My~Cuz~n~Vinny~ Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 (edited) a foundation is sufficient preliminary evidence of the authenticity and relevance for the admission of material evidence in the form of exhibits If a debt collector does not respond to a debt validation letter and then another debt collector sends a debt collection letter a month later.....Is that foundation to show evidence that the plaintiff did not give a reply when first asked for validation?Would that be foundation to dismiss against plaintiff? Surely the plaintiff must have had it and did not supply it when first requested.THANKS KITTYMAMMA !#####THANKS COLTFAN AND RAMBLER.I could always write a request to the 1st DC and ask for names and dates any documentation that was received before the pursued it for the OC.They did write me again after the C&D,to offer a compromise to pay a smaller amount.Still they offered no documentation. It looked like a trap to me. Then the 2nd DC sent a collections letter and again provided no documentation. No documents came with the complaint either.I was wondering if documentation is produced that shows the alleged debt was originally disputed to the first DC,and no document was provided by their client(the OC),,,,And then a different DC picked it up and brought it to summons in court,then is it admissible as evidence that the debt has been disputed already and the OC had ample opportunity to provide it before and did not.Could one ask for a dismissal? Or would it be considered for a trial? Edited March 19, 2012 by My~Cuz~n~Vinny~ answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kittymamma Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 I am not quite sure what you are asking, but I had a 2nd credit card that I defaulted on, not the one Midland is trying to fleece me for...I had Paragon Way thru NES calling me, then they sent a dunning letter, I sent a debt validation letter, they never answered, a little more than a month later they evidentally sold it to Asset Acceptance because now Asset is calling me, I dont answer their calls, caller ID is a wonderful invention lol I figure if they now want to send me a dunning letter good for them, they will also get a DV letter from me and then hopefully run away also....I know it was resold because I actuially called NES and they said they no longer had my account...it seems to me it is a good thing, the more times it is sold the less claim the jdb has on it, less documemntation etc....daggone Midland never sent me a dunning letter so I was unable to nip this mess with them in the bud....but I have very high hopes that I will win against them, thanks to everyone here!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coltfan1972 Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 How do you plan on proving the first debt collector that did not validate the debt, told the OC about the DV letter instead of just returning the account to the original creditor. Then advised the original creditor the account appeared to be uncollectible and was being returned. Even if you could get past the above, which would be virtually impossible without a huge amount of expense, how would you prove the OC did not provide the DV to the collection agency, and the collection agency just did not send it to you, The theory of the collection agency (a very legit theory) being, not worth our time on somebody that is obviously not going to pay. Let's send this back to the OC and move to another debtor that might pay. We are not even going to waste the time and postage sending the DV to this consumer, we're moving to something more profitable. If you can then defeat the above, which would basically be impossible, what you are asking about is a form of vicarious liability. While you're not alleging a violation of the collection agency and therefore the original creditor is responsible for their action, you're making the argument the OC hid behind the collection agency so they could keep after you in an attempt to wear you down. You would be required to prove that allegation, and again, a tough allegation to prove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rambler Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 Besides what Coltfan said, it's my understanding if they do not validate they must cease collections. Now, selling the debt off is not collecting, it's passing the buck. Next guy get's it, and the cycle restarts. They can either begin basic collection practices, or file suit and let the courts decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coltfan1972 Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 Besides what Coltfan said, it's my understanding if they do not validate they must cease collections. Now, selling the debt off is not collecting, it's passing the buck. Next guy get's it, and the cycle restarts. They can either begin basic collection practices, or file suit and let the courts decide.While you're correct, the OP is not talking about a debt being sold to somebody else. The OP is saying that the debt stays with the original creditor and the original just keeps hiring different collectors every time a DV is sent by the debtor. It's a common game of pass the hot potato debt after DV. In fact, it's more common than receiving even the most basic of DV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My~Cuz~n~Vinny~ Posted March 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 a foundation is sufficient preliminary evidence of the authenticity and relevance for the admission of material evidence in the form of exhibits If a debt collector does not respond to a debt validation letter and then another debt collector sends a debt collection letter a month later.....Is that foundation to show evidence that the plaintiff did not give a reply when first asked for validation?Would that be foundation to dismiss against plaintiff? Surely the plaintiff must have had it and did not supply it when first requested.THANKS KITTYMAMMA !#####THANKS COLTFAN AND RAMBLER.I could always write a request to the 1st DC and ask for names and dates any documentation that was received before the pursued it for the OC.They did write me again after the C&D,to offer a compromise to pay a smaller amount.Still they offered no documentation. It looked like a trap to me. Then the 2nd DC sent a collections letter and again provided no documentation. No documents came with the complaint either.I was wondering if documentation is produced that shows the alleged debt was originally disputed to the first DC,and no document was provided by their client(the OC),,,,And then a different DC picked it up and brought it to summons in court,then is it admissible as evidence that the debt has been disputed already and the OC had ample opportunity to provide it before and did not.Could one ask for a dismissal? Or would it be considered for a trial?While you're correct, the OP is not talking about a debt being sold to somebody else. The OP is saying that the debt stays with the original creditor and the original just keeps hiring different collectors every time a DV is sent by the debtor. Yeah I see what you mean COLTFAN. I just wonder what the Judge thinks about them not producing evidence when asked for it. And what the law says is a diligent effort of the OC to comply with documentary requests. And is it worth bringing up at my first hearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coltfan1972 Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 I'm afraid the conversation would go like this. Well Mