Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F. 3d 394 - Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit 1999

[antiquedave]

I've seen a lot of sample validation letters that include requests for a lot of information, they seem to contradict this case and ruling, is there anything newer than 1999 on the topic of validation?

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7852532934174415119&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Contrary to Appellants' contention, 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. See Azar v. Hayter, 874 F.Supp. 1314, 1317 (N.D.Fla.), aff'd, 66 F.3d 342 (11th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1048, 116 S.Ct. 712, 133 L.Ed.2d 666 (1996). Consistent with the legislative history, verification is only intended to "eliminate the ... problem of debt collectors dunning the wrong person or attempting to collect debts which the consumer has already paid." S.Rep. No. 95-382, at 4 (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1695, 1699. There is no concomitant obligation to forward copies of bills or other detailed evidence of the debt.

The court ruled that "[v]erification only requires a debt collector to confirm with his client that a particular amount is actually being claimed, not to vouch for the validity of the underlying debt." For the same reasons stated above in support of the court's ruling on Count II, we agree with the court's determination on Count III.

[jq26]

August 2006, 9th Cir Ct. of Appeals:

http://classactiondefense.jmbm.com/clarkclassactiondefense_opn.pdf

The applicable section of the case starts on page 10154 and runs about two more pages.

"...In Mahon v. Credit Bureau of Placer County Inc., we described one way to provide proper verification:

[T]he Credit Bureau, when it received the [verification]

request, promptly contacted [the creditor’s]

office, verified the nature and balance of the outstanding

bill, learned that monthly statements had

been sent from [the creditor’s] office to the [debtors]

for over two years, and established that the balance

was still unpaid. The Credit Bureau then promptly

conveyed this information to the [debtors], along

with an itemized statement of the account.

171 F.3d 1197, 1203 (9th Cir. 1999).

Now, the Clarks urge us to hold that Mahon sets a standard below which a debt collector’s verification efforts must not fall. We decline to impose

such a high threshold. We decline to impose such a high threshold. Rather, we adopt as a baseline the more reasonable standard articulated by the Fourth Circuit in Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394 (4th Cir. 1999). At the minimum, “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.” Id. at 406 (citing Azar v. Hayter, 874 F. Supp. 1314, 1317 (N.D. Fla.), aff’d, 66 F.3d 342 (11th Cir. 1995))..."

[Guest usctrojanalum]

I've seen a lot of sample validation letters that include requests for a lot of information, they seem to contradict this case and ruling, is there anything newer than 1999 on the topic of validation?

I see it all the time on here people have these enormous DV letters that are a longer read than the Grapes of Wrath and these letters ask for 1,000 different things and I always explain to posters debt collectors are not required to provide all of that.

Then when they get the response back, posters are fuming that they received "inadequate validation"

[jq26]

In Clark (2006), the 9th circuit ct. of appeals, arguably the most consumer friendly circuit in the nation, followed Chaudhry and set a rather low standard for DV response. The court also reiterated the importance of the 30 day window.

[antiquedave]

I see it all the time on here people have these enormous DV letters that are a longer read than the Grapes of Wrath and these letters ask for 1,000 different things and I always explain to posters debt collectors are not required to provide all of that.

Then when they get the response back, posters are fuming that they received "inadequate validation"

I used the templates on this site last May forward which some ask for a number of things too. I have to admit I didn't think I had a good response on the ones that repsonded (some never did) I thought the templates here would not ask something that wasn't required.

I guess it never hurts to ask, some smaller outfits may not have such a good grasp on FDIC and send more information but clarifying this might help folks not get their expectations up.

[jq26]

Just my take, but the DV purpose is more to filter out administrative errors that attribute a debt to the wrong individual. There may be 10,000 Joe Smiths in the US and a DV would serve to double check that collection activity is directed at the right Joe Smith.

It isn't meant to supplant or supplement discovery. I think the 9th Cir & the 4th circuits concur.

[Guest usctrojanalum]

A couple years back I had the collection letters rolling in it seemed weekly. I had a lot of medical debt from just graduating college and being underinsured.

The DV letter I always used was simply

Dear Collector,

I dispute the alleged debt in it's entirety.

Me

That was literally it, and is always the DV letter I recommend other posters to send (i sent them back a copy of their original letter so they could identify me, and they could not pull that 'oh we dont have enough info to find you in our system nonsense)

[antiquedave]

A couple years back I had the collection letters rolling in it seemed weekly. I had a lot of medical debt from just graduating college and being underinsured.

The DV letter I always used was simply

Dear Collector,

I dispute the alleged debt in it's entirety.

Me

That was literally it, and is always the DV letter I recommend other posters to send (i sent them back a copy of their original letter so they could identify me, and they could not pull that 'oh we dont have enough info to find you in our system nonsense)

I think I'm settling in on adding pursuant to FDCPA etc and that I also request that they cease and desist all phone calls and contact me by mail only.

[HoppinMad]

There is FTC opinion letter on this issue, although from 1993, it clarifies it rather well.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/wollman.htm

The statute requires that the debt collector obtain verification of the debt and mail it to the consumer (emphasis mine). Because one of the principal purposes of this Section is to help consumers who have been misidentified by the debt collector or who dispute the amount of the debt, it is important that the verification of the identity of the consumer and the amount of the debt be obtained directly from the creditor. Mere itemization of what the debt collector already has does not accomplish this purpose. As stated above, the statute requires the debt collector, not the creditor, to mail the verification to the consumer.

