Jump to content

Summons & Belated DV


Recommended Posts

I think the confusion may be originating from the FDCPA amendment which states that a lawsuit does not constitute an "initial communication," thereby triggering FDCPA validation notice requirment.

A close read of the statute shows that the amended section only applies to subsection (a), not (B) which addresses debtors rights to validation. The debtor's 1692g(B) rights have not been affected.

There are only a handful of opinions that deal with this question post-amendment, and while it is clear that the summons no longer evokes 1692g(a) notice, the courts also continue to make the point that "progress in the suit may be delayed by verification."

New Jersey has adopted a unique approach to this by creating the requirment that if a summons was issued without prior collection, the complaint must include all information that would be provided if validation had been requested. (Really, even more. They go way past Chaudhry on this.)

In any event, the courts which have addressed this question recently are all in agreement that the FDCPA amendment is not designed to allow creditors to skirt the FDCPA, by allowing them to sue debtors on questionable or bogus debts who have no means (money) to defend themselves in court.

Summons thru local lawyer was the 1st I heard of this debt of JDB...

Was being charged inflated amount w/o explanation. I DV'd after filing Answer. Interest is accruing on the debt w/c was charged off by OC and sold to JDB;atty's letters ref to OC, not to JDB.Do I owe this JDB?:confused:

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.