Can you demand validation after 30 days?

[Lecasbas]

I am new to debt collection activities. In the last few months I've received several demands for payment on debts over 3 years old. I simply ignored them, being ignorant of the FDCPA. I now am familiarizing myself with the FDCPA and have applied the 30 day rule to current requests for payment but one JDB has already filed 2 lawsuits in magistrate's court and in district court.

The 30 days has expired for this JDB for a request for validation. My thoughts are that I could send a validation request to them but they would simply say that they are not required to give validation according to the FDCPA since the 30 days has passed.

Is there some way I can cut to the chase instead of dragging the JDB all the way to Federal court?

[Recovering Attorney]

if you ave been sued, you are way passed the point where DV will do anything for you. Concentrate on the lawsuits

[Lecasbas]

I have brought Fields vs Wilber to the magistrate's attention but she simply said that that opinion came from the 7th Circuit court and that we are in the 8th. Then she asked me when I got my degree. She knew that I am pro-se and chose to ridicule my efforts to cite law. I can appeal and most assuredly expect the same justice from the district court.

That being said, it is your opinion that I must trudge through this "legalized crime" of the lower courts to receive fair treatment in the higher court?

[divemedic]

The problem is that small claims is no longer "The

people's court," instead it has become an arena for quick profits by JDB's.

[IHateCAs]

What did Fields v Wilber have to do with your collection suit?

You can demand whatever you want. Demand that they come remodel your house if you like.

They are not obligated to respond to a DV after the 30 days is up though.

[Lecasbas]

B. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e and 15 U.S.C. § 1692f

Even if attorneys’ fees are authorized by contract, as in this case, and even if the fees are reasonable, debt collectors must still clearly and fairly communicate information about the amount of the debt to debtors. This includes how the total amount due was determined if the demand for payment includes add-on expenses like attorneys’ fees or collection costs.

If this opinion does not support my case I would be interested to know why not. There are two more passages that I have already cited from this opinion that also, I think, support my efforts.

In response to the quote...I am diligently seeking out information to help my case. I had no idea I was expecting miracles.

[MountainDude]

If you've been sued, you need to figure out what proof they have through the discovery process.

You might want to try to find someone (legal clinic or lawschool library) where you can search Lexis or Westlaw to see if any Courts in the 8th Circuit have adopted the 7th Circuits Fields v. Wilber.

Be careful with your judge, you catch more flies with honey.

J

[IHateCAs]

If this opinion does not support my case I would be interested to know why not. There are two more passages that I have already cited from this opinion that also, I think, support my efforts.

Support your case how exactly? What is your claim?

[Lecasbas]

The magistrate's court I recently participated in had a one-page verification page which simply stated that I owed an x amount to a collection agency.

No one can be completely sure of the validity of a debt unless there is some form of documentation showing the debt at a zero balance accruing to its final balance.

This is my claim.

[divemedic]

Not true. All the CA must show is that they are collecting what the OC says is due, or that they can show how they arrived at the difference between what the OC claims and what the CA is collecting.

[Lecasbas]

I have included a dissected letter which supports my claim if you ask for DV within 30 days.

Because one of the principal purposes of this Section is to help consumers who have been misidentified by the debt collector or who dispute the amount of the debt, it is important that the verification of the identity of the consumer and the amount of the debt be obtained directly from the creditor.

Mere itemization of what the debt collector already has does not accomplish this purpose.

Sincerely,

John F. LeFevre

Attorney Division of Credit Practices

I have already referenced Fields v Wilber for after 30 days.

I simply do not understand why my claim does not hold water. Please humor me and give a reference which thwarts my claim.

[divemedic]

Your own cases support what I am saying. Your letter:

the amount of the debt be obtained directly from the creditor

Remember that the Fields case was about a CA claiming attorney's fees which were not a part of the original debt. Nowhere in that case do they say that the CA must show how every charge was placed there.

If a consumer disputes a certain portion of the debt, or if multiple debts are involved, an itemization may be required. See Graziano v. Harrison, 763 F. Supp. 1269, 1281 (D. N.J. 1991), rev’d on other grounds, Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F.2d 107, 113 (3rd Cir. 1991) (computer printouts, routinely accepted by insurers to verify claims and as the basis for making payments, provided consumer sufficient information concerning the amount of the debts, the services provided, and the dates on which the debts were incurred).

There is no concomitant obligation to forward copies of bills or other detailed evidence of the debt. Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394, 406 (4th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 891 (1999).

Nowhere could I find a single case that supports your contention that a CA needs to provide every statement ever produced on an account.

Think about this- a consumer has a credit card for 15 years and then defaults on it. Your contention would be that a CA needs to produce 180 credit card statements to prove that the OC had calculated the correct balance due, and then passed it on to the CA. That is preposterous.

