Debt repurchaser questions

[Tried]

Does a repurchaser of an OC's CO debt become the creditor upon ownership and so, not bound by the laws relating to CA's?

Does an "I don't belive I owe this debt" letter give a repurchaser the right to change the OC DOFD?

[IHateCAs]

Under the FDCPA (federal law) they are still a debt collector.

Under state law, it depends.

[nascar]

Under the FDCPA (federal law) they are still a debt collector.

Under state law, it depends.

OP, unfortunately you live in Florida. Florida looks upon debt purchasers as original creditors. That postion is currently being evaluated by the State Attorney's office. Hopefully, now that the elections are over and the new AG is in place, that decision will come sooner than later. I've been waiting for a decision for over a year.

[Tried]

Don't they still have to show the origional DOFD, in my instance it was 8/01. The debt was repurchased 12/02. No payment was made until it was paid off 11/06. The first contact I had was 9/06 offer to settle and I sent an "I don't think I owe / who owns this debt" letter. The repurchaser claims this reaged the debt and now show the DOFD as 10/06.

[nascar]

The repurchaser claims this reaged the debt and now show the DOFD as 10/06.

They are breaking the law by doing so.

[Ahntara]

"...repurchaser claims this reaged the debt..."

Exactly how are they claiming this?

"...show DOFD as 10/06..."

Are you sure they didn't just update to 10/06? Can you post the TL?

[direred]

The repurchaser claims this reaged the debt and now show the DOFD as 10/06.

This sounds like a false or misleading statement in an attempt to collect a debt.

[June]

Does a repurchaser of an OC's CO debt become the creditor upon ownership and so, not bound by the laws relating to CA's?

No. In the state of Florida, a Repurchaser or Assignee IS a Debt Collector or Collection Agency. Unless I am missing something. Also the CAs and OCs are bound by the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA).

Does an "I don't belive I owe this debt" letter give a repurchaser the right to change the OC DOFD?

No. the DOFD never changes from Original Creditor to CA to CA to Junk Debt

Buyer (JDB) to JDB, etc. No matter how many times the debt is sold,

transferred or assigned. The violators cannot change your payment

history or Re-age the debt. They must report the original DOFD

as the OC. Unless I am missing something.

TRIED, read the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act for yourself. In the state of Florida a CA is a Debt Collector. Unless I am missing something.

Chapter 559, Title 33, PART VI. CONSUMER COLLECTION PRACTICES

559.55 Definitions.--The following terms shall, unless the context otherwise indicates, have the following meanings for the purpose of this part:

(3) "Creditor" means any person who offers or extends credit creating a debt or to whom a debt is owed, but does not include any person to the extent that they receive an assignment or transfer of a debt in default solely for the purpose of facilitating collection of such debt for another.

(6) "Debt collector" means any person who uses any instrumentality of commerce

within this state, whether initiated from within or outside this state, in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another. The term "debt collector" includes any creditor who, in the process of collecting her or his own debts, uses any name other than her or his own which would indicate that a third person is collecting or attempting to collect such debts.

I am learning something new everyday. Any correction to my Message will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

[June]

Don't they still have to show the origional DOFD, in my instance it was 8/01. The debt was repurchased 12/02. No payment was made until it was paid off 11/06. The first contact I had was 9/06 offer to settle and I sent an "I don't think I owe / who owns this debt" letter. The repurchaser claims this reaged the debt and now show the DOFD as 10/06.

It's irrelevant as to when a debt is sold or transferred. The listing ("Paid Collection") should drop off your consumer report 8/2008 or 2/2009 the latest, depending on the CRA. No way should the debt be listed until 9/2013 or 3/2014. One more thing, never believe anything a CA says about your consumer rights or the law.

(Note: For NEW YORK STATE Residents: CRAs may NOT report "Paid Collections" that are more than five (5) years old).

To the Experts: I would appreciate any corrections to my Message.

Thanks!

[nascar]

No. In the state of Florida, a Repurchaser or Assignee IS a Debt Collector or Collection Agency. Unless I am missing something.

The current position of the Florida AG and the DFS is that a debt purchaser or assignee is "not collecting for another". I don't agree with this one bit, but that's the way it is being interpreting right now. They are of the opinion that since the debt buyer actually owns the debt, they are collecting for themselves and not for another. There are numerous cases (including one of mine) that are pending review by the AG, hopefully to revise that interpretation. As I indicated previously, I submitted a brief on this to the AG a year ago, and I'm still waiting.

[Methuss]

The repurchaser claims this reaged the debt and now show the DOFD as 10/06.

