IT ALL OVER FOR YOU. :!: IF WHAT WE TRY WORKS WHO ARE YOU TO KNOCK IT. YOU CAN CITE ALL OF THESE LOSING CASES THAT YOU WANT, BUT THERE ARE MANY WINNING CASES TOO :twisted: GOTO

and argue the point, if you can. You are only as good as you arguement, and if someone violates the provisions of the fdcpa repeatedly you have a right to sue them for blatantly ignoring the rules. I 'll not argue with you because that is not what this board is about. If you have some credit to repair, look through the board and see what you can use for a guideline to get help xrainx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we need to do here is back up a bit, we have a real good possibility here to step back and take a good look at this question.

I do believe we have some members here up to the task of searching for old posts on the old boards... looking for older members posts in the legal section over there... I do believe we are up to his question of providing proof. Least testemonies of when people did win cases.

The old board mind you had some problems, if you click on a link and find that you can't read it then, at the right is a follow up for printer version. If you click on this, chances are you can get the thread that had been posted. I don't know how to explain the glitch.. but it would be worth the time to extract and manually pull over here some of the good postings of this sort that are kind of lost right now.

I will think on this some more... this is not a bad thing, think of it as an assignment, we can do this. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.