[Lecasbas]

Here is an Iowa code which would refute your claim that a oc should not be required to keep records for 15 years

536C.7 BOOKS AND RECORDS. A person who issues credit cards shall keep such books, accounts, and records as will enable the administrator to determine whether or not the person is complying with the provisions of this chapter and chapter 537. The person shall not be required to preserve or keep their records or files for a longer period than three years following the date of the final payment. 91 Acts, ch 216, §21

If the OC keeps books in accordance with this code then the records are readily available. To not do so is against the law in Iowa.

Fields v Wilber stressed "unsophisicated consumer" may require more explanation. If a door is left open for assumption false impressions can be made about the debt.

An unsophisticated consumer could reasonably wonder why her bill was now $388.54, even assuming she had saved the original contract that specified she could be charged for attorneys’ fees. It would be difficult for such a consumer to understand how a relatively modest fee for services rendered had tripled in size. C’f Johnson v. Revenue Mgmt. C’orp., 169 F.3d 1057, 1060 (7th Cir. 1999) (“Unsophisticated readers may require more explanation than do federal judges; what seems pellucid to ajudge, a legally sophisticated reader, may be opaque to someone whose formal education ended after sixth grade.”).

Or, an unsophisticated consumer may have lost the bill and forgotten the amount of the debt completely. In this circumstance, the debtor (or the debtor’s spouse, or someone else paying bills for the debtor) might logically assume that she simply incurred nearly $400 in charges. By leaving the door open for this assumption to be made, Wilber’s letter was misleading because it gave a false impression of the character of the debt. It is unfair to consumers under the FDCPA to hide the true character of the debt, thereby impairing their ability to knowledgeably assess the validity of the debt. One simple way to comply with § 1692e and § 1692f in this regard would be to itemize the various charges that comprise the total amount of the debt.

Really, what is wrong with giving the unsophisticated consumer detailed billing. We get it all the time from the hospitals. They follow the law why don't the oc's and ca's.

The feed back that I have received is challenging. I welcome more

[divemedic]

I am telling you that won't work. If you try that tactic, you may be able to win, only if you accept settlement BEFORE you get to court. You go into a court room with that and you will lose.

I did not say that the OC didn't HAVE the records, I said that the CA is not required to furnish them.

Fields did not in any way say that the CA had to provide every statement ever written on that debt. Yes, it did say that the debt had to be itemized, but only because the CA added charges for attorney's fees to the debt after it was passed from the OC to the CA. Itemizing the charges is totally different from providing all of the account statements.

I too think that Fields is an important case, but do not make it into something it is not, or you will get yourself into trouble.

I am not going to continue this argument, because you have obviously made up your mind that you are right, and it is pointless to argue. Just remember that the law is what it is, and all the wishful thinking in the world will not make the law what we want it to be.

I would also point out that this entire discussion is moot, because your request for validation was not timely. They don't have to send you ANYTHING.

But you do what you want. Let us know how it turns out.

[nascar]

I'm going to step in a bit late on this but, the judge was right...

I have brought Fields vs Wilber to the magistrate's attention but she simply said that that opinion came from the 7th Circuit court and that we are in the 8th.

The 8th circuit is in no way bound by a decision from the 7th, or any other circuit for that matter. Whether or not Fields pertains to your case is moot. I read the initital post on this thread and am having trouble making a connection between Fields and timely validation myself. Subsequent posts seem to indicate that your question has more to do with how the balance was arrived at. If the CA won't provide that to you, I understand your frustration with the whole process.

The reference to the LeFevre letter means ZIP, NADA. Courts across the country routinely disregard FTC opinion letters.

The portion of Iowa code cited in a previous post seems to indicate a requirement to keep records only three years after last payment. Not sure how that equals a 15 year requirement.

Perhaps, structuring your request for itemized billing would be more successful if you alleged violation of I.C.A. 537.7103(4)(e)

"An intentional misrepresentation, or a representation which tends to create a false impression of the character, extent or amount of a debt, or of its status in a legal proceeding."

[SecretAgentWoman]

The problem is that small claims is no longer "The

people's court," instead it has become an arena for quick profits by JDB's.

Once again, I'm glad I live in Texas, the land of the civil rule of procedure that says no business corporation can use small claims.

[Lecasbas]

As I said in my beginning post, I am new to debt collection. I was pro se throughout probate proceedings for my mother and father but most of this legal stuff I am learning in the fly.

How do I find the information cited below

[

Perhaps, structuring your request for itemized billing would be more successful if you alleged violation of I.C.A. 537.7103(4)(e)

[MissaFraQ]

http://nxtsearch.legis.state.ia.us/NXT/gateway.dll/moved%20code/2005%20Iowa%20Code/1?f=templates&fn=default.htm

Scroll down until you reach section (4)(e) which states:

e. An intentional misrepresentation, or a representation which tends to create a false impression of the character, extent or amount of a debt, or of its status in a legal proceeding.