Ummm, no. Reaging is the return of an account to open, current status after three or more consecutive payments have been made under a workout agreement. Only the original creditor can do this. CAs cannot because they cannot return the account to open, current status...especially with credit card accounts.

[nascar]

CAs cannot because they cannot return the account to open, current status...

That's a great litmus test to use on every account with questionable dates.

[Tried]

This is the EQ TL

OC

Account Number: XXXX

Current Status: CHARGE-OFF

Account Owner: Individual Account.

High Credit: $0

Type of Account : Revolving

Credit Limit: $0

Term Duration:

Terms Frequency:

Date Opened: 05/1985

Balance: $0

Date Reported: 05/2002

Amount Past Due: $0

Date of Last Payment:

Actual Payment Amount: $0

Scheduled Payment Amount: $35

Date of Last Activity: 08/2001

Date Major Delinquency First Reported:

Months Reviewed: 99

Creditor Classification:

Activity Description: n/a

Charge Off Amount: $0

Deferred Payment Start Date:

Balloon Payment Amount: $0

Balloon Payment Date:

Date Closed:

Type of Loan:

Comments: Account transferred or sold,

Charged off account

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2002 90 120 120 *

2001 * 30 * * * * * 30 30 30 60 90

Repurchaser

Account Number: XXXX

Current Status: COLLECTION ACCOUNT

Account Owner: Joint Account

High Credit: $1,559

Type of Account : Open

Credit Limit: $0

Term Duration:

Terms Frequency:

Date Opened: n/a

Balance: $3,530

Date Reported: 11/2006

Amount Past Due: $3,530

Date of Last Payment:

Actual Payment Amount: $0

Scheduled Payment Amount: $0

Date of Last Activity: 10/2001

Date Major Delinquency First Reported: 10/2006

Months Reviewed: n/a

Creditor Classification: Retail

Activity Description: n/a

Charge Off Amount: $0

Deferred Payment Start Date:

Balloon Payment Amount: $0

Balloon Payment Date:

Date Closed:

Type of Loan: Factoring Company Account (debt purchaser)

Comments: Consumer disputes this account information,

Collection account

No 81-Month Payment Data available for display.

[IHateCAs]

That 10/2006 date for date major del first reported is a big no-no.

[divemedic]

It does not matter whether FL law treats a JDB as a DC or not. 559.72 states:

"In collecting consumer debts, no person shall:"

[Tried]

I looked at 559.72 FL Statute and didn't see anything about reaging, it just speaks to the communication restrictions.

I filed a complaint with the FL AG Office and the response was that repurchasers are not regulated in FL with a link to FTC, the FL Bar and repurchasers state AG Office.

I was informed of the reaging by phone (not recorded by me and we all know how conveniently they record).

I do have a legal recording of the conversation (several days after the check was cashed 11/06) when the rep agreed the TL would be removed from all CRA's and a confirmation letter for zero balance would be sent within 30 days of receipt of the payment. In the same conversation I inquired of the other party on the account since the TL now shows as joint and was told that it was not a joint account.

Nothing since, no deleted TL's, no letter.

[nascar]

I filed a complaint with the FL AG Office and the response was that repurchasers are not regulated in FL

That's because they aren't. It's not right; I don't think that's how the statute was intended; but that's the interpretation they're using down there. 559 is worthless.

[nascar]

It does not matter whether FL law treats a JDB as a DC or not. 559.72 states:

"In collecting consumer debts, no person shall:"

I just received this today in an email from the Attorney General's office ...

The organization with which you are concerned may be a debt repurchaser, as described in the below links. Debt repurchasers are not regulated in Florida. You may wish to contact the FTC's Consumer Response Center toll free at (877) 382-4357 or online at www.ftc.gov if you wish to file a complaint against a debt repurchaser, or need additional information.

What a load of crap.

[June]

I looked at 559.72 FL Statute and didn't see anything about reaging, it just speaks to the communication restrictions.

See, Florida Statute 559.72 Prohibited practices generally. In collecting consumer debts, no person shall:

5) Disclose to a person other than the debtor or her or his family information affecting the debtor's reputation, whether or not for credit worthiness, with knowledge or reason to know that the other person does not have a legitimate business need for the information or that the information is false;

IMO, Re-aging may be considered as disclosing false information to the CRAs and to others.

I think I see what the SAG is doing here. His office does not wish to deal with

hundreds or even thousands of consumer complaints about CAs, JDBs or "Debt Repurchasers" (DRs) (their newly created term). But as someone had posted, it does not matter what they are called, because the Florida Statute clearly states "no person."

