KatieMPJ

Sued by Calvary Porfolio Services, help...

Recommended Posts

Hopeful,

The case you've cited was awarded in Pintos favor because she did not enter into an agreement with the towing company. She never agreed to use the services of the towing company.

Whenever you use a credit card, you've entered into an agreement. You've agreed to use their services. If you default and a JDB purchases the debt, if the JDB can prove it owns the debt, it has a right to try to collect. Therefore, it has permissible purpose.

Fair Credit Reporting Act

§ 604. Permissible purposes of consumer reports [15 U.S.C. § 1681b]

(a) In general. Subject to subsection ©, any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other:

(3) To a person which it has reason to believe

(A) intends to use the information in connection with a credit transaction

involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and

involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer; or

In order to file a counterclaim based on a JDB and permissible purpose, you would have to find case law other than Pintos. I'm not saying there's no basis for a counterclaim. I'm just saying it wouldn't be a good idea to base it upon Pintos.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand she didn't agree to use the towing company, NO one (consumers) "agrees" to anything with a JDB either IMO

According to this, a JDB doesn't have permissible purposes

FACTA makes clear that debt collection is a permissible purpose for obtaining a credit report under § 1681b(a)(3)(A) only in connection with a “credit transaction” in which a consumer has participated directly and voluntarily. ..

The OC HAS (because you did participate directly and voluntarily---NOT the case with the JDB ;) There was No "credit transaction" between the consumer and JDB ever- whatsoever correct? Much less "directly and voluntarily"

FCRA and FACTA state things differently it appears ;) (to ME at least)

if the JDB can prove it owns the debt, it has a right to try to collect

IF(perhaps)and we know most times this is Not the case ;) And according to this , they'd have to validate prior to, which they do not do.......

I'm just saying it wouldn't be a good idea to base it upon Pintos.

Point well taken ;) I was pointing to the HOLDING and the FACTA statute which I believe one can argue ONLY the OC has that right under that law, not a CA or JDB ?

Edited by hopefulscambeater.
Link to post
Share on other sites
FACTA makes clear that debt collection is a permissible purpose for obtaining a credit report under § 1681b(a)(3)(A) only in connection with a “credit transaction” in which a consumer has participated directly and voluntarily. ..

The highlighted part in your quote is from the U.S. Code which is in the FCRA and is what I copied and pasted in my previous post:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00001681---b000-.html

FCRA and FACTA state things differently it appears (to ME at least)

FACTA (FACT Act) is amendments added to the FCRA.

"This version of the FCRA includes the amendments to the FCRA set forth in...the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACT Act) (Public Law 108-159)."

Read the 2nd paragraph of this link:

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/031224fcra.pdf

if the JDB can prove it owns the debt, it has a right to try to collect

IF(perhaps)and we know most times this is Not the case And according to this , they'd have to validate prior to, which they do not do.......

What do you mean they must validate prior to?

Here's some sections of the FCRA regarding collections:

In regard to the amount of time information can remain on your CR, the FCRA states:

§ 605. Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports [15 U.S.C. §1681c]

(a) Information excluded from consumer reports. Except as authorized under subsection(B) of this section, no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing any of the following items of information:

4) Accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss which antedate the report by more than seven years.

Also:

§ 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2]

(5) Duty to Provide Notice of Delinquency of Accounts

(B) Rule of construction. For purposes of this paragraph only, and provided

that the consumer does not dispute the information, a person that furnishes

information on a delinquent account that is placed for collection, charged

for profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action, complies with this

paragraph, if--

i) the person reports the same date of delinquency as that provided by the

creditor to which the account was owed at the time at which the

commencement of the delinquency occurred, if the creditor previously

reported that date of delinquency to a consumer reporting agency;

The above specifically applies to debt collectors. My point is if they can legally furnish information, they have permissible purpose.

Point well taken I was pointing to the HOLDING and the FACTA statute which I believe one can argue ONLY the OC has that right under that law, not a CA or JDB ?

The FCRA specifically states "collection of an account" in regard to permissible purpose for pulling a CR. Unfortunately, the FCRA does not differentiate between OCs pulling for the purpose of collection and CAs and JDBs pulling for the purpose of collection on an account willingly used by the consumer.

