Birdnals

Called OC years ago, no account --Now a letter from CA

Recommended Posts

I just received a letter from Midland Funding saying that they now own an account that I had with Verizon Florida Inc. I had home internet and cable service with them around three years ago and then cancelled my service. About a year ago, I inquired with Verizon to get service for my home again. When talking to them I asked them if there were any previous accounts that needed to be cleared up first. I was told that they had no record of an account. Additionally, Verizon has made no effort to contact me over the past three years in regards to this account. Now I just have a letter from Midland saying that they own the account and to contact them in reference to the account. It also says that no collection efforts will begin for at least 30 days from this notice. I have zero clue what to do with this. I am already, successfully, repairing my credit with the help from this form. i plan on trying to buy a house a year from now so I want to protect my credit for the short term future as much as possible, even if it means shelling out some cash now.

Best regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm not mistaken, the SOL for a cell phone debt is 2 years, but it also may depend upon the carrier's contract. When was the last time you paid on that account?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest usctrojanalum

It is possible the OC had no record of your account because it was already sold to Midland at that point and purged from their system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry about that. I saw Verizon and the words "cell phone" stuck in my brain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is possible the OC had no record of your account because it was already sold to Midland at that point and purged from their system.

Then why would Midland wait until now to contact me and say that they have purchased this debt? Regardless, what course of action would you recommend?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then why would Midland wait until now to contact me and say that they have purchased this debt? Regardless, what course of action would you recommend?

Midland is in the business of purchasing debts and trying to collect on them.

You could send a debt validation letter to Midland if you want. That way you could see what it's all about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check your state laws on SOL, pertaining to contracts, account stated, and open accounts.

Also send Midland a debt validation letter, in accordance with the FDCPA, explaining they are required to validate this alleged debt and all collection efforts must cease until such validation is forthcoming. The FDCPA does not specify a time frame for confirmation of debt validation , however, you should demand that Midland submit proof of their LEGAL STANDING within (xx days...your call) that they have a formal agreement/assignment with the OC in this regard, properly executed and manifested( supported) by a written agreement between all parties, showing valuable consideration paid for the account. Also, demand proof of the unbroken chain of title, showing proof that each entity in that chain had or has legal standing in this regard." Legal Standing must be supported by facts, not mere conjecture, and those facts must be capable of being addressed and adjucated in a court of competent jurisdiction".( Per the Honorable Judge Frank G. Clement, Court of Appeals at Nashville, Tenn)

Ask the court to consider the above, in the event it might fall on deaf ears at Midland . Remember, this " THE BURDEN OF PROOF OF ALL STATEMENTS MADE LIES WITH THE PLAINTIFF"....and it is definitely a violation of the FDCPA to submit false and mis-leading information in the collection of a debt". If you can prove Midland is at fault, then you might also be able to ask your State Attorney General to consider charging them with " conspiracy to defraud"..in which case this would become a felony subject to criminal, not civil law. Also, the FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION states that " UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICE"( Section 5 of the FTC ACT) subjects the guilty party to a $16.000.00 penalty. , and if such a violation has occured by using the US Mail or other common carrier to deliver any letter or document in violation of the above FTC ACT, well you might be able to cite a violation of " Title 18 US Mail Code, Chapter 63" ( Mail Fraud)which pertains to " any scheme or artifice" used in committing fraud. Run all of this past Midland...I did and they backed off ! As a matter of fact, I received a reply, stating they were closing the matter in question and would cease all communications with me regarding the matter so stated.stated''...AS A MATTER OF FACT, THEY NEVER BOTHERED VALIDATING THE ALLEGED DEBT !

Don't rely exclusively on the standard validation request...but

USE ALL AVAILABLE TOOLS !

Edited by Noway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Norway -- Thank you for your thorough analysis. I guess my hope is that since Verizon did not have any account information on this 14+ months ago that there will not be much documentation available for Midland to verify this debt. The part that confuses me is how the letter states they are not attempting to collect a debt and will not do so for at least 30 days. Has anyone ever heard of this? My concern is that since they are not attempting to collect a debt yet that I can not start the validation process yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Norway -- Thank you for your thorough analysis. I guess my hope is that since Verizon did not have any account information on this 14+ months ago that there will not be much documentation available for Midland to verify this debt. The part that confuses me is how the letter states they are not attempting to collect a debt and will not do so for at least 30 days. Has anyone ever heard of this? My concern is that since they are not attempting to collect a debt yet that I can not start the validation process yet.

I suggest that you send Midland a letter demanding to know WHY THEY SENT YOU THEIR ORIGINAL LETTER TO BEGIN WITH if they are not attempting to collect this alleged debt ! Demand to know why they sent the letter in view of the fact, they either did not have legal standing at the time or any ability ( authenticated documents) on which to base or justify sending the original letter.

I think the legal term is " overshadowing" and that alone may be in violation of federal laws.

anyway...do as I have suggested in both posts, making it very clear that you intend to hold all parties both corporately and personally liable, and demand an immediate reply , signed in "wet ink" by the agent/s who have made a review of this alleged account and who can certify the truthfulness of all statements made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest usctrojanalum

Send a DV letter see what happens... this is my version of the letter,

Dear Collector,

I dispute the validity of the alleged debt.

Your name here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree...you need to let these clowns know from the "git-go" that you won't be jerked around by them.

Edited by Noway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Norway -- Thank you for your thorough analysis. I guess my hope is that since Verizon did not have any account information on this 14+ months ago that there will not be much documentation available for Midland to verify this debt. The part that confuses me is how the letter states they are not attempting to collect a debt and will not do so for at least 30 days. Has anyone ever heard of this? My concern is that since they are not attempting to collect a debt yet that I can not start the validation process yet.

