Peculiar situation with the CA and a deleted trade line

[searchingforthebestanswer]

I sent the CA a DV letter back in February and simultaneously disputed the trade line with Experian. Experian deleted the trade line as a result of their investigation, but the CA responded to my DV letter with debt verification. The letter included an itemized bill for money I supposedly owe and they want me to remit the balance by return mail.

Since the CA didn’t respond with appropriate documentation that would prove that I owe the debt they say I owe, and Experian deleted the trade line, should I even respond to the CA?

It seems like I have accomplished what I set out to do, which was to have the trade line deleted off of my CR.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this situation?

[VADebtor]

There's no guarantee it won't come back but I'd leave it alone...

[Hal Jordan]

Up until last week I thought the same as you. But they did validate the debt with what they sent you. If you got an itemized bill from the OC it has been validated.

The FDCPA does not define what constitutes proper debt validation, and the issue has not been fully resolved by the courts. In the leading case of Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals adopted a relatively low standard: "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."[6] The Court further stated that a request for validation of the debt is primarily intended to eliminate such problems as collectors contacting the wrong person or attempting to collect debts which have already been paid.[6] In 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals followed and adopted what they described as the "reasonable standard" articulated in Chaudhry.[7]

There is also no deadline for the debt collector to provide a response to the request for validation. All a debt collector must do is cease all attempts to collect on the debt until they have sent validation to you.[1]

WRT to it being gone.. Good deal. However, I wouldn't be suprised if it doesn't reappear next month or in six months (some CA's report every month, some only once or twice a year).. You may get lucky and they only report it the initial time and never again. Who knows? But I'd say it's good advice to just leave it alone for now. Just watch your credit reports...

I sent the CA a DV letter back in February and simultaneously disputed the trade line with Experian. Experian deleted the trade line as a result of their investigation, but the CA responded to my DV letter with debt verification. The letter included an itemized bill for money I supposedly owe and they want me to remit the balance by return mail.

Since the CA didn’t respond with appropriate documentation that would prove that I owe the debt they say I owe, and Experian deleted the trade line, should I even respond to the CA?

It seems like I have accomplished what I set out to do, which was to have the trade line deleted off of my CR.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this situation?

Edited April 1, 2011 by Hal Jordan

[Florida_Bronco]

Up until last week I thought the same as you. But they did validate the debt with what they sent you. If you got an itemized bill from the OC it has been validated.

The FDCPA does not define what constitutes proper debt validation, and the issue has not been fully resolved by the courts. In the leading case of Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals adopted a relatively low standard:

You might check out this link on CreditBoards regarding the Chaudhry case.

EDIT: You have to be logged into CB to view it, so I'll just copy and paste.

I've explained in some of the Chaudhry related thread here, that I think Chaudhry v Gallerizo DOES apply to our disputes and that the ruling is beneficial to us. I am just going to summarize/copy/paste my information from my other threads so everyone can see it instead of you having had to read a thread where I posted it.

Now here is your typical Chaudhry letter that is sent with an affidavit of debt:

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 (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. Nothing more is required.

Reading just that, it would appear that the CAs have a legal ground to stand on. Many months have been wasted IMO, trying to find a way how Chaudhry doesn't apply because it was lawyer fees or this or that or the other thing.

One of the big things we get caught up in is the "confirming in writing", which the CAs take to mean that they just have to send a letter that says "yeah this debt is yours." What we never really examined is the meaning of the word "confirmed" in this context.

Chaudhry, does apply and here's why:

For starters the next paragraph explaining the ruling is always ommitted from the Chaudhry letters. Here are the two paragraphs together, with the omitted parts in red.

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 (1996). Con- sistent 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.

In the present case, Gallerizzo, after receiving assurances from NationsBank that the sums were owed, verified the debt amounts in his January 18th letter to Plaintiffs' counsel and forwarded a copy of the bank's computerized summary of the Chaudhrys' loan transactions. The summary included a running account of the debt amount, a description of every transaction, and the date on which the transaction occurred. See Graziano v. Harrison , 950 F.2d 107, 113 (3d Cir. 1991) (holding that computer printouts which confirmed amounts of debts, the services provided, and the dates on which the debts were incurred constituted sufficient verification). Thereafter, in a January 19th letter to counsel, Gallerizzo restated the amount of the inspection fees and indicated that the amounts were correct. Nothing more is required.

Now the big problem we have is, we don't have a copy of the letter that the Chaudhrys were sent, but the judge does give a pretty good description, which I bolded. So the judge in this case, just clarified to us how a debt is "confirmed". Note that the CA contacted the OC, then forwarded a copy of the documentation the OC sent to the Chaudhrys.

Obtained and forwarded, just like the FDCPA states.

Now here's another piece of the puzzle. This is another federal judge ruling on verification and cites Chaudhry v Gallerizo (among other things).

Even if the June 14, 2002 letter had not contained statements casting doubt on the accuracy of the information regarding Plaintiff's account, the information contained in the letter would not have sufficed to verify the debt. The only information disclosed in the letter was the date that the account was opened, the date that the last payment was posted, the name and social security number listed on the account, and the current balance. The letter did not indicate the amount or basis of the charges underlying the current balance, nor did it indicate the dates on which such charges were incurred. See, e.g., Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394, 406 (4th Cir. 1999); [*30] Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F.2d 107, 113 (3d Cir. 1991); Stonehart v. Rosenthal, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11566, 2001 WL 910771, *7 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2001). The letter also failed to indicate whether interest was factored into the current balance, and, if so, at what rate and for what time period. Particularly in this case, where Defendant added interest at a rate different from the original, contractual rate for Plaintiff's account, the limited information provided in the June 14, 2002 letter was insufficient to verify the alleged debt.