I completely agree that JDBs must prove they own an account. In that case, you must dispute their info on your CR. You request they prove they own the account. If they don't prove it and continue to report, you have to be willing to file suit.

Unless it is a slam dunk case where you can prove identity theft, or in the case of a defaulted debt, they had no statements, no nothing with your name, you would need to provide case law from your state or your District Court of Appeals. When you file a suit or a counterclaim, the burden is on you to prove your case. I'm not saying the claim isn't valid, but if you don't have case law to back up your suit or counterclaim, then it's up to the judge's interpretation.

Edited by BV80
Link to post
Share on other sites

So far, they haven't given us anything that actually links my husband to this account. I checked his credit report, nothing from Citibank there (ony from Calvary). I checked his old bank account, nothing there. They have a Statement of Account on Calvary letterhead with

1. Calvary Reference#

2. Citibank Acct #

3. Current Statement Date? 10/2008

4. Date of Charge-off 7/2007

5. Last Payment 1/2007 (can't find our record of this)

6. Principle as of 10/2008 $5000ish

7. Accumulated Interest $2000ish

8. Balance $7000ish

9. Costs $0

10. Other Charges $0

11. Interest Rate 24.99%

Am I right to believe this is all heresy. Called Citibank, they can confirm that once they held that acct and yes it was sold to Calvary, but they have no more info. Even if they have original account number, they still have to provide proof don't they? Also, the amount they report on CR is much higher than the balance they are suing for.

Thanks to both BV and hopeful, all your help is more than appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am preparing my Discovery to them to file today. I have asked for everything I can think of (small list below) is there anything I am forgetting?

Here are my admits, trying to keep it abbraviated and short, any help is appreciated...

Admits:

1. Plaintiff (P) is not OC

2. P is debt collector

3. P is servicer and subsidiary of Calvary SPV

4. CSPV is a debt collector

5. CSPV assigned debt to P

6. CSPV regularly purchases defaulted debt

7. CSPV purchased this alleged debt as part of portfolio

8. P has never had agreement signed or otherwise with D

9. CSPV never had agreement

10. P has never had business relationship with D

11. Neither has CSPV

12. P has no signed contract

13. P has no signed agreement w/ terms fees, etc

14. P provided no merchandise

15. P provided no goods

16. P provided no services

17. P provided no labor

18. P has no itemized account statement

19. Admit affiant never employed by OC

20. Affiant does not have access to OC records

21. Affiant only has access to records of CSPV and C Portfolio

22. Affiant cannot confirm accuracy of balance

23. P is not the real party in interest

24. P is barred from collecting atty fees, etc

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are my Rogs, I feel like there should be more, but I don;t know what...I following will be my list of requested docs, anything I've missed?

ROGS

1. Prove alleged debt (AD) is within SOL.

2. Provide contract where P has authority and legally entitled to collect AD

3. Provide assignment from Citibank to Cal Portfolio

4. Provide assignment from CSPV to Cal Portfolio.

5. Contract between P and D bearing D’s signature

6. Provide amount paid by D

7. Proof of last date of payment.

8. Accurate history of interest charged

9. Attach all notices sent to D by P about change in interest.

10. Proof of P and atty to do business in OK

11. Proof that atty can collect on debt.

12. Identify all persons with knowledge about AD

Link to post
Share on other sites

And at last my req for docs, I feel like there should be more on my Rogs and Docs, but don't know what it would be...

Requested Docs

1. Provide actual CC contract signed by D

2. Provide original copy signed by D of terms, rates, fees, etc

3. All statements generated while AD was open.

4. Itemized statement of acct

5. Notarized statement form person with knowledge of original acct.

6. Any doc that establish D has acct with P

7. Any doc establishing D liability/responsibility for AD

8. All docs you intend to use in court

Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you mean they must validate prior to?

What I mean is they have an obligation to Know they have a right (legal standing) prior to pulling credit, filing suit, making false entries in the CRA . When a member of the bar and officer of the Court "signs off' on false affidavits they KNOW (or should know) are not admissible evidence, and in fact do not prove anything- that is serious stuff. Obviously that IS up to us to Prove, however it's not impossible to do so.

IF they do not and cannot prove they own the debt and the rights to it, they Cannot (legally) collect on it, thus can't put in TL at CRA or any other collection activities.

