Do the JDB need to provide how much they paid

[dcs101]

for my debt. I sent 3 validation letters to 3 different lawyer offices all representing Collect America. The last one sent a copy of the last statement and the credit application from I had filled out. Is this enough? I want to know how much they paid for my debt. Do I have a right to know this and should I now be getting an attorney?

[nascar]

Do I have a right to know this and should I now be getting an attorney?

Generally, no. Although, that answer does not apply across the board 100%. Unless you are being sued and have some legal basis for acquiring this information, you generally won't be able to get it. You certainly don't have any basis for demanding the information under 1692g.

[swirlgirl]

I'm always intrigued by this. So, what if they paid $5. You still defaulted on the full amount. Are you going to offer $5 as settlement?

[nascar]

So, what if they paid $5. You still defaulted on the full amount.

You might have missed it, but I posted recently about a Kentucky statute that does not allow an assignee of debt to sue for anything more than what they paid for it.

I don't know of another state with a similar statute, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were a few more. It makes me want to research them all, but no can do.

Point is, if I lived in Kentucky and some JDB paid 5 bucks for it, I'd want to know about it!

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

...

I saw you post about KY but I think her point was that what someone “paid” for a debt doesn’t mean the full amount isn’t owned any longer which is what people seem to want to believe and/or use a rationalization for not paying a legitimate debt.

Certainly, how much they paid is nice information to have; especially so if the debtor is thinking of offering a settlement but (I guess with the exception of KY) it really doesn't impact how much is owed.

[AboveAverage]

I saw you post about KY but I think her point was that what someone “paid” for a debt doesn’t mean the full amount isn’t owned any longer which is what people seem to want to believe and/or use a rationalization for not paying a legitimate debt.

Certainly, how much they paid is nice information to have; especially so if the debtor is thinking of offering a settlement but (I guess with the exception of KY) it really doesn't impact how much is owed.

So when someone says JDB paid pennies on the dollar for your debt...how do you really feel? :rolleyes:

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

So when someone says JDB paid pennies on the dollar for your debt...how do you really feel? :rolleyes:

Oh I think there are plenty of posts with my name on them that explain pretty well how I feel about it.

[smurfette in nyc]

for my debt. I sent 3 validation letters to 3 different lawyer offices all representing Collect America. The last one sent a copy of the last statement and the credit application from I had filled out. Is this enough? I want to know how much they paid for my debt. Do I have a right to know this and should I now be getting an attorney?

First of all, who care's what the JDB paid for your debt? On average, they pay anywhere from 1 to 5 cents on the dollar. But again, that doesn't matter because there is no reason for you to have to pay them even one penny of whatever they may ask you for(see my sig.)

Why are you sending out DV letters? Are they timely? Is this debt still SOL? What exactly are you looking to accomplish? Do you want to get tradelines off of your CR? Or, are you being sued?

I think you need to be a lot more clear about what is going on, in order for the people on this forum to be able to help you.

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

...But again, that doesn't matter because there is no reason for you to have to pay them even one penny of whatever they may ask you for

I’m still amazed when I read statements like that.

Perhaps someday, someone will be able to explain to me, without bringing their “feelings” into it, why they believe that a junk debt which they created (intentionally or unintentionally) should no long be paid just because someone other than the original creditor (which they burned) no longer owns it.

If the debt is OSS, that’s a different story and of course, there is nothing wrong with negotiating with the JDB with the knowledge that they likely paid very little for the paper. Hosever, and I’m not trying to throw stones here nor am I speaking to any individual but IMAHO, to make the blanket statement like "you should never pay a JDB” is nothing more than a rationalization built on emotion to allow you to escape the consequences of your actions.

[nascar]

Perhaps someday, someone will be able to explain to me, without bringing their “feelings” into it,

With all due respect, and don't take this the wrong way, but your opinion many times seems to generate almost 100% from your personal feelings on the subject. It's a bit unreasonable to ask someone else to express their opinion without expressing their own "feelings."

I think it might be a fair statement to say that I don't believe any creditor, JDB or otherwise should be paid a penny that they aren't legally entitled to.

In many cases, not paying a JDB or creditor is an equitable trade-off. What I mean by that is, say you have a debt of $1000.00. For whatever reason, you can't/don't pay it - so you've damaged the creditor to the tune of $1000. The creditor, in turn, posts negative info on your credit report. Your score goes down, your interest rates go up. The creditor, in equity, has now caused you damages. How much? Who knows? $1000 ... maybe more?

