joeyjoe68 40 Posted December 10, 2010 Report Share Posted December 10, 2010 So the fiancee' was served 12 days ago from a firm called Rausch, Sturm, Israel...... claiming that they were representing CITI Bank for an old credit card. We have been putting together the answer and today she recieved a letter from Rausch stating that they are "authorized" to accept a settlement on behalf of Citi in such and such amount.When we checked her credit report the account stated that citi had charged off the account a while back. (it's still within SOL)Is it normal for a firm to file and then send a letter out like that? should we send a DV to the firm along with the answer to the court? The letter today did not state that it was from a debt collector attempting to collect a debt as the FDCPRA states it should, violation? any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated. thanks Link to post Share on other sites
Guest usctrojanalum Posted December 10, 2010 Report Share Posted December 10, 2010 I would say this is pretty standard, of course they want to settle the case instead of litigating it. Saves them time and money. Do not DV now, reply with an answer and discovery demands if your court allows. And yes, a letter asking for settlement IMO should state that they are debt collectors attempting to collect a debt. Link to post Share on other sites