Some of these JDB have had their arses handed to them in Fed court for trying to do so. This site has much information on this, and plenty of case law to back that up, and what I quoted about FACTA came directly from this site saying that CA cannot pull your credit in a post that was made by Admin (Kristy I believe)FWIW

§ 619. Obtaining information under false pretenses [15 U.S.C. § 1681q]

Any person who knowingly and willfully obtains information on a consumer from a

consumer reporting agency under false pretenses shall be fined under title 18, United States

Code, imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both.

Could be pretty serious considering the above IF the Court finds they DID in fact use "false pretenses" :mrgreen:

I totally agree one must have some good case law in order to often times educate the judge(s), the fact is, there is much room for debate on "how much" of the OC "rights" can legally be transferred to a series of Junk Debt Buyers; more specifically, the First JDB "may have " mostly full rights, however from that point onward from one JDB to the next; (and on down the line) it's not so black and white - from what I can find out (and a couple consumer lawyers have pointed out)

When we Know that JDB break the laws on a daily basis, even "re-aging" alleged debt to thwart the SOL, put TL in CRA of "open revolving account- opened with Them- Not the OC with a "newer date" and dozens of other "horror stories", buy the alleged debts for pennies on the $ (or less) then "tack on" charges toward "unjust enrichment" it's important to know all the laws which even May apply.

Again obviously the consumer did Not enter into "any agreement" with the JDB , willingly or otherwise... and when they can't prove they owned the debt OR the right to collect on it,(which is more often than not) they Are in fact in violation, of FDCPA, FCRA . I do understand one must be willing to sue, but counterclaims can (and often do) give the Defendants some "leverage" and a better than good chance of them paying (JDB) rather than collecting, not to mention kills their dismiss w/o prejudice they like when you fight back.

All of this is admittedly Very New to us, we had no clue stuff like this was even going on prior to Oct this year,in the past few weeks we've found total travesty of Justice, and on the other hand, many times the JDB wishing they'd left many folks alone and not pushed their luck without evidence. JDB can and DO lose, and often pay out huge $ amounts when they do, that is "very telling" IMO

It's human nature I suppose ,to "grasp at straws" when something is this offensive to them. I believe these good natured, honest discussions are beneficial to many folks.

"I" would still argue the JDB had no permissible reason to pull my credit as I never entered into any agreement with them whatsoever, cite the FACTA statute and "takes my chances" (it would not be my Only action or counterclaim btw) sure the judge may not agree, but they "could", if the JDB has already lost their case against me, who knows? :D

The JDB Knows that 98% will not show or that they will settle for outrageous terms, not much we can do about that rather than try to educate folks about their ways (much of them illegal )

MY personal goal is to "hit them" with anything that MIGHT cost them a few $K , way I see it , worst case they don't lose on some counts, but will on some as well (Clear FDCPA violations in my wife's case for example- by the attorney and the JDB)

We Are meeting with Consumer Attorneys here in Ky, starting this week, (already spent many hours on the phone with them) to see what all can be done about their illegal activities, we've filed with the FTC (who agrees they're breaking several laws in her case alone) , the Ky AG office, and with the help of some good consumer attorneys , we may even be able to involve the US Attorney Generals office, Postmaster General, etc.

When they "decided" to harm my wife's credit,(by putting multiple false entries in the CRA) and didn't even bother to contact her on this matter, but filed suit without any notice, they stirred up a huge mess, and for < $1k , since we have not needed credit during this time we had No Clue, until she was served what they'd actually been doing.

Edited by hopefulscambeater.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Read the 2nd paragraph of this link:

This version of the FCRA includes the amendments to the FCRA set forth in the Consumer

Credit Reporting Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208, the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations

Act for Fiscal Year 1997, Title II, Subtitle D, Chapter 1), Section 311 of the

Intelligence Authorization for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-107), the Consumer Reporting

Employment Clarification Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-347), Section 506 of the Gramm-Leach-

Bliley Act (Public Law 106-102), Sections 358(g) and 505© of the Uniting and Strengthening

America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of

2001 (USA PATRIOT Act) (Public Law 107-56), and the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions

Act of 2003 (FACT Act) (Public Law 108-159).

IMO that "reinforces" My points here, there are so many changes, amendments etc. there are many "gray areas" that have not been ruled upon IMO it appears the Court viewed FACTA as "the law" as it was most recent?

