Jump to content

question on the whole DV thing


Recommended Posts

I am at the point now where accounts are going 90-120+ days overdue and am just starting to get dunning letters. My question is why all the posts on the DV process as a great defense.... If you owe the debt and the CA validates it.... how do I benefit? Can it actually work against you and accelerate a judgement because they do not want to be out maneuvered by a legal beagle client? What criteria should one use to decide if you DV or not?Thanks for your reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DVing a debt even though it is yours is a way of exercising your rights and defending yourself. By DVing, you are actually doing something about whatever it is they are doing to you. Think of collection agencies as not-so-competent because they may not have their records straight enough to actually validate.

If you don't send debt validation, you can always talk to them on the phone everyday.

Also read about the 1 - 2 punch. To me this is a knockout method against the collection agencies. I caused them to run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am at the point now where accounts are going 90-120+ days overdue and am just starting to get dunning letters. My question is why all the posts on the DV process as a great defense.... If you owe the debt and the CA validates it.... how do I benefit? Can it actually work against you and accelerate a judgement because they do not want to be out maneuvered by a legal beagle client? What criteria should one use to decide if you DV or not?Thanks for your reply.

You're just starting to get dunning letters. If you DV in writing and send CMRRR within 30 days of the first dunning letter from each CA that sends you one, it does the following:

  1. Forces the CA to produce documentation that you owe the debt.
  2. Puts a stop to ALL collection efforts (including daily phone calls and reporting to CRA's) UNTIL the documentation you request has been sent.
  3. Gives you a leg to stand on if you disagree with the amount the CA says you owe. Just because they call and say you owe $xxx does not make it true.
  4. Creates a paper trail - something that most likely will come in handy later when the CA starts getting stupid and racks up violation after violation.

Keep reading... it will eventually start to make more sense to you as you go along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're just starting to get dunning letters. If you DV in writing and send CMRRR within 30 days of the first dunning letter from each CA that sends you one, it does the following:

Forces the CA to produce documentation that you owe the debt.

I don't understand the whole "force the CA" to produce documention that you owe the debt. Could you please explain? This is the show stopper for me.

To me it looks like the documentation is a letter with the original creditor and the debt amount.

Section 809 of the FDCPA states (1) the amount of the debt; (2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;.

The United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394 (1999) opined : “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; the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the alleged debt.”.

This would take the CA all of about 30 seconds to produce and mail out.

You can "force the CA" to produce the original creditor's address by using (5) of section 809 withing the 30 day window.

Case law support of more than this would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From board member flyingifr.....pretty much explains why Chaudhry is not a very good case in regards to validating consumer debt:

Some CA's are responding to Validation of Debt requests with a simple "Yep, you owe it" note, signed by someone whose actual first-hand knowledge of the account is unknown, citing a Court of Appeals case from the 4th District, Chaudhry v Gallerizzo; 174 F3d 394 as their precedent.

I believe they do so at very grave risk for the following reason:

The Chaudhry case revolves around a Construction Loan taken out by Chaudhry that went into default, and the creditor attempted to collect the debt. That Chaudhry used FDCPA as a stall is unquestionable when reading the opinions of the case. The specific parts of the case that CA's use in citing Chaudhry are the Court's interpretation of "what is sufficient Validation under FDCPA?" Keep in mind that Chaudhry has been used as precedent in many cases, including the criminal trial of John Walker Lindh (the American Taliban).

Chaudhry demanded "Validation" of two items in particular - the appraisal fee that would be incident to the bank's foreclosure on his loan and the attorneys' fees incidental to its' collection. Chaudhry demanded specific documents as validation, among which are the invoices for the Appraisal and the attorney's timeslips notes.

The Court refused his demand for two reasons, both of which are particular to the Chaudhry case and the Chaudhry case alone and therefore are irrelevant to the cases we are usually dealing with. One ground for refusal was that the charge that Chaudhry demanded validation on had not yet been incurred. This applied to both the appriasal (which had not yet been done or contracted out for, just intimated in a collection letter that he would be charged for it) and the attorneys' fees - which also were largely unknown, since they were an ongoing expense whose final amount was unknown at the time. The second ground for refusing his FDCPA Validation demand was the nature of one of the expenses - the attorneys' fees and a a diary of what items were being billed for (it was Chaudhry's allegation he was being billed for legal work unrelated to the collection of his debt). Nevertheless, in several ways that information is privileged and not subject to any disclosure.

When we request Validation, we face neither of these situations - all amounts the CA is asking for are (in their mind) fully due and owing and therefore are not hypothetical or unknown; and are not privileged. In Chaudhry the court did not say what was acceptable and proper validation - all the Court said was that unknown or incomplete or hypothetical amounts that are not final in the creditor's mind are not subject to Validation, nor are items that are legally privileged subject to disclosure as part of Validation (yet.... but the Court was silent about whether the incomplete, hypothetical or unknown amounts would be subject to Validation when these amounts were known).

This is a far cry from the court saying "Just tell the debtor 'Yep, you owe it'".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am at the point now where accounts are going 90-120+ days overdue and am just starting to get dunning letters. My question is why all the posts on the DV process as a great defense.... If you owe the debt and the CA validates it.... how do I benefit? Can it actually work against you and accelerate a judgement because they do not want to be out maneuvered by a legal beagle client? What criteria should one use to decide if you DV or not?Thanks for your reply.

Here's my 2 cents. As always, this is IMHO.

If one has just recently defaulted on a debt, and you get calls and letters from a Collection Agency hired by the Original Creditor, sending a DV letter may not accomplish much. You may be better off writing and saying, for example, "Look, I've lost my job, I don't have the money right now, I'm trying to get back on my feet. When I do, I'll contact the OC to work something out. Until then, you (the CA) are not to bother me."

Now, if the OC gets tired of waiting, and sells the debt off, and those people start to call and write, now the DV letter is appropriate, because, "Hey, who are you? I never entered into any arrangement with you."

Now, concerning the low bar for Debt Validation: One of the things I insist on before I'm going to send money to someone is a complete accounting of how they arrived at the amount they are demanding. And, in my experience, many CA's prefer to dump the account on someone else (and the process starts over) rather than do any work. And the more hands the account goes through, the muddier the paper trail, and the greater the chances that whoever holds the account when the music stops won't have the documentation they need to win in court.

DH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.