What to do when a CA refuses to sign for a CMRR?

[ShannonG]

I plan on sending a FOAD/C&D reply to the Law Offices of Mitchell N. Kay on a debt that is out of the statue of limitations, but upon further reading here I have seen it mentioned that this CA may not sign for the green card on a CMRR...

Should I just send it FedEx, UPS or DHL with a signature required? What are next steps in a situation where you send a letter to a CA via CMRR and they refused delivery? Has this happened to anyone before?

[swirlgirl]

Since this is a FOAD letter, I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about. Just send it CMRR and see what happens.

[NYMatt]

I plan on sending a FOAD/C&D reply to the Law Offices of Mitchell N. Kay on a debt that is out of the statue of limitations, but upon further reading here I have seen it mentioned that this CA may not sign for the green card on a CMRR...

Should I just send it FedEx, UPS or DHL with a signature required? What are next steps in a situation where you send a letter to a CA via CMRR and they refused delivery? Has this happened to anyone before?

The post office is required to make 2 delivery attempts.After that the mail is returned to sender.

[debtorshusband]

Don't cross bridges before you come to them.

Send the C&D letter CRRR. Despite what you might have read, if they even have pretensions of being reputable, they'll sign for it.

In the unlikely event that they don't, your letter will be returned to you. Keep it in case you need to prove later that you tried to communicate with them. Send another copy via regular first class mail.

Then forget about it.

If they continue to contact you, you have grounds to sue.

Good luck.

DH

[Flykast]

You could always send it with USPS delivery comp. This just means the post office scans it and confirms that it was delivered. And you get a traking number cost is like $.60

Flykast

[debtorshusband]

You could always send it with USPS delivery comp. This just means the post office scans it and confirms that it was delivered. And you get a traking number cost is like $.60

Flykast

Excellent suggestion. I forgot about this service. I think it's called "Delivery Confirmation."

DH

[admin]

FedEx ground is another option, they take FedEx and the ground delivery is not that expensive.

[Flyingifr]

Before we get too upset over this, let's look at it a different way.

Instead of it being a FOAD letter it cold just as easily be a FOAD/Do Not Contact Me Again letter. They refuse to sign for it and refuse to accept it. Their problem.

Under the doctrine of deliberate avoidance of knowledge, they are still on the hook for whatever is in that letter. If they continue collection action, and you sue, and they claim they never knew about the FOAD/Do Not Contact Me Again you simply hand the unopened envelope to the Judge and let the judge open it and read it while you remind the Judge that they refused to accept the letter that is the cause of them being sued.

Then you move for a summary Judgment.

[sunset]

Flyingifr, although you are more experienced than I, I have to disagree with you.

Someone took us to court and stated we didn't pick up the certified letter they sent us, so they sued. The judge told the person who had sent us the CMRRR that there is no law stating we are required to pick it up. Also, they had a certain date within the letter that we had to respond by, which was 'unethical' (judge's statement) on their part, as they were to have stated "within x amount of days of receipt of this letter" due to the fact that CMRRR's are given 3 attempts, one each week and we are not required to pick it up on the day the first orange card is left for us. Therefore, giving us a certain date to respond within a letter is wrong since we have 3 weeks to pick it up before they get it back. They lost their case but not because of the letter not being picked up.

A few months ago, I read in a thread in here somewhere, that (I believe this is how it went) she/he sent a CMRRR to a CA who had originally refused to sign for it. This time, he/she put on the front of the envelope PAYMENT ENCLOSED and highlighted it. The CA signed for it.

Now, I do not know what the CA can do about 'deceptive mailing'.

[admin]

You could put "re:Payment" on it! Which is certainly not deceptive.

[Flyingifr]

Flyingifr, although you are more experienced than I, I have to disagree with you.

Someone took us to court and stated we didn't pick up the certified letter they sent us, so they sued. The judge told the person who had sent us the CMRRR that there is no law stating we are required to pick it up. Also, they had a certain date within the letter that we had to respond by, which was 'unethical' (judge's statement) on their part, as they were to have stated "within x amount of days of receipt of this letter" due to the fact that CMRRR's are given 3 attempts, one each week and we are not required to pick it up on the day the first orange card is left for us. Therefore, giving us a certain date to respond within a letter is wrong since we have 3 weeks to pick it up before they get it back. They lost their case but not because of the letter not being picked up.

A few months ago, I read in a thread in here somewhere, that (I believe this is how it went) she/he sent a CMRRR to a CA who had originally refused to sign for it. This time, he/she put on the front of the envelope PAYMENT ENCLOSED and highlighted it. The CA signed for it.

Now, I do not know what the CA can do about 'deceptive mailing'.

You just ran into an ignoramus of a Judge, and had you known the following you would have had sufficient grounds for appeal. the following cases deal with the subject of "Willful Blindness" and in all cases the Courts have held that willful blindness to a legal obligation is not a defense:

United States v Bussey 942 F2d 1241, 1249 (cert denied) 112 S Ct 1936 (1992)

United States v Jewell 532 F2d 697, 700 (9th Cir) (en banc), cert denied, 426 US 951 (1976)

"The substantive justification for the rule is that deliberate ignorance and positive knowledge are equally culpable. The textual justification is that in common understanding one "knows" facts of which he is less than absolutely certain. To act "knowingly", therefore, is not necessarily to act with positive knowledge, but also to act with an awareness of the high probability of the existence of the fact in question."

United States v Hogan 861 F2d 312

United States v Rothrock 806 F2d 318

United States v Picciandra 788 F2d 39

There are lots more. Admittedly, all these cases deal with criminal tax evasion, but the principle is the same - one cannot claim ignorance when one deliberately avoided having knowledge of the fact one claims ignorance of.

BTW, I teach this course here in Tucson.

[sunset]

Well, they lost their case anyway. It was based on lies and we had all documentation to prove it. Wonder why they weren't charged with perjury (sp?).

So, if I get an orange card in the mail, and I go to the PO to see who it's from and refuse it, I can still be held liable for willfully ignoring the letter? That doesn't seem right. I should have a choice whether or not to pick it up.

Here is a scenario for you: DH got an orange card in the mail. It did not state that he has to show proof of identity. He is a truck driver, and won't be home for awhile. It's addressed to him, he told me not to get it, it's in his name and he'll 'get in' to pick it up. If it gets sent back, is he liable for not picking it up? We think it's from a CA which also sent a letter with their affidavit regular mail regarding the FTC affidavit and police report we sent them. I don't want to see DH get in trouble for not picking up a letter.

[Flyingifr]

Well, they lost their case anyway. It was based on lies and we had all documentation to prove it. Wonder why they weren't charged with perjury (sp?).

So, if I get an orange card in the mail, and I go to the PO to see who it's from and refuse it, I can still be held liable for willfully ignoring the letter? That doesn't seem right. I should have a choice whether or not to pick it up.

Here is a scenario for you: DH got an orange card in the mail. It did not state that he has to show proof of identity. He is a truck driver, and won't be home for awhile. It's addressed to him, he told me not to get it, it's in his name and he'll 'get in' to pick it up. If it gets sent back, is he liable for not picking it up? We think it's from a CA which also sent a letter with their affidavit regular mail regarding the FTC affidavit and police report we sent them. I don't want to see DH get in trouble for not picking up a letter.

Deliberate avoidance of knowledge doctrine applies regardless. The Certified mail could be a summons. or it could just be a scare. It could be the CA's Initial Communication starting the 30-day clock for VOD demands (although it would be just plain DUMB to send that CMRRR when Ordinary mail is cheaper and even more likely to be missed by the consumer).