Case in point at one time you could not take any FDCPA actions against litigating attorneys , that changed per amendment(s), some lawyers decided they were "really smart" and would invoke the Bona Fide error defense under FDCPA , well SCOTUS didn't agree and ruled that defense is NOT available in matters of law, how many were "positive" that "would fly" for them until it did not upon the "ultimate test"? ;)

I think a valid point is, it's All speculation until fully tested, as laws are amended, clarified and case law precedent is set, there are far too many variables for consumer lawyers to Know for sure, and certainly too many variables for us Pro Se folks to be close to certain what "will work" in a particular court/situation.

To be clear, I'm Not arguing anything you've stated is "wrong", quite the contrary, you have done much research and are a huge help to many on this site (us included in a big way) , My ignorant self, sees an opportunity and "runs with it" unless I'm positive it's a total waste of time, I have seen enough case law to know some of the best lawyers "throw theory to the wall in numbers to see "what will stick" - so to speak. While oftentimes (especially in Fed Court) the Judge "does not agree", however sometimes they do agree!

It very well could be the Judge will say, they bought the debt so they had permissible purpose, OR the judge MAY say, the Consumer did not enter into any agreement with JDB, thus the JDB did not have permissible purpose to pull their credit, I do not believe it's "done" until a particular Judge makes that decision , is my foolish point here. :D

Either way once the JDB cannot prove legal standing, they ARE guilty of violations of FDCPA and FCRA when combined and add in punitive damages, that is no small thing IF folks wish to pursue it, in Federal Court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you've done a good job.... what "I" would change (up to you of course)

2. P is debt collector(under the definitions of FDCPA)

4. Provide assignment from CSPV to Cal Portfolio.(and full chain of custody including proof of title and ownership)

6. CSPV regularly purchases(portfolios of) defaulted debt

6. Provide amount(allegedly) paid by D

7. Proof of last date of (alleged) payment.

You "Might" want to draft another one demanding full accounting of the alleged debt from a $0 balance to date also ;)

I'm sure that others here with far more experience can help you further :)

Edited by hopefulscambeater.
Link to post
Share on other sites
IMO that "reinforces" My points here, there are so many changes, amendments etc. there are many "gray areas" that have not been ruled upon IMO it appears the Court viewed FACTA as "the law" as it was most recent?

There's more to the FCRA than just FACTA. FACTA was amendments added to the FCRA, it didn't replace the FCRA. The version of the FCRA you read today includes FACTA amendments.

I agree that they've violated. My point was to simply be careful because there's very little case law on permissible pulls and JDBs. Possibly the reason there's so little case law is because it's so difficult to prove.

Unless and until the FCRA makes a differentiation between OCs and JDBs, it will continue to be difficult. I wish a brave attorney would take this on and make case law. Perhaps if one was successful, others would follow his/her lead.

Oh, one other thing. Before you had stated that you felt CAs didn't have permissible purpose. If the CA is collecting for the OC, they definitely have permission.

Edited by BV80
Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that they've violated. My point was to simply be careful because there's very little case law on permissible pulls and JDBs. Possibly the reason there's so little case law is because it's so difficult to prove.

OR it could be JDB like to dismiss (or settle out of court) when they KNOW they're "toast" :D

Oh, one other thing. Before you had stated that you felt CAs didn't have permissible purpose.

Again that was a "direct quote" of the title of a post here by Admin - Not "my opinion", I was referring totally to that, my apologies if I wasn't 100% clear on that, often my fingers get ahead of my brain LOL

http://www.debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/forums/showthread.php?t=219568

See Post #12

I am simply "trying" to find ways to USE that in JDB (or rather against them) LOL

Edited by hopefulscambeater.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Katie,

It looks like a few of your interrogatories are actually requests for documents.

The assignments and contract you requested are documents. Anything that calls for a physical document should go in your Requests for Documents.

Try looking in the Sample forms sticky in "Is There A Lawyer in the House". There might be some samples of more interrogatories if you feel you need more.

If you've already filed, don't worry. They'll just answer with "See Plaintiff's response to #whatever", or "request is duplicative", or "request is overly broad", etc.