All they are required to provide for debt validation is the name of the OC and the amount of the debt. You can ask for everything but the kitchen sink, but they're not required to provide it.

If you want to include it, you could add:

Pursuant to § 809 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, I'm requesting...etc.

If it were me, I just wouldn't request all the things they're not required to provide. Requesting all those things simply makes them think you're looking up internet letters and that you don't know what they're required to provide.

Despite the fact that they say it's not an attempt to collect a debt, it's still their initial communication with you. You could go ahead and send a DV, if you want, OR you could wait until they send you a letter stating it IS an attempt to collect a debt.

That section of the FDCPA states "Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt..." It could be argued that this was not a collection attempt. It could also be argued that it was in connection with collection. Sort of confusing.

Edited by BV80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All they are required to provide for debt validation is the name of the OC and the amount of the debt. You can ask for everything but the kitchen sink, but they're not required to provide it.

If you want to include it, you could add:

Pursuant to § 809 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, I'm requesting...etc.

If it were me, I just wouldn't request all the things they're not required to provide. Requesting all those things simply makes them think you're looking up internet letters and that you don't know what they're required to provide.

Despite the fact that they say it's not an attempt to collect a debt, it's still their initial communication with you. You could go ahead and send a DV, if you want, OR you could wait until they send you a letter stating it IS an attempt to collect a debt.

That section of the FDCPA states "Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt..." It could be argued that this was not a collection attempt. It could also be argued that it was in connection with collection. Sort of confusing.

Correct...they don't have to provide anything, other than the validation at this point...but they will have to prove it in court, if it gets that far...up to and including the kitchen sink....and you've made them aware that you are indeed not a "least sophisticated consumer" by making these requests early on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The strong move quiet, weak start riots.

Moving quietly in matters such as this does not demonstrate strength...rather might demonstrate your "weakness" from the standpoint of not being knowledgeable of your rights under the law.

"procrastination"( delaying an action)...implies "consternation"( def: "as great fear or shock that makes one feel helpless or bewildered" ( ie: the matter in question)

Edited by Noway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moving quietly in matters such as this does not demonstrate strength...rather might demonstrate your "weakness" from the standpoint of not being knowledgeable of your rights under the law.

"procrastination"( delaying an action)...implies "consternation"( def: "as great fear or shock that makes one feel helpless or bewildered" ( ie: the matter in question)

Knowledgeable of your rights under the law? JDBs and CAs also have rights under the law. The FDCPA is law. Asking for things they're not required to provide shows a lack of knowledge on the part of the debtor, as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest usctrojanalum

Those are the types of DV letters collectors get and just lol @ irl because they know the debtor has no actual knowledge of anything and is just some crazy lunatic that read some blurb on a comment board. It actually does make one appear as the least sophisticated consumer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those are the types of DV letters collectors get and just lol @ irl because they know the debtor has no actual knowledge of anything and is just some crazy lunatic that read some blurb on a comment board. It actually does make one appear as the least sophisticated consumer.

Then explain why they always back off ?...and don't say" because they didn't want to spend the time, sorta crap"

A jdb or debt buyer will be required to 'show the proof of legal standing, proof of purchase or assignment , and proof of a properly executed agreement and proof of valuable consideration paid...might as well hit them with some preliminary BOP"S up front...and see where it goes...in every case for me...they went to sleep. The FDCPA is not all inclusive...there are other state and federal laws to which they are held accountable....and they know it...you just need to make them aware that you know it as well.

You made the statement , usc, now show me some documented facts where a jdb or Debt buyer has "laughed" at an in depth inquiry or demand for proof..perhaps you are just "speculating" as usual and cannot support your statement.

Edited by Noway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Knowledgeable of your rights under the law? JDBs and CAs also have rights under the law. The FDCPA is law. Asking for things they're not required to provide shows a lack of knowledge on the part of the debtor, as well.

Not required to produce in your request for validation perhaps...but damn well be required to show proof at trial....and they know it.

Of course JDB"S and CA's have rights too ! BUT They don't have the right to '"remain silent"( as in not providing sufficient proof of their claim, either at the onset or at trial) while attempting to trample on your rights however. You might as well "git 'er said and done" at the onset, and let the chips fall where they may...so far all the chips have been in my favor !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Knowledgeable of your rights under the law? JDBs and CAs also have rights under the law. The FDCPA is law. Asking for things they're not required to provide shows a lack of knowledge on the part of the debtor, as well.

and then is where we can ask the courts to use judicial discretion in deciding who has the most ( or the least) compelling evidence in support of a 'claim upon which relief should be granted ( or not)

Heck, if there's a chance the opposition might win...at least make them work their butts off for a victory !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then explain why they always back off ?...and don't say" because they didn't want to spend the time, sorta crap"

A jdb or debt buyer will be required to 'show the proof of legal standing, proof of purchase or assignment , and proof of a properly executed agreement and proof of valuable consideration paid...might as well hit them with some preliminary BOP"S up front...and see where it goes...in every case for me...they went to sleep. The FDCPA is not all inclusive...there are other state and federal laws to which they are held accountable....and they know it...you just need to make them aware that you know it as well.

You made the statement , usc, now show me some documented facts where a jdb or Debt buyer has "laughed" at an in depth inquiry or demand for proof..perhaps you are just "speculating" as usual and cannot support your statement.

Not to be arguementative, but you can't prove they backed off because of your letters. I've had the same results with very simply letters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright well I took a middle of the road approach. I told them that while I know that they're not required to show me proof that they do indeed own the debt that I also understand they will be required to do so should they take this case to court and that they won't receive any money from me without said proof. I then went on to request validation etc etc and told them that even though they are not yet attempting to collect a debt that they ought to provide all of this now before they do start, otherwise they will just have to go through this whole process again. Thanks for the advice guys, I'll keep you posted.

Share this post


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