[HoppinMad]

I think I'm settling in on adding pursuant to FDCPA etc and that I also request that they cease and desist all phone calls and contact me by mail only.

I have not had that work. Currently I have sent Asset Acceptance 3 cease and desist all phone communication letters. Since the receipt of the 1st letter, they have called 22 more times, plus twice more just today! I am really contemplating an FDCPA suit for the violations. To boot, the one rep said they didn't have to stop calling reagrdless of what I send them. Guess it's good I recorded the call. Should come in handy for court:twisted:

I think I may have to send a full C&D letter, but I am sure they'll sue then $6000+. Yeah lawsuit coming for sure!

[jq26]

Re: FTC letter. Not sure what this FTC attorney is basing his opinion on. He doesn't quote sources. So maybe he is right, maybe he is wrong. The statute doesn't require what he suggests, so unless there has been court opinion that backs it up, I'd say its 20yr old conjecture.

I don't disagree with it, I just think its an unfounded opinion. As in, "this is what I think the statute really means to say", without backing it up with case law or a thorough analysis of statutory construction.

(emphasis mine)

[antiquedave]

I have not had that work. Currently I have sent Asset Acceptance 3 cease and desist all phone communication letters. Since the receipt of the 1st letter, they have called 22 more times, plus twice more just today! I am really contemplating an FDCPA suit for the violations. To boot, the one rep said they didn't have to stop calling reagrdless of what I send them. Guess it's good I recorded the call. Should come in handy for court:twisted:

I think I may have to send a full C&D letter, but I am sure they'll sue then $6000+. Yeah lawsuit coming for sure!

The first FDCPA suit I prevailed on was on violations of C&D, sent 1 letter, they continued to call, used 3 of the calls as evidence and that was it.

[Guest usctrojanalum]

I have not had that work. Currently I have sent Asset Acceptance 3 cease and desist all phone communication letters. Since the receipt of the 1st letter, they have called 22 more times, plus twice more just today! I am really contemplating an FDCPA suit for the violations. To boot, the one rep said they didn't have to stop calling reagrdless of what I send them. Guess it's good I recorded the call. Should come in handy for court:twisted:

I think I may have to send a full C&D letter, but I am sure they'll sue then $6000+. Yeah lawsuit coming for sure!

Make a complaint with the FTC, and file a lawsuit as soon as possible. 22 phone calls after a C&D you should make them pay.

[Amerikaner83]

Usc... That poster sent a 'don't phone me, only write me' note... That ain't gonna work as a cease and desist. That's just a 'I don't wanna talk on the phone' letter. Not enough.

[antiquedave]

Usc... That poster sent a 'don't phone me, only write me' note... That ain't gonna work as a cease and desist. That's just a 'I don't wanna talk on the phone' letter. Not enough.

worked for me

[Amerikaner83]

I'm sure it has worked for some and may yet again. Broken clocks and blind squirrels...

[HoppinMad]

Make a complaint with the FTC, and file a lawsuit as soon as possible. 22 phone calls after a C&D you should make them pay.

I did file a comlaint with the FTC and Michigan Attorney Generals Office a few weeks ago. I am meeting with an FDCPA bullog attorneyFriday who said he had been "waiting to get a chance to take them on!" Can't wait!!

Plus it's now 26 calls.

[HoppinMad]

The first FDCPA suit I prevailed on was on violations of C&D, sent 1 letter, they continued to call, used 3 of the calls as evidence and that was it.

Was this a FULL C&D letter or only the C&D phone calls?

[antiquedave]

Was this a FULL C&D letter or only the C&D phone calls?

It was a modified version of a letter on this site, asked for validation of the debt, denied the debt and C&D on phone calls but permission to contact by mail

[antiquedave]

I'm sure it has worked for some and may yet again. Broken clocks and blind squirrels...

I love Idioms,

Actually it was a milk run

we use the phrase as Even a blind pig can find an acorn once in awhile

[Amerikaner83]

Was your letter within the 30 day period? If so then any calls without sending you validation would be violations, yes.

Iirc this other situation is different as the DV wasn't timely. But I could have remembered wrong... Hoppinmad doesn't mention if the DV was timely or not...if I was hoppinmad i'd think about the good and bad of sending a FULL cease and desist. Chances are asset will still call... Which means he can then sue on the merits of the blatant violation opposed to the theory of limited do not call letters.

[HoppinMad]

Was your letter within the 30 day period? If so then any calls without sending you validation would be violations, yes.

Iirc this other situation is different as the DV wasn't timely. But I could have remembered wrong... Hoppinmad doesn't mention if the DV was timely or not...if I was hoppinmad i'd think about the good and bad of sending a FULL cease and desist. Chances are asset will still call... Which means he can then sue on the merits of the blatant violation opposed to the theory of limited do not call letters.

It was within the 30 days, they went away for about 8 months, no calls, letters or anything, then began again hot and heavy. I have all the signed receipts for delivery of all the letters, so I don't think they have a leg to stand on.