The point is you've made them have to actually work. They don't like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I'm not sure if I'm any clearer on the JDB pullling CR being a violation, but I am certainly more informed. Thanks much for spending the time to help myself and others. I am noting everything, and will probably get an attorney if and when I file a counter claim. I waited too late for this particular deadline, but I can see the value in it. In any case, I think I have found a great tool in this website. Thanks to everyone again!

I will look to the forms to see what I can find. I was concerned that some ROGS seem to be requests for docs, addressed that in anearlier post, I know they still kind of are, but wanted to be thorough. I hope to not get in trouble for redundancy, but I did not want to leave any cracks for them to slip through. We are beginig to doubt this was ever even my husbands debt at all. He didn't keep great records beofre I came along, but he has all bank statements and no recollection AT ALL of this acct. They are going to have to produce the hard evidence.

Thanks for the language change hopeful, what I posted was just the idea really, I've spent hours and days pouring through all the appropriate conventions, language, headings, to make sure my responses and querries conform to whatever. Not to say that I think I have it all right, most of what I know I leaned here. The actual Discovery is too long to post and read, while attempting to not be too superflurious :shock: I did change a couple things in response to your suggestion, TY.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope to not get in trouble for redundancy, but I did not want to leave any cracks for them to slip through.

We all understand completely. JDBs are slippery and sneaky. My 1st time I asked for everything but the kitchen sink, then had to revise it a little.

I really didn't think it was necessary for them to tell me their blood types...just kidding. :) Of course, that is assuming they have blood running through their veins.

He didn't keep great records beofre I came along, but he has all bank statements and no recollection AT ALL of this acct. They are going to have to produce the hard evidence.

Citibank could report for 7 years after the default or charge off. It would really surprise me if they just stopped reporting while they were still allowed to. If Citibank isn't reporting on his CR, it sounds like this debt is past the SOL, as well as the reporting perioed. If that's the case, you've got Cavalry.

Just a note. Check out Cavalry Portfolios website. According to the Bill of Sale they sent you, Cavalry SPV assigned the debt to them. Cavalry is a servicer for SPV, BUT I wonder if Cavalry Portfolio purchases debts on their own.

I might add a couple of admissions stating:

Admit Plaintiff purchases debts on a regular basis.

Admit Plaintiff purchased the debt from Cavalry SPV. If they didn't, they'll deny it.

Edited by BV80
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a note. Check out Cavalry Portfolios website. According to the Bill of Sale they sent you, Cavalry SPV assigned the debt to them. Cavalry is a servicer for SPV, BUT I wonder if Cavalry Portfolio purchases debts on their own.

I believe this issue was discussed by another poster recently. I'm not sure what the outcome was and don't remember who the poster was...grrrr. I'll do a search in a little while and see what I can find.

But that is something worth pursuing...especially if it constitutes a break in the chain of title that hasn't been explained in their 'documentation' (snicker, snicker).

RL

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rebel,

That's exactly what I was thinking. Not exactly that it breaks the chain, but it adds to the chain, therefore creating more of an opportunity for mistakes, lack of documentation, and an even stronger case for a "lack of personal knowledge". The longer the chain of sales, the better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rebel,

That's exactly what I was thinking. Not exactly that it breaks the chain, but it adds to the chain, therefore creating more of an opportunity for mistakes, lack of documentation, and an even stronger case for a "lack of personal knowledge". The longer the chain of sales, the better.

VERY good points IMO (both of you)

Link to post
Share on other sites

See nascars post from today....

http://www.debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/forums/showthread.php?t=305359

The general rule is whenever a cause of action is assigned without consideration, the assignor continues to be the real party in interest.

It appears that SPV I, from what you've provided, is still the real party in interest.

Edited by FL4answer58
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just dropping by as a fellow Okie to ask a minor question. Was this filed in Oklahoma County?

If so, you are in luck. Because of the structure of our legal system, judges are VERY NICE to pro-se people. You can get away with virtual murder, and as long as you are nice to the judge (and claim ignorance and apologize to the court when you screw up), you'll be okay.

Don't let these people intimidate you.

I can't say much about other county courts, but the Oklahoma State Supreme Court also likes pro-se people and are really nice to them. I believe that will effect the way any county court treats you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Glittergal, that is good info. I am not in OK county, unfortunately, but encouraged all the same.

