LVNV-Resurgent-Cocktail Napkin Validation

[MotivatedFocus]

I started disputing/ asking for validation form LVNV in September. I just received a letter from Resurgent Capital Services today with "validation."

The letter states:

"Dear Motivated:

RE: Account: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Thank you for you recent inquiry regarding this account. Enclosed please find an original validation of debt that verifies this debt.

We have taken the necessary actions to ensure you will receive no further communications from Resurgent Capital Services, LP. If you have any question please contact....required 30-day, mini-miranda, etc."

That's it. Strange.

The "validation" is just a separate PLAIN WHITE piece of paper, not letterhead, that looks like this.

Validation of Debt <-it actually says exactly this.

December 4, 2007

MotivatedFocus

Account number XXXXXXXXXXXXX for Motivatedfocus acquired from HSBC is now owned by LVNV Funding LLC.

At the time the account was required from HSBC, HSBC advised that the balance owing was XXXXXX. As of the date of this letter the balance owed is XXXXXXX which includes XXXXX of interest.*

*Please note that adjustments made within the past 30 days may not be reflected in the above mentioned current balance."

The paper has no identifying information and that is the entirety of it. It's a plain white sheet of paper that says what is above. If this is validation, I'm going to get 1000 sheets of 8X11 white paper and start collecting.

That's it!?!I asked for the whole enchilada per Federal statute, State requirements and months later their collection agency provides this nonsense. I should write what they owe me in FCRA, FDCPA, State violations on a cocktail napkin in the same format.

Now, WTF is this?

"an original validation of debt that verifies this debt."88-)

Does this mean this is all they have? What the heck does the above mean?

and...

"We have taken the necessary actions to ensure you will receive no further communications from Resurgent Capital Services, LP.":?:

"HSBC advised that the balance owing" They "advised?"

What about LVNV? They are still reporting. They are who I asked for validation. This is an obvious attempt to skirt their obligations. LVNV isn't going away, so what are they up to?

How would you respond?

[zfire]

Back when I first started this mess, had a very similar

"verification" arrive in the mail on one I had disputed with a JDB

for my daughter.. Actually I think it was LVNV scum now that I think

about it.

I just fired a letter back stating this was not verification, and unless

they had what was required, (which I listed for them) that they had (by law) to delete it. What was really strange was I had sent that original out to two of their addresses...because I wasn't sure which one......and I heard from both of them. One said they would investigate and get back to me..(her)

but they never did.

When they say they were advised..........they are lying through their little piggy teeth. They more than likely got that debt in a pile of stuff for about a penny or two on the dollar. Doublt anyone advised them of anything.

I must stress that I wrote a very hateful and firm letter, and though I didn't mention ITS, they must have got the drift, because it went away real fast.

So, not giving advice, but I personally would challenge what they sent, were it mine. z

[MotivatedFocus]

Yeah, I'm obviously planning on challenging it.

The thing is, I can't understand why they would put this on a plain white piece of paper. I'm wondering what their motivation is.

I may sound like a paranoid lunatic, but hear this out.

I'm wondering if they sent bogus validation on a plain white/unidentifiable piece of paper to buy time. Perhaps if it goes to court, I sue them/they sue me, they'll say that they did obtain and send validation and I'm dishonestly denying they obtained it/sent it. Then when I show this plain white piece of paper, they say, "That isn't something we provided. I don't know what he did with what we provided. I don't know what this is." At this point, they might be able to come up with more or fabricated validation and claim it was sent in this recent communication. The communication and plain white paper "validation" is just so weird...I figure they have to have a reason to send it this way.

[merkurfan]

They sent it because...

1) they can claim they sent you "validation" and continue to collect.

2) they hope your not as smart as you are and will fall for it.

3) it's standard op for LVNV/Resurgent/Sherman companies.

[secondchances]

I too sent a request to LVNV for validation. I received a letter back from Resurgents saying that it was being investigated. Then I get a letter from Capital Management saying that Resurgents has engaged them to collect. I sent a DV to them and have not heard back yet. I am trying to figure out my next move.

Keep us posted on your situation.

[TTigggers]

O great these idiots are on my report too. I think mine was an old Sears acct but not sure. Maybe I should send them a blank piece of paper and call it a Dv letter then tell them that they never replied to my DV letter. I think I will wait to see what happens here before I send them my DV letter.

[jetscarbie]

It's like an endless circle of LVNV companies. Just make sure that y'all keep DVing ever single company that comes in. Save all paperwork, DV's, green cards, and envelopes they send papers in.

I went through about 9 LVNV companies then it got to Palisades/Hawker/Javitch Block and Rathbone. Palisades sued me first but I don't guess they told the other 2. Then Hawker sued me through Javitch. But they still didn't tell the others.

