Letter and Summons Complaint at Same Time?

[Justincase1]

I have had a few questions about my situation but, in reading a little further I'm wondering if this collector is in violation? I received what appeared to be a standard collection letter from a Law Office / Debt Collector with the standard "if I don't respond in 30 days they will consider this debt mine". Well 1 week later I received a summons / complaint which took away my right to defend myself through DVing.

[Recovering Attorney]

No, it doesn't take away your right, as ther eis no 30 day cooling off period, the creditor is always free to bring the action before you DV. You can DV and state that you expect they will cease furhter action on the lawsuit, but you are better served by answering and using broad discovery.

There may be other infirmities in the letter and papers from the lawyer. Go see a NACA lawyer

[Rick9972]

To answer your question about is it a violation. The answer is maybe. Really depends on which Court of Appeals you live in. Basically in Ga. if you get your dispute in prior to the filing of the lawsuit, then it could be held as a violation. If you live in a court district that give the FTC opinions any weight, then it is not a violation. (See below)

Also having a direct effect on the situation is if your District considers a complaint as initial communication or not.

The case of Anderson v. Frederick J. Hanna & Associates, 361 F.Supp.2d 1379, 1382-83 (N.D.Ga.2005), holding a debt collector liable for filing suit after receiving a debtor's dispute notice, is easily distinguished because the debt collector had sent the debtor an “initial communication”, to which Plaintiff responded by sending a notice of dispute seeking a verification of the debt, and the debt-collector law firm filed suit anyway. Id. at 1382-83 (debt collector violated FDCPA when it filed a lawsuit despite having received request for verification in response to its initial communication).

(Under the FTC's interpretation, a debt-collector attorney may take legal action even in the face of a dispute of the debt by the consumer; the attorney is restricted only from other collection efforts, such as letters or calls to the consumer. Plaintiff contends that the Law Office's service of process on him on July 24, 2003 (for the lawsuit filed on July 16, 2003) violated the FDCPA. Service of the complaint on Plaintiff was “legal action” within the meaning of Eleventh Circuit and Middle District precedent. See Vega, 351 F.3d at 1337; McKnight, 176 F.Supp.2d at 1306. Continuing the legal proceedings, as opposed to other collection efforts (phone calls, etc.) of which there is no allegation or evidence, did not violate the FDCPA as a matter of law.)

So now that everthing is confused, I would definately follow RA'S advice.