Jump to content

Debt Validation at its best


Recommended Posts

:x

I wrote to Alegis Group a CA requesting debt validation. They responded by sending me an affidavit explaining that the debt was purchased by Sherman Acquisition from BANK OF AMERICA.

furthermore their letter includes a statement;

verification of debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed; the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the debt. There is not concomitant ( :?: ) obligation to forward copies of bills or other detailed evidence of the debt.quote]

can someone please tell me what the HELL they are talking about :!::x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

obligation to forward copies of bills or other detailed evidence of the debt

I guess that they want you to wait until they file suit and you can go through the discovery process. They are a bunch of nincompoops. Sounds also like they do not have anything to send to you to verify anything about anything. Alegis is part of Sherman just in case you didn't know, one of their entities. Make sure you read those letters you get from them front & back...fine print. They are not to be trusted. :twisted:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:x

I wrote to Alegis Group a CA requesting debt validation. They responded by sending me an affidavit explaining that the debt was purchased by Sherman Acquisition from BANK OF AMERICA.

furthermore their letter includes a statement;

verification of debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed; the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the debt. There is not concomitant ( :?: ) obligation to forward copies of bills or other detailed evidence of the debt.quote]

can someone please tell me what the HELL they are talking about :!::x

That's easy, send an ITS for the 3 blatant FDCPA violations and demand $3000, the debt be nullified and the accounts deleted from your credit reports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, wait, wait.

If you saw luperu's other post, you'd know not to tell him that....he's not ready for suit quite yet. And he's only sent one DV to this CA...that's NOT enough to go on quite yet.

Luperu, you need to do a LOT of reading and a LOT of research. There are tons of threads on this board about Sherman and their "affidavit". You need to write Sherman back and tell them that you are disagreeing with the affidavit and would only accept info from the OC. (If you don't disagree/dispute that affidavit, they can use it in court as an account stated because you didn't disagree)

Don't go file in small claims again because you'll end right back up on the board with us saying "oooh, you shouldn't have done that yet...dimiss and refile in federal" again.

You need more violations than this, too...which you'll get. Take your time and get more dirt on them. And, for pete's sake...do a LOT of research. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read the letter guys! It says "verification" and that's what they did. They called the creditor and the creditor demands that was what was owed. So, did they not "verify" the debt? (The amt. claimed) However, what was requested was "validation" and they clearly sidestepped that issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Wait, wait, wait.

If you saw luperu's other post, you'd know not to tell him that....he's not ready for suit quite yet. And he's only sent one DV to this CA...that's NOT enough to go on quite yet.

Luperu, you need to do a LOT of reading and a LOT of research. There are tons of threads on this board about Sherman and their "affidavit". You need to write Sherman back and tell them that you are disagreeing with the affidavit and would only accept info from the OC. (If you don't disagree/dispute that affidavit, they can use it in court as an account stated because you didn't disagree)

Don't go file in small claims again because you'll end right back up on the board with us saying "oooh, you shouldn't have done that yet...dimiss and refile in federal" again.

You need more violations than this, too...which you'll get. Take your time and get more dirt on them. And, for pete's sake...do a LOT of research. :D

with all do respect to you and this forum I don't apprecaite you making it seem like I don't know what I am doing. As a matter of fact I got MIDLAND CREDIT AND THE ORIGINAL CREDIT OFF MY CREDIT REPORT because of the very information I read on this very board and all the questions I asked Kristy Im sure I got on her nerves asking so much stuff I do do my research and asked questions before I file in court I just figured small claims is a good place to threaten them that I mean business and as you can see in most cases it has worked again thanks to this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, legally there is not really a difference between using the words verification and validation. They are just the words we have chosen so there is less confusion between what the CRA does and what the CA does.

I know this will generate alot of comments, but I think there is quite a bit of confusion on this. If you go into court and try to claim a company verified, but did not validate, the judge will not have any idea of what you are talking about.

That being said, if this CA is sending you this affidavit it is beatable. There have been 10 or more threads on this in the last week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VERIFYPronunciation: 'ver-&-"fI

Function: transitive verb

Inflected Form(s): -fied; -fy·ing

Etymology: Middle English verifien, from Middle French verifier, from Medieval Latin verificare, from Latin verus true

Date: 14th century

1 : to confirm or substantiate in law by oath

2 : to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of

synonym see CONFIRM

VALIDATE

Pronunciation: 'va-l&-"dAt

Function: transitive verb

Inflected Form(s): -dat·ed; -dat·ing

Date: 1648

1 a : to make legally valid b : to grant official sanction to by marking c : to confirm the validity of (an election); also : to declare (a person) elected

2 : to support or corroborate on a sound or authoritative basis <experiments designed to validate the hypothesis>

synonym see CONFIRM

Listen to Dive folks.. he knows what hes talking bout

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.