It's pretty funny when one company is suing you twice for the same debt. That case got dismissed with prejustice. The evidence I had helped a bunch.

[jennieb]

My goodness the LVNV merry-go-round is getting quite crowded these days! I've been going around & around with them for almost 2 years now & reading what everyone else wrote makes me think there are others out there living my life!

My last round with Resurgent Capital was almost an exact renactment of the first time - they send a letter, I send a DV CMRR, they send a letter back saying they're investigating & will get back to me as soon as they receive the media from LVNV. The second time was a comedy of violations on their part - calling relatives & passing themselves off as bank reps, telling the relatives all about the alleged debt including the amount, threatening the relatives with legal action, calling them after they were told not to call; calling my home after the first DV specifically told them all communication was to be through the USPS, discussing the alleged debt with an 8-yr old (how low can you go??) - it goes on & on. I sent them a letter detailing all of their violations as well as all the past correspondence that they sent me & I sent them. Anyway, I got the form letter that they're sending my request for validation to LVNV & will get back to me as soon as they receive it (I now have 3 of these form letters in my possession).

I have since learned that when you DV any of the LVNV tentacles, you should DV Sherman as well as LVNV itself. If they try to farm it out to one of their divisions or law firms, it's continued collection & a violation. I've also learned to check the local court calendar because they usually win lawsuits because of nonappearance on the defendants' parts, not because of their skills as lawyers or because the debt is valid. They will try to poison your CR, but will trip themselves up, more often than not, because their staff is, for the most part, incompetant.

I would hold onto the "validation" they sent. I would DV LVNV again & tell them that the "validation" does not meet the legal standard. I would cc the Sherman Group as well as each & every subsiderary. I would then request an investigation by the CRAs. If you don't hear back from LVNV within 30 days, I'd write a ITS to LVNV & Sherman, saying they have 30 days to delete or you'll see them in court.

[CleverCynic]

I F'ing HATE LVNV and have been on a roller coaster with them, and only managed to finally get them completely removed from EQ only due to double reporting and differing information.

But realistically, those poor DV's don't do you any good unless you SUE, and they are pretty darn sure you're not going to. And they're usually right.

They don't have to delete by not giving you all the info you ask, all that does is tell you what they'll have in hand when they show up in court if/when you file.

[jasen]

I guess the good news is, this means they don't actually have any documentation to validate with. I think that would make them less likely to sue. And if they did sue, they end up having no proof that the debt is yours.

[HadEnough]

Since I found out about LVNV after I DVed Capital, I'm sending a letter to LVNV advising them that they've been DVed no matter what other 'office' of LVNV decides to engage me.

And therefore, any further attempt to collect without validation adds another

$$$ violation to my 'invoice' to them.

[foreclosureparalegal]

Debt buying is a fast-growing business in the U.S. Just because a debt buyer claims they are owed money from you in court or in a letter doesn't mean they are entitled to anything. Many of the debts they purchase are undocumented, not beyond the statute of limitations, or legally invalid.

If you are being dunned or sued by a debt buyer, it is important for you to understand your rights as a consumer. You may have a valid defense to the claim -- or you may have a claim against the debt buyer.

The Federal Trade Commission reported with regard to a lawsuit filed in 2004 that accounts enforced by the debt buyer may came from "consumers who never owed the original debt in the first place. Many consumers pay to get [a debt buyer] to stop threatening and harassing them, their families, their friends, and their co-workers." (http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/12/camco.htm)

Likewise, the Attorney General of Minnesota in 2004 sued two collection agencies that represent debt buyers. According to the Attorney General, the companies used illegal tactics such as ignoring written disputes filed by consumers to coerce those consumers into paying invalid debts.

Even if you know the debt is valid, you have the right to know that the debt buyer actually owns the debt. The debt buyer must be prepared to provide you with a copy of an assignment of the debt that specifically refers to the debtor by name, address, and account number. Also, beware: making even a small payment may revive the statute of limitations on an old debt which would otherwise be uncollectible.

Additionally, Equifax just DELETED LVNV reporting from my neighbor's file through a dispute -- and LVNV is suing her through an attorney. I helped her file an Answer with Affirmative Defenses and possible Counterclaims. They haven't pursued it.

[hmoney]

deleted

[gator944]

Motivated,

For documentation purposes, I would reply to them requesting the true validation you require. More importantly reference what they sent you. Call their attention to the questionable characteristics of their document in your reply letter, again, for documentation. Make sure you include a copy of it with your reply letter also.

That way if they take it the direction you are afraid of, you have a definitive paper trail of what was sent and what was not. Not to mention if it does go to litigation, your documentation and follow up appears so much better than theirs.