Jump to content

Comacho V. Bridgeport Finanical - Sue CA after first letter?


Recommended Posts

Hi All,

Caught wind of this recent Fed. appeals case on another board and thought I would share....

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:oS6xHJ_KO6IJ:www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/33A495E6898F919B882570D5004DB39D/%24file/0417126.pdf%3Fopenelement+Camacho+V.+Bridgeport+Financial&hl=en

This basically says that if a CA's initial letter to you states that the dispute must be in writing... then the CA is in violation of FDCPA 1692g and 1692e. Although, this is just an affirmation of the district judges decision to reject BF's motion to dismiss. No other info on the outcome of Comacho's original suit against BF. I may be interpreting this wrong (definately not a law expert...), but, could this be used by debtors as a way to "attack first" if the CA's include that language in the initial letter?

-Trips4me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is only one violation. While it is true that the FDCPA is a strict liability statute, if you sue for every small violation, the judge may very well award you $1. The trick to winning here is to get enough violations to make yourself look like a victim in court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with divemedic. The significance of cases like Camacho and Snachez is slight. They mean you can orally dispute, but little more. If you read the footnotes, Camacho sought class action status, meaning the laintiff sought to magnify the wrong over a broad number of people who got the same letter. Even in a class action, the damages awarded a single debtor can be slight.

But knowledge is power, and yo can use Cmamcho to tell a CA that you find their letter violates teh law and that you will sue them if they keep after you. CC your AG and teh FTC. Sometimes this is enough to turn them away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. I just thought it was an interesting case reading.

Nice way of adding a new type of violation though to the usual list of other violations CA's tend to break. Definately not worth the filing costs though (especially Federal) if it is the only violation you have against a CA.

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.