Say you offer the creditor $70 for that $1000 debt. Not a chance, right. But the next day, he'll turn around and sell it to a JDB for that very same amount. Result? Creditor is now damaged to the tune of $970.00 - debtor, after the insertion of another negative tradeline, damaged by how much? Another $1000, perhaps more. How much has he lost when he can't get a mortgage? More than the $970 the creditor has lost, I'll bet.

Let's take that a bit further and say that Mr. Moral Debtor pays the $1000. at some time in the future. Now, Mr. Creditor is whole again - he has his money. But what of Mr. Moral Debtor. He did the right thing .. he paid his debt - but Creditor and JDB are allowed, no, encouraged, to continue to inflict damages upon Mr. Debtor. What is moral or right about that? Why is it so acceptable in our society that one party is allowed, after being damaged, to be made whole again while at the same time allowed to continue to inflict damage on the other party? Perhaps someone can explain that.

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

With all due respect, and don't take this the wrong way, but your opinion many times seems to generate almost 100% from your personal feelings on the subject. It's a bit unreasonable to ask someone else to express their opinion without expressing their own "feelings."

It is not my “feelings” that are speaking…if I went just with my feelings I’d probably never pay a debt or advise anyone else to – I mean really, how often does anyone “feel” like paying a debt rather than, say, taking a vacation?

My opinion on the matter stems from the law (as well as morality which is, after all the basis for the laws in our country). Our economic system is built on the concept that people keep their “economic” promises…if we say such promises don’t apply when discussing a JDB, simply because we don’t want them to; there is no logical reason why anyone should ever pay any debt to any business/entity.

There is another issue here as well which is that every debt a debtor doesn’t pay, eventually winds up making that company’s “product” more expensive for everyone who comes later and does pay…if we are going to talk about “fairness”; tell me what is “fair” about me having to pay a higher price for a “widget” so that the company selling them can recoup some of its losses which were caused by someone before me bought a widget on credit and didn’t pay?

I think it might be a fair statement to say that I don't believe any creditor, JDB or otherwise should be paid a penny that they aren't legally entitled to.

I would tend to agree, in general.

There is a societal expectation and a legal obligation here; that being that when someone enters into a contract (such as borrowing money with the promise to pay it back), that they fulfill the contract they voluntarily entered into….as someone studying law, I’m sure you can appreciate that.

Typically, there are no clauses in such contracts that say that the debtor is released from that legal obligation to pay the debt if the original creditor decides to sell the debt; whether the debt is sold for face value, for a premium or at a discount.

In many cases, not paying a JDB or creditor is an equitable trade-off. What I mean by that is, say you have a debt of $1000.00. For whatever reason, you can't/don't pay it - so you've damaged the creditor to the tune of $1000. The creditor, in turn, posts negative info on your credit report. Your score goes down, your interest rates go up. The creditor, in equity, has now caused you damages. How much? Who knows? $1000 ... maybe more?

Say you offer the creditor $70 for that $1000 debt. Not a chance, right. But the next day, he'll turn around and sell it to a JDB for that very same amount. Result? Creditor is now damaged to the tune of $970.00 - debtor, after the insertion of another negative tradeline, damaged by how much? Another $1000, perhaps more. How much has he lost when he can't get a mortgage? More than the $970 the creditor has lost, I'll bet.

Let's take that a bit further and say that Mr. Moral Debtor pays the $1000. at some time in the future. Now, Mr. Creditor is whole again - he has his money. But what of Mr. Moral Debtor. He did the right thing .. he paid his debt - but Creditor and JDB are allowed, no, encouraged, to continue to inflict damages upon Mr. Debtor. What is moral or right about that? Why is it so acceptable in our society that one party is allowed, after being damaged, to be made whole again while at the same time allowed to continue to inflict damage on the other party? Perhaps someone can explain that.

Equating the financial damage done to the creditor by a debtor not paying his debt with accurate information reported on the debtor’s credit report is an apples to oranges comparison.

Credit reports exist for the use of and are owned by the industry that created them…they do not exist to either help or harm consumers.

Federal law dictates what can and can’t be reflected there…it is not a matter of “fairness” or “equity” nor is a person “damaged” simply because accurate, negative information is reflected there. The only true “damage” done to a consumer by negative information reported on his credit report is if that data is inaccurate; damage which the courts recognize and is actionable.

Creditors aren’t “inflicting damage” on a consumer simply by reporting accurate, negative data - it is the emotional based belief by consumers that they are “entitled” to a “good” credit score, regardless of how they’ve handled credit in the past, that supports that idea that a consumer’s credit report should not reflect accurate, albeit negative, tradelines.

If a consumer has handled his finances in such a way that it’s generated accurate, negative tradelines then that consumer probably shouldn’t get a mortgage; at least not until he has shown that how he handles his personal finances has changed.

