Jump to content

Debt Valdidation ? what if it is over 30 days?


judsonford
 Share

Recommended Posts

The 30 day clock begins from the point you received their initial letter. So how do they prove when you got it? Unless they used a trackable mail service, they can't.

If you word your DV letter to say "This is in response to your initial communication received by me on xx/xx/xxxx" and the date is within the 30 day period, they pretty much have to accept that date as when you got it, barring any proof they have contrary.

Yes, there is established case law about postal delays. But in every case, it is a rebuttable presumption of delivery. That means you can argue when you got it. The postal service is not infallable and that is evidenced by the many news reports over the years showing mail being delayed by weeks, months, or even years due to mishandling of the mail. Heck, I had a piece of mail (a bill) take 25 days last month to arrive at my house past the postal cancellation date on the envelope...and that one came from just 120 miles away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of you that don't understand what a rebuttable presumption is as it is understood in the realm of jurisprudence, allow me to give you an example.

You are a married male and your wife gets pregnant and gives birth to a child. You know with absolute certainty that you're not the childs father because 1)You've had a vasectomy. 2)You can't get an erection with a truckload of viagra. 3)You haven't slept in the same bed or had sex with your wife for 2 years.

You divorce your wife. Your wife requests child support from you because you make a million dollars a year and the real father is a deadbeat.

Guess what? The law presumes you are the father because you were married to her when she became pregnant. You can stand in court all day and state till you're blue in the face that you're not the childs father and she hasn't proved that I am (ie; you never got the letter).

Guess what? You'll be paying child support because the law must presume you to be the childs father.

The law must presume, however you are allowed the opportunity to rebut that presumption with credible proof. Such as a DNA test.

A rebuttable presumption is a larger matter than just "he said, she said," as is being suggested. It is quite simply a matter of "guilty until proven innocent," and the burden of proof is yours.......not your wife's.

If a CA can show standard mailing practices are in place, the law presumes you received any letter they send shortly after it was mailed. You would need credible proof to rebut that presumption.

Your 30 day clock begins upon that presumed receipt of the letter they show was mailed.....not whenever you choose to decide to request it because you state "I never got the letter, prove I did."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry E.Normis, but when was the last time you litigated a case, pro-se?

Civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence. And hearsay is never prima facie true or presumed true when faced with objection.

The CA has no more proof than the consumer regarding when an article was mailed unless the CA has an individually numbered postal receipt matching the article mailed. Their own records are not admissable evidence because it is within their control to tamper with.

So the CA has no prima facie evidence that the article was mailed when they say they did. If they used bulk mailing, and most do, there isn't even a post-mark on the envelope or a list of addresses sent to.

Cripes. I've caught at least 3 CAs backdating letters over the years to make them look like they were mailed longer ago than they really were. Busted each and every one of them. They all played the same game you say here, all it took was tearing down their chain of evidence to show it was within their ability to alter and poof, their "evidence" is trashed.

Incidently, I must say this. I *have* litigated 9 pro-se cases on my own behalf against CAs when my credit was trashed in an identity theft problem years ago. I've also handled 12 pro-se cases litigating in circuit court against the City of Chicago for various bogus citations over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. E. when you say its presumed. however in the real world. out of the 16 neg tadelines i had 9 month ago. Just 2 remain. (student loans). the negs were disputed once i first noticed all of them on my credit report ( i guess i just never noticed the baddies before). I DV the CA based on I just found them and they never contacted me. 3 companies sent back letters saying they mailed me letters before and dont have to validate. I replied with my intent to sue letter for contacting me again before validation. One company fought me for another lettter before saying sorry. and the other 2 just sent me a copy of the bullseye to remove. Thank god for certified mail, and not backing down. So although i agree with your words, the real world results are all i care about. Oh ya, and in doing it this way. By them deleting and saying sorry, they admit they did wrong, and so i did not give my rights to sue them for thier violations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That statement, however, would indicate you have no real legal knowledge.

So managing a law department at a bank for 5 years and another 5 at a major corporate law firm with 550 lawyers is no real legal knowledge, eh? I suppose my ARMA-CRM certification means I don't know diddly about law then, too? My job for a decade was policing the lawyers to make sure they didn't break the law. I got out of the field because it was a daily stress. (lawyers tend to think they are above the law)

So what's your legal background E.Normis? ...you dodged that question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what's your legal background E.Normis? ...you dodged that question.

This one time......at band camp.....I had to go to the bathroom real bad.....so I stopped at a house.....and it turns out that a Supreme Court Justice once used the same bathroom.

Personal attacks are uncalled for and benefit no one. It would be best for everyone if the content, rather than the poster, is the subject of differing opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personal attacks are uncalled for and benefit no one. It would be best for everyone if the content, rather than the poster, is the subject of differing opinion.

No personal attack in my question at all. I'm asking if you can validate your claimed experience. Consider it a request for info from a board mod.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No personal attack in my question at all. I'm asking if you can validate your claimed experience. Consider it a request for info from a board mod.

I enjoy the debate...however back to topic, my son as two CA reporting that HAVE never sent ANYTHING to him nor have they pulled his reports. He found them when he pulled his yearly free reports.

*I* think some CA skip the dunning letters knowing the consumer can't prove the CA did not send it. Think of the postage saved by not sending those letters.

JMHO

plaudit

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.