Validation/verification case law - 9th circut

[Big Time]

A debt collector posted this on their message board:

United States Court of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit

Linda L. Clark; Jerry V. Clark ( Plaintiff/Appellants )

v

Capital Credit & Collection Services Inc., an Oregon corporation;

Janine Brumley;

Jeffery Hassen ( Defendants/Appellees )

08/24/06

"The Clarks also argue that Capital ( a collection agency ) and Hasson ( collection agency's attorney in the original suit to enforce the debt ) failed to verify properly the alleged debt, violating sec. 1692g. As this contention is without merit, summary judgment was proper ( the Clarks had been provided itemized statements and supporting documentation ).

In Mahon v Credit Bureau of Placer County Inc. we described one way to provide proper verification:

The Credit bureau, when it received the ( verification ) request, promptly contacted the creditor's office, verified the nature and balance of the outstanding bill, learned that monthly statements had been sent from the creditor's office to the debtors for over two years, and established that the balance was still unpaid. The Credit Bureau then promptly conveyed this information to the debtors, along with an itemized statement of the account. ( F. 3d 1197, 1203; 9th Cir. 1999 )

Now, the Clarks urge us to hold that Mahon sets a standard below which a debt collector's verification efforts must fail. We decline to impose such a high threshold. Rather, we adopt as a baseline the more reasonable standard articulated by the Fourth Circuit in Chaudry v Gullerizzo ( 174 F 3d 394 4th Cir. 1999 ). At the minimum, "verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed." ( citing Azur v Hayter, 874 F. Supp. 1314,1317 N. D. Fla., affirmed 66 F 3d 342, 11th Cir. 1995 ).

In this case, the CA got statements from the OC sent to the consumer, which is much more than then the "yup, you owe it" validation that most CA's and JDB's resort to, but it looks like the appellant court was duped into beliveing the CA's version of the Cahudry case.

[direred]

Actually, it's apparent that the plaintiff's wanted the CA to jump through the same hoops that the CA in Mahon had (which really is an incredible ruling to read, really, even though the Mahons were dorks), and the 9th was pulling back from that rather than requiring the CA to prove (by audit trail) that they'd sent every single letter.

[Big Time]

Actually, it's apparent that the plaintiff's wanted the CA to jump through the same hoops that the CA in Mahon had

Excellent point. You can never blame the courts for not wanting to put up with any crap, from either side.

Seems like Chaudry was kind of a tool like that, also.