So here's an update, I have answered their requests and sent my own discovery, which they answered, denying most everything and providing absolutley no more info than I had to begin with. It looks more and more everyday that either a) this is not my husband's acct at all, e.g. mistaken identity or B) they have no way to prove that it is him. Personally, I think they have the wrong guy. But they don't care.

Since receiving an answer to my discovery, I have not heard anything else from this. It still looms like a big ugly smudge on my husbands credit report, lised at double the amount that they are suing for. They have put two more hard checks on hs credit and dragged his score down by about 13 points in the course of these procedings. So now what? I've lodged a dispute with reporting agencies. Is there some legal means of demanding they produce the evidence or quit their actions? Especially if this is a mistaken identity, it seems we have recourse for a counter suit. Does anyone know a good credit lawyer in OK? Thanks to the time and support from members on this site, I have successfully defended this suit so far, but I would love to sue thier butts off for all the hassle and damage they have caused (try expanding your small business with no way of getting a business loan cause someone is suing you for more than $10,000). I am not sure I have the knowledge and expertise to accomplish a counter suit. Depending on the cost of a credit lawyer and what we might be entitiled to sue for, it may be worth it to hire someone. Any suggestions on where to go from here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Try seeing if there's an NACA attorney that can help out...if memory serves, pulls before litigation are a FCRA violation. That is something that can be grounds for a counterclaim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This just gets worse and worse. So I've hired a NACA atty, specializing in debt collection abuse. So far, I feel more abused by the atty. This debt is NOT my husbands, it never was. That doesn't seem to matter, however, as our attorney charges 50% of the 'recovered debt'. Is this normal? So it doesn't matter that this has nothing to do with us and that we truely are innocent vicitims- it's still going to cost $5000 no matter what?!?! We may have grounds for a counter suit, she says, but we are only allowed to sue for $1000 for ALL violations of FDCPA, not per instance, where she is allowed to claim thousands in legal fees. Is this sounding right?

What's more, her strategy for dealing with other credit issues seems to hinge on turning them into litigation. She's instructed me to send cease and desisit letters to all debt collectors, no matter what. No validation letters, no statue of limitations, just "Stop calling me!"

For instance, my husband's debit card was fraudulently used to set up a Dish Network account last year. As soon as we saw the charge on our bank statement, we called Dish Network and filed a police report (of course the police will do absolutley zero to investigate). DN refunded our money to our bank account, then 6 months later have reported it on my husbnads credit report. Our attorney told us to request an investigation from each reporting agency, but not to even bother communicating with DN as it wouldn't do any good, even sending them the police report.

She wants us to start answering ALL collection calls, recording them, logging them and trying to catch them in abusive tactics.

I'm an adult, I know life just isn't fair, ever, but this really feels like I am doing a lot of labor to make more actionable work for her. I don't want to make a profession of suing people, I just want this and all other credit issues resolved.

BTW- Thanks to everyone who has lent some of their time to my little plight, the new attorney was quite impressed with your work and wanted to know which credit attorney I'd worked for. :)++

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Dish Network, you do need to dispute with the CRAs first. The first time the furnisher (Dish Network) receives a notice of a dispute, it needs to be from the CRAs. The reason for that is in case you do end up suing them. In order for you to sue, you must have first disputed with the CRAs.

Just in case the TL comes back verified, do you have proof of the refund DN issued?

I know some attorneys charge by the hour. Maybe others charge a percentage. Either way, one could end up easily paying 50% or more of the amount claimed in a Complaint.

Personally, I have a problem with a C&D, if a debt is still within the SOL. But that's just me. Some OCs and JDBs are planning on suing anyway, whether they can contact you or not. I'm not an attorney, but in my opinion, if you prevent them from contacting you, those who had not considered suing might become more inclined to do so. That's just my opinion. Perhaps it works well for some people.

That being said, if you send a C&D, and they call, there's a violation right there. Perhaps she wants you to talk to them to see if they harass or threaten you. As she stated, the statutory damages for FDCPA violations are $1000 max per action, not per violation. One CA can commit 100 violations, but those violations are all included in one lawsuit (action). BUT, threats and harassment might allow you to sue for punitive damages (emotional distress, etc), as well. There's no limit on punitive damages.

Also, if possible, take a picture of the caller ID with the number and time of the call. I agree with her about logging all calls. That's a good idea.

Have they been calling you or your husband on your cell phones?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.