So here you have another federal judge saying "look, cases like Chaudhry say that proper verification will include dates, charges, rate of interest etc etc".

Pay close attention to the information that was sent. Date account opened, date of last payment, name, social security# and current balance. That's not enough to confirm in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed.

These two rulings don't contradict each other, they go hand in hand. The later ruling clarifies the older Chaudhry v Gallerizo ruling for us all.

Gallerizo verified the debt by obtaining a transaction history on the account that showed pretty much everything and sent a copy of this transaction history to the Chaudhrys.

[hopefulscambeater.]

VERY good information and most certainly relevant, thanks for posting that for all!

[BV80]

 Even if the June 14, 2002 letter had not contained statements casting doubt on the accuracy of the information regarding Plaintiff's account, the information contained in the letter would not have sufficed to verify the debt. The only information disclosed in the letter was the date that the account was opened, the date that the last payment was posted, the name and social security number listed on the account, and the current balance. The letter did not indicate the amount or basis of the charges underlying the current balance, nor did it indicate the dates on which such charges were incurred. See, e.g., Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394, 406 (4th Cir. 1999); [*30] Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F.2d 107, 113 (3d Cir. 1991); Stonehart v. Rosenthal, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11566, 2001 WL 910771, *7 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2001). The letter also failed to indicate whether interest was factored into the current balance, and, if so, at what rate and for what time period. Particularly in this case, where Defendant added interest at a rate different from the original, contractual rate for Plaintiff's account, the limited information provided in the June 14, 2002 letter was insufficient to verify the alleged debt.

Which case is this?

[Florida_Bronco]

Which case is this?

Guerrero vs RJM

http://www.debtorboards.com/index.php?topic=507.0

[Hal Jordan]

You might check out this link on CreditBoards regarding the Chaudhry case.

EDIT: You have to be logged into CB to view it, so I'll just copy and paste.

Hmm.. after reading that part in red it doesn't say that the method described is the amount of things thar are necessary or the bare minimum for verification. All it really says is that what the collector did in that particular case (then outlined what they did) was enough to meet verification standards. It does not say those ARE the standards or that less then what the collector provided as verification would not have been acceptable.

There really is no clear definition and I honestly believe that is why the second paragraph is almost always ommitted because it doesn't set a precedent. It doesn't come right out and say this is what it takes to be valid for providing verification or that less than this won't cut the mustard. It simply isn't clear enough to be considered a standard.

Also it doesn't fit all all kinds of debts. What about medical debts? What about a breech of contract debt? What about unpaid damages that cause a debt?

I admit that it's food for thought.. but if you were to hand that second paragraph to a judge and say this is what you must infer about the Chaudhry ruling because of what is written here I don't think you could get 1 judge out of 10 to say "Yep, you're right, that clears it up. The collector did not perform the same or as many steps and as such does not meet the grounds for debt verification".

If it did there wouldn't even be debate about it. A judge somewhere sometime would have set a precedent and said here ya go. Based off the two paragraphs and the other case I will say that this is what is required to verify/validate debt and less will not be acceptable.

The precedent just isn't there my man.. I wish it was.. OH HOW I WISH IT WAS! but it just isn't (atleast that I've seen or heard about or been able to locate).

[Florida_Bronco]

Hmm.. after reading that part in red it doesn't say that the method described is the amount of things thar are necessary or the bare minimum for verification. All it really says is that what the collector did in that particular case (then outlined what they did) was enough to meet verification standards. It does not say those ARE the standards or that less then what the collector provided as verification would not have been acceptable.

There really is no clear definition and I honestly believe that is why the second paragraph is almost always ommitted because it doesn't set a precedent. It doesn't come right out and say this is what it takes to be valid for providing verification or that less than this won't cut the mustard. It simply isn't clear enough to be considered a standard.

Also it doesn't fit all all kinds of debts. What about medical debts? What about a breech of contract debt? What about unpaid damages that cause a debt?

I admit that it's food for thought.. but if you were to hand that second paragraph to a judge and say this is what you must infer about the Chaudhry ruling because of what is written here I don't think you could get 1 judge out of 10 to say "Yep, you're right, that clears it up. The collector did not perform the same or as many steps and as such does not meet the grounds for debt verification".

If it did there wouldn't even be debate about it. A judge somewhere sometime would have set a precedent and said here ya go. Based off the two paragraphs and the other case I will say that this is what is required to verify/validate debt and less will not be acceptable.

The precedent just isn't there my man.. I wish it was.. OH HOW I WISH IT WAS! but it just isn't (atleast that I've seen or heard about or been able to locate).

That second paragraph isn't included not because it doesn't set a precedent, but because it would give more information to the consumer than the debt collector wants them to have. Remember, we're talking about collection agents here.

There is no hard line definition for validation because like you said, it could vary depending on many different circumstances. What we DO know is that it MUST come from the OC, not the debt collector, and give some form of explanation for the breakdown of the debt. Court cases, FTC opinion letters and the FDCPA itself are all in agreement on that one.