So state regulated or NOT, consumer complaints acccepted by the Florida SAG or NOT, all persons; the OCs, CAs, JDBs and the DRs may still be sued under 559.72 for violations.

[Tried]

I guess the little peanut was just spinning from all the info. It's so annoying and all consuming to try and deal with the industry as a whole. I guess I'll try to send it back to the FL AG with the statute attached.

I am considering going to court with this DR and their Atty (who have the same address, Hmmm).

[nascar]

So state regulated or NOT, consumer complaints acccepted by the Florida SAG or NOT, all persons; the OCs, CAs, JDBs and the DRs may still be sued under 559.72 for violations.

I would sure like to think that statement is correct. The response I got from the AG on that indicates that the term "person" in the statute refers to persons who fall under the coverage of the statute. A lawsuit against one of these "debt repurchasers" would likely be dismissed for failure to state grounds for which relief can be granted, since they are not regulated by 559 or the definitions contained therein.

It's interesting to speculate on this, but it would be nice to hear from someone out there who has actually prosecuted a successful 559 case against a "debt repurchaser" in Florida. Do we have anyone?

[divemedic]

In this case, the AG is incorrect. The legislature had plenty of opportunity to refer to debt collectors as debt collectors in this statute. In order to support this position, one must assume that it was the intention of the legislature to allow persons who are NOT operating as a consumer collection agency to threaten force or violence, simulate that they are law enforcement officers, communicate false information about debtors, claim illegitimate debts, use profane and obscene words, and other outrageous behavior.

In fact, the statute soecifically defines repurchaser by excluding certain enteties from registration as collection agencies:

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

I am not alone in this opinion. The courts support it as well:

The FCCPA seeks in part to protect Florida consumers from the illegal and unscrupulous practices of debt collectors and other persons. See, e.g., Coastal Physician Serv. of Broward County, Inc. v. Ortiz, 764 So.2d 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); F.S.A. § 559.72. Section 559.72(9) of the FCCPA prohibits any person in collecting consumer debts from, inter alia, attempting to enforce a knowingly illegitimate debt or knowingly asserting the existence of some other legal right when such person knows that the right does not exist. Although Defendant is incorrect that the Plaintiff must allege that the Defendant is a "debt collector" in Order to state a cause of action under the FCCPA, Count V still fails to state a cause of action for a violation of the FCCPA.

Pursuant to Florida Statute § 559.72, "in collecting consumer debts, no person shall . . ." engage in the prohibited collection practices delineated in the statute. Therefore, it seems as though Florida law is not restricted to consumer collection agencies and provides greater protection to consumers than the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

GMAC cannot be considered a "debt collector" under sections 559.55(6)(a) and (f). Still, Schauer maintains GMAC would still qualify as a "person" otherwise subject to the Act under section 559.72, Florida Statutes (1999). That section provides that "in collecting consumer debts, no person shall . . ." The statute goes on to list certain prohibited acts or practices. <snip> While the Act does not define the term "person," it is not restricted to debt collectors. It also mandates that no person shall engage in certain practices in collecting consumer claims whether licensed by the division or not. This court has held that this language includes all allegedly unlawful attempts at collecting con-sumer claims. Williams v. Streeps Music Co., 333 So. 2d 65, 67 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); accord White v. Fed. Fin. Corp., 379 So. 2d 136, 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). As we hold GMAC qualifies as a person under the Act, we reverse dismissal of this count.

[nascar]

Dive, this is excellent stuff. Thank you!

[Tried]

FL Statute 559.55 Definitions.--The following terms shall, unless the context otherwise indicates, have the following meanings for the purpose of this part:

(3) "Creditor" means any person who offers or extends credit creating a debt or to whom a debt is owed, but does not include any person to the extent that they receive an assignment or transfer of a debt in default solely for the purpose of facilitating collection of such debt for another.

Seems to me as "Creditor" includes a repurchaser because that "or to whom a debt is owed." The exclusion for "the purpose of facilitating collection of such a debt for another" does not apply since they are not assisting another, they own the debt.

I might have to agree that the FL AG is sitting on their hands on this one.

[Methuss]

"(3) "Creditor" means any person who offers or extends credit creating a debt or to whom a debt is owed, but does not include any person to the extent that they receive an assignment or transfer of a debt in default solely for the purpose of facilitating collection of such debt for another. "

By this definition it expressly says a JDB is not a creditor. Note the part that says it "does not include any person...that they receive [a]...transfer of a debt in default."

That means a JDB is not a creditor on its face even though they "own" the debt.