[swirlgirl]

Our actions come with consequences. Why should any of us believe that we can default on a debt and not bear some negative consequences. Also, how many of us knew BEFORE we accepted a credit card or a loan that ALL of our payment activity would be reported to the credit bureaus. This means both positive and negative. So, we cannot complain about paying higher rates because of a low credit score. Our own actions caused it.

We also know that the negative information can stay on the CR for 7 years. So, you really cannot say that the OC/CA is damaging the debtor. The debtor has damaged himself.

I think a lot of people have a victims attitude when it comes to their credit. For the most part, no one is maliciously trying to hurt you. Credit repair is not bloodsport as some would make it. I won't even get started on the whole "prove it's mine."

And by the way, there's nothing wrong with having some morals.

[nascar]

Hope you don't mind but I'm going to use your post in an attempt to point out some of the philosophical inequities that probably form the foundation of this discussion.

Our actions come with consequences. Why should any of us believe that we can default on a debt and not bear some negative consequences.

Is is also fair to say that creditor's actions come with consequences? They don't lend money because they have to, or to fulfill some deep charitable desire. They do it for profit and only for profit. They risk lending their money in hopes of gaining financial reward. Why should any of them believe that some of their risks will not pay off as hoped?

Also, how many of us knew BEFORE we accepted a credit card or a loan that ALL of our payment activity would be reported to the credit bureaus. This means both positive and negative. So, we cannot complain about paying higher rates because of a low credit score. Our own actions caused it.

Yes, I think we know that. But, it goes deeper than basic reporting of payment activity. Creditors, JDB's, debt collectors and the like use negative reporting as a tool to extract payment from debtors. Once they have accomplished their goal, is it really necessary to continue to use the same tool to continue to punish debtors when the debtor has fulfilled his obligation?

We also know that the negative information can stay on the CR for 7 years. So, you really cannot say that the OC/CA is damaging the debtor. The debtor has damaged himself.

Does the creditor who loses his investment in a risky loan not contribute to his own damages? He made a bad business decision. It would appear when creditors make bad business decisions, they expect to be bailed out by the taxpayer, or allocate their loss to other debtors in the form of higher interest rates. In essence, they expect to pay no penalty for making a bad business decision. Why then, should a debtor continue to pay for his bad decision years after he has fulfilled his responsibility, i.e. "paid collection."

I think a lot of people have a victims attitude when it comes to their credit. For the most part, no one is maliciously trying to hurt you. Credit repair is not bloodsport as some would make it.

Congress recognized that people are victims of credit and the credit reporting industry. I think they've even passed laws to control the abusive behavior.

I won't even get started on the whole "prove it's mine."

I don't buy that either.

And by the way, there's nothing wrong with having some morals.

But who do we look to for a definition of what is moral? Clearly, everyone has their own. So really, is this entire discussion about law and equity or is it more about whose morals are more relevant than the next? Because if it isn't, why does the word always seem to find its way into disussions such as these?

[smurfette in nyc]

Also, how many of us knew BEFORE we accepted a credit card or a loan that ALL of our payment activity would be reported to the credit bureaus. This means both positive and negative.

Completely untrue. I know of all too many instances where a credit card or loan was obtained by a consumer, and for the entire time they were paying on time and "as agreed" they did not receive the benefit of getting positive payment activity reported to the CRA's. However, one late payment, and magically a TL appears with negative information reported; its truly appalling.

Credit reports, and the information contained within them are so skewed in favor of creditors/lenders, that it's ridiculous. In close to 10 years time I have paid bills like my rent, telephone, cable, internet, cell phone, just to name a few, on time, every time! Never once late on any of those, but you would never know by looking at my credit report, because those accounts are simply not getting reported to any of the CRA's! How is this fair, or even moral? My gut instincts tell me that had I been late on any one of those accounts, somehow I'd have the TL to prove it.

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

Not that swirlgirl needs me to speak for her but since I started this…I thought I’d respond anyway.

Is is also fair to say that creditor's actions come with consequences? They don't lend money because they have to, or to fulfill some deep charitable desire. They do it for profit and only for profit. They risk lending their money in hopes of gaining financial reward. Why should any of them believe that some of their risks will not pay off as hoped?

They shouldn’t but I’m not sure I get your point? Are you saying that it’s OK for some debtors to not pay their debts because the creditors knew they were taking that risk?

I hope not because I don’t see how the fact that creditors know there are risks is in any way an excuse for some to make those risks turn into actual losses!

