OC in suit, but CR say CA/attorney firm's name with"charge off"listed in the comment

[BanjoRiver]

The DC/attorney firm is claiming they are not liable under the FDOPA, however, they are the ones listed on our CRs as only "debt collector", not an attorney for original creditor. The comments section of our CRs shows"charge off or collection, account placed for collection".

From my understanding, "charge off" means the OC took a tax break for the alleged debt, which means they cannot sue for the debt. Any answers are much appreciated, with statutes if possible. From my understanding it doesn't free you of obligation, but it does mean the OC can sell the debt, or assign it, but they cannot, themselves actively collect on it after charge off?

Also, if the OC supposedly still has the alleged debt, how can a debt collection firm list the debt under their name supposedly as a debt collection agency (nothing about the attorney party) with OC as "medical"... But then the DC attorney firm sues under OC's name? Is the debt collector liable under the FCRA for improperly reporting information if the OC indeed still has the alleged debt? This alleged debt is over medical, and I don't recall the OC trying to contact me. However, the CA/attorneys pulled my spouse's CR and my own one month prior to filing this suit. From my understanding there is a FTC opinion letter (cosgrove-greenblatt) that states that litigation, including pre-litigation, is not a permissable pull under the FDCPA and FCRA? But what about the fact that they, the CA/attorneys, claim not to holds this alleged debt at all, that they are only attorneys acting for OC, but yet are reporting it differently to our CRs, that they are the CA, and that it is a charge off from the OC, along with the"mini-miranda"at the bottom of the original filing they had us served with?

Help? Help! Please this "least sophisticated consumer"is officially confused.

[BV80]

If the OC still owns the debt, yes they can sue. A charge off has nothing to do with filing a lawsuit. If they sell it, they can't sue, because they no longer own it.

By debt collection firm, do you mean a debt collection law firm? Such a firm could represent the OC in a lawsuit.

Does the attorney and the CA have the same name? If not, the collection agency and the attorney are 2 different entities.

Regarding the mini-miranda, a debt collection attorney will include that in a letter or on a summons because he's bound by the FDCPA.

[BanjoRiver]

I thought if the debt collection law firm, who on a regular basis, ingaged in debt collections, is bound by those laws?

They are portraying themselves as only the attorney for the OC, currently, and denying that they are bound under the FDCPA and FCRA. However, they contradict themselves in reporting to my credit report and my spouses CR, listing themselves as the collection agency only, and on a"charged off account placed for collections"

I even believe they violated hippaa.

Originally, I responded with"affirmative defenses"... Not that I knew exactly what that was at the time...lol... However, because of the contradiction on my CR of the status of the debt, as well as them pulling our CRs, I asked for validation/verification of the alleged debts that included the papers we signed on the alleged days of service, (not our personal medical information) and about 45 days later they send information with just medical services and information and our names at the top, nothing of the actual paper we signed that day they are claiming.

This is after they have tried to hide court documents so we couldn't respond. We moved just prior to being served (when we went back for final belongings), and in my initial response, we stated that we deny the address, claim wrongful county, and plainly state our correct address. We believe they sent interoggatories to our prior address, that would require response, so they could get a default judgment. Because I asked for debt validation in the first letter, but they didn't respond to the address givin, I requested a dismissal. They finally responded to that at our correct address, denying the request for dismissal, and stating they are not liable under the FDCPA and FCRA, because they are just attorneys for OC, not a CA.... But the credit reports, as well as their "mini-miranda" show that they are acting as a collection agency. But after the denial of request for dismissal, they sent me a the supposed "validation".. It wasn't marked as such, and had a different attorneys name other than the one in the suit, but same DC FIRM, with no reference to the pending"bench trial" case, with about a $90 difference to the case overdoing a settlement if I'll speak with him.

Also my husband is a jr, they had him down as his father (no jr), and I maintain my maiden name, they had me down as AKA with his last name... Which is why I asked for the signed agreements on the days they listed, also because they cross listed our alleged medical bills to each others CRs, and the dates seem fishy. Well hubby's dad and hubby bickered over the name thing, we purposely did not talk to hubs dad for a week, but hubby's father just knew who the DC firm is, so he called them, to make sure he want included (not because he gave a poop) and he didn't have our permission to talk to them, he told them he was sr. and not jr., and they told him information about the debt, and that they were going to not settle, but ask for about $4500, which was for attorney fees, and interest on top of that, basically because we invoked our right to due process by wanting to challenge their claims, to make sure they are valid. This amount is, I believe the word is"usary" or "unjust enrichement" because this it's about 4 and 1/2 the alleged original amounts...

Also from my understanding, I heard something called the "doctrine of unclean hands" might apply here because of them attempting to get a default judgment because of hiding the court documents purposely by not responding tip the correct address, which they were informed of. I wonder if"equitable estoppel"or"estoppel in pais" might apply here?

Thank you for responding.

I'm here on this board because I don't exactly understand and am just trying to piece it together.

[Guest usctrojanalum]

The DC/attorney firm is claiming they are not liable under the FDOPA

This is incorrect.

From my understanding, "charge off" means the OC took a tax break for the alleged debt, which means they cannot sue for the debt

This is incorrect as well.

From my understanding it doesn't free you of obligation, but it does mean the OC can sell the debt, or assign it, but they cannot, themselves actively collect on it after charge off?

Charge-off is simply an accounting term that means nothing to you and me. Do not get caught up in the terminology. The creditor still owns it and you still owe it.