Proof in statement please read

[schellmis63]

I am looking for proof in my state that even if a collection ageny buys a debt they are still the collector not the OC

Is this what I am looking for?

(225 ILCS 425/3) (from Ch. 111, par. 2006)

(Section scheduled to be repealed on January 1, 2006)

Sec. 3. A person, association, partnership or corporation acts as a collection agency when he or it:

(a) Engages in the business of collection for others of any account, bill or other indebtedness;

( Receives, by assignment or otherwise, accounts, bills, or other indebtedness from any person owning or controlling 20% or more of the business receiving the assignment, with the purpose of collecting monies due on such account, bill or other indebtedness;

© Sells or attempts to sell, or gives away or attempts to give away to any other person, other than one registered under this Act, any system of collection, letters, demand forms, or other printed matter where the name of any person, other than that of the creditor, appears in such a manner as to indicate, directly or indirectly, that a request or demand is being made by any person other than the creditor for the payment of the sum or sums due or asserted to be due;

(d) Buys accounts, bills or other indebtedness with recourse and engages in collecting the same; or

(e) Uses a fictitious name in collecting its own accounts, bills, or debts with the intention of conveying to the debtor that a third party has been employed to make such collection

[DSmithKMA]

The FDCPA defines what a collection agency is. The FDCPA is federal law.

This trumps any state law definition.

(6) The term "debt collector" means any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another. Notwithstanding the exclusion provided by clause (F) of the last sentence of this paragraph, the term includes any creditor who, in the process of collecting his own debts, uses any name other than his own which would indicate that a third person is collecting or attempting to collect such debts. For the purpose of section 808(6), such term also includes any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the enforcement of security interests. The term does not include --

(A) any officer or employee of a creditor while, in the name of the creditor, collecting debts for such creditor;

( any person while acting as a debt collector for another person, both of whom are related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if the person acting as a debt collector does so only for persons to whom it is so related or affiliated and if the principal business of such person is not the collection of debts;

© any officer or employee of the United States or any State to the extent that collecting or attempting to collect any debt is in the performance of his official duties;

(D) any person while serving or attempting to serve legal process on any other person in connection with the judicial enforcement of any debt;

(E) any nonprofit organization which, at the request of consumers, performs bona fide consumer credit counseling and assists consumers in the liquidation of their debts by receiving payments from such consumers and distributing such amounts to creditors; and

(F) any person collecting or attempting to collect any debt owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another to the extent such activity (i) is incidental to a bona fide fiduciary obligation or a bona fide escrow arrangement; (ii) concerns a debt which was originated by such person; (iii) concerns a debt which was not in default at the time it was obtained by such person; or (iv) concerns a debt obtained by such person as a secured party in a commercial credit transaction involving the creditor.

[schellmis63]

so laments term means, they are not the OC even after buying the debt

right?

[schellmis63]

Here is another question

I did not recieve a dunning letter, now this coudl be one reason why? If they are not licensed to collect, would that be reason to sue? Am I picking at straws here,, I am figuring this could be why I never recieved on,, they did not want to violate any FCDPA rules. But now suit against me is a violation but them hoping that they could get a default judgment,, so actually this is calling my bluff

[LadynRed]

IF they are not licensed in your state to collect, you can definitely use that against them.

They will always wiggle out of that '1st contact' letter requirement. The law says they don't have to prove they sent you one, they only have to prove they have the procedures in place as a normal part of their business and as part of that process is they send the letters.

[schellmis63]

Update about Unifund! I recieved a letter from the ATG and they already have a action against Unifund. I smell big trouble for them. Unifund knowing this I cannot believe that they would show their face in court. Can I bring that letter from the ATG to court? Would this letter be permissable?

[Recovering Attorney]

I would bring the letter to court. it i snot admissible but I'd wave it in front of their lawyer.

[Recovering Attorney]

remember, here is the applicable language: A debt collector does not include: any person collecting or attempting to collect any debt owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another to the extent such activity (iii) concerns a debt which was not in default at the time it was obtained by such person.

If Unifund bought a charged -off debt, they cannot assert they are protected by the FDCPA as an OC. They would have to produce documentation that says they purhased your debt for value at a time it was not in default. Doubt they can do that!

[schellmis63]

it will be my pleasure to waive that letter infront of their lawyer! I am rather excited about my court date. The judge seems to be well up on the law. I also have a notorized copy from our state showing their revocation of license. Since I could not get my motion to dismiss at that time the judge however did look at my copy of revocation of licensed and mentioned to me to make sure that it was notarized, i pointed out to the back of it,, that it was.. he said good. See you in court!

I feel good and will get back with my results

Thanks for all the tips.

[Recovering Attorney]

leadhead got 6K based on other circumstances, among them being the other side's not wanting to lose at trial or spend attorney's fees to lose at trial.

[Leadhead]

leadhead got 6K based on other circumstances, among them being the other side's not wanting to lose at trial or spend attorney's fees to lose at trial.

Hi Recovering,

My win was in no small part due to you and the other board attorneys calwyer, and 2002tj.

Big thanks!!

Short story of it. A CA continued reporting a debt that wasn't mine after I disputed it with the CRA's, continued collection activities after DV, and obtained multiple copies of my report. I sent them discovery, which they ignored, so I filed a Motion to Compel Discovery. Judge ruled for me and basically said to the CA's attorney to settle, which we did. I wasn't greedy in asking for $6K and they knew they'd spend a lot more defending the action, as well as the real probability I'd win at trial.