Yes, I think we know that. But, it goes deeper than basic reporting of payment activity. Creditors, JDB's, debt collectors and the like use negative reporting as a tool to extract payment from debtors. Once they have accomplished their goal, is it really necessary to continue to use the same tool to continue to punish debtors when the debtor has fulfilled his obligation?

Being in jail is “punishment”…being sent to your room without your supper is “punishment”…being spanked or demoted or restricted to post is “punishment”...having accurate, negative data on a credit report is not punishment except to those who insist on seeing it that way and/or for those who have decided to let themselves be held hostage to a stupid three digit number.

Does the creditor who loses his investment in a risky loan not contribute to his own damages? He made a bad business decision. It would appear when creditors make bad business decisions, they expect to be bailed out by the taxpayer, or allocate their loss to other debtors in the form of higher interest rates. In essence, they expect to pay no penalty for making a bad business decision. Why then, should a debtor continue to pay for his bad decision years after he has fulfilled his responsibility, i.e. "paid collection."

Our current manufactured “crisis” aside; most businesses don’t expect to be bailed out by the taxpayers; I know my company doesn’t. But yes; all companies pass along their costs of doing business including the cost of the losses caused by some customers not paying their bills. Is it “fair” to those of us who do pay? No…which is what I was saying above but a business can only “eat” such expenses for so long until they aren’t in business any longer.

I also can’t help but wonder how many “risky” loans are risky primarily because they were made to those who have done “credit repair” so as to appear to be a good risk? Is that the creditor’s “bad decision” then or is that the debtor cheating the system? We’ll never know the answer to that of course but it would certainly be an interesting fact to know!

Congress recognized that people are victims of credit and the credit reporting industry. I think they've even passed laws to control the abusive behavior.

Quite right but no one here has said anything to the contrary…of course those creditors who engage in abusive and/or illegal practices should and need to be taken to task for their actions. However, that does not mean that every creditor, JDB or otherwise, should be lumped into one large group which is why I questioned the “I don’t pay any JDB” type statements.

But who do we look to for a definition of what is moral? Clearly, everyone has their own. So really, is this entire discussion about law and equity or is it more about whose morals are more relevant than the next? Because if it isn't, why does the word always seem to find its way into disussions such as these?

Applying a moral code/definition isn’t as difficult as you might think.

I’ve studied, either in college or for my own purposes, most of the religions of the world (and it is religion and perhaps a dash of philosophy thrown in) that forms the basis for most “moral codes” found in any religion you want to discuss...while there are some differences; there are striking similarities as well.

Two constant admonitions are forbidding the taking of innocent life (murder) and the other is forbidding the taking of someone else’s property (steeling).

While a debtor not paying a legitimate debt is not a “crime” in our country (nor am I saying that is should be) the taking of property (cash in the form of a loan for example) and not paying for it/paying it back would probably be considered at least a “form” of steeling no matter what moral code you might like to apply. In other words, it isn’t very difficult to say that “not paying your debts” is “wrong” no matter what moral basis you happen to be standing on.

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

Completely untrue. I know of all too many instances where a credit card or loan was obtained by a consumer, and for the entire time they were paying on time and "as agreed" they did not receive the benefit of getting positive payment activity reported to the CRA's. However, one late payment, and magically a TL appears with negative information reported; its truly appalling.

Credit reports, and the information contained within them are so skewed in favor of creditors/lenders, that it's ridiculous. In close to 10 years time I have paid bills like my rent, telephone, cable, internet, cell phone, just to name a few, on time, every time! Never once late on any of those, but you would never know by looking at my credit report, because those accounts are simply not getting reported to any of the CRA's! How is this fair, or even moral? My gut instincts tell me that had I been late on any one of those accounts, somehow I'd have the TL to prove it.

So what is your recommendation to make the system fair? Do you want every business of every kind that you do business with to report their experience with you?

If so, be careful what you wish for because most people who have trouble with CC payments and such usually have trouble paying other bills as well meaning that if everybody reported, a consumer might wind up with a hell of lot more “negatives” on their CRs than they ever imagined.

Perhaps the real question is "where does this entitlement to “fairness” come from?

The credit bureau industry exists to serve the needs of the business that use it and is owned by that industry…since they own it, they can do whatever they want with it…there is nothing in the law that says a credit report has to be “fair”, in the consumer's eyers, nor has Congress expanded it to say so…what they have said is that is must be accurate.

I don’t accept your statement that business don’t report at all until you are late...I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I think thats a very broad generalization and probably not all that accurate…most business that report at all report the good and the bad or they don’t report. I also suggest that if a company does only report the "bad"; I'd be willing to bet that the consumer was informed of such before engaging in whatever tarnsaction generated the negative tradeline.

[nascar]

While a debtor not paying a legitimate debt is not a “crime” in our country (nor am I saying that is should be) the taking of property (cash in the form of a loan for example) and not paying for it/paying it back would probably be considered at least a “form” of steeling no matter what moral code you might like to apply. In other words, it isn’t very difficult to say that “not paying your debts” is “wrong” no matter what moral basis you happen to be standing on.

And creditors have open access to the finest legal system in the world if they want to hold consumers accountable for not paying their debts. But, in many, many cases they forego the legal process and use their own form of justice to retaliate against consumers in a way that is potentially much more severe than simply filing a lawsuit to recover their money. I refer to the quote from your post below;

Where does this entitlement to “fairness” come from anyway??? The credit bureau industry exists to serve the needs of business and is owned by that industry…since they own it, they can do whatever they want with it…there is nothing in the Constitution that says a credit report has to be “fair” nor has Congress expanded it to say so…what they have said is that is must be accurate.

Is it any wonder that consumers don’t want to pay? Let’s say that a consumer, through an honest oversight, allows a $50 cable bill go to collections. He pays the bill when requested and is rewarded with a paid collection on his credit report. Without the paid collection, this consumer might qualify for, say, a 150K mortgage at 5.5%. For the sake of argument, let’s say that the best rate he can get because of the collection is 6.0%. Over the life of the loan (30 yrs), that consumer will pay $17,154.00 in additional interest. I’m not sorry in the least to say that I have no sympathy for creditors who get stiffed by a consumer now and then.

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

And creditors have open access to the finest legal system in the world if they want to hold consumers accountable for not paying their debts. But, in many, many cases they forego the legal process and use their own form of justice to retaliate against consumers in a way that is potentially much more severe than simply filing a lawsuit to recover their money.

This may come as a shock but businesses don’t go into business so that they can spend money on attorneys at $400/hour to sue their deadbeat customers. Thats why they hire Collection Agencies to collect their bad debts and why they hire companies like Pinkerton to provide security for their office building and a janitorial service to maintain and clean the building...businesses want to be about their business; making and selling their product.

Let’s not even contemplate what would happen to our legal system if suddenly, every business simply sued every debtor for every bad debt…given that there are thousands of collection agencies in this country handling who knows how many tens or hundreds of thousands of accounts; what do you think it would do to our legal system if all those accounts suddenly became lawsuits?

And considering how people get in a snit about a paid collection on their CR; how do you suppose they would feel with your alternative? If the OC sues them I dare say the OC won’t have much trouble proving their case which means that instead of an open or paid collection on their CR they would be stuck with a judgment; not just for the debt itself but the attorney fees as well…I don’t think that arrangement would make very many people happy; save for the legal profession since they would have all that extra work!

Is it any wonder that consumers don’t want to pay? Let’s say that a consumer, through an honest oversight, allows a $50 cable bill go to collections. He pays the bill when requested and is rewarded with a paid collection on his credit report. Without the paid collection, this consumer might qualify for, say, a 150K mortgage at 5.5%. For the sake of argument, let’s say that the best rate he can get because of the collection is 6.0%. Over the life of the loan (30 yrs), that consumer will pay $17,154.00 in additional interest. I’m not sorry in the least to say that I have no sympathy for creditors who get stiffed by a consumer now and then.

I hope you feel the same way when some client stiffs you for your fee!

You and I both know that if one paid collection is going to make a half-percent difference in a mortgage loan; that person’s FICO was probably already teetering on the edge to begin with and likely had other negatives which is probably also an indicator that perhaps buying a home/taking out a mortgage at that particular instant might not be the best idea anyway.

Besides that, the situation you described is entirely the consumer’s fault…I admit it’s unfortunate that the cable bill was overlooked but it happens and sometimes there are consequences for mistakes, even totally unintentional mistakes.

I once got a speeding ticket when I honestly thought I was doing the speed limit; it turned out I was wrong…I was in a 40MPH zone when I thought I was in a 50MPH zone…the cop gave me the ticket anyway and I had to pay it and my insurance went up because of it.

Was that “fair” that one minor; even an unintentional mistake cost me a $100 ticket plus a few hundred dollars more over the course of the next three years? Maybe it wasn’t “fair” but it was the law and I was in the wrong, even though it was unintentional…I didn’t go around saying that I shouldn’t have to pay nor did I try to get out of the ticket showing up on my recored in hopes my insurance comany wouldn't notice and raise my rates.

I guess the moral of the story is; if you don’t want a speeding ticket, always KNOW what the speed limit is and then don’t go over it…and if you don’t wand a small paid collection on your CR; make sure you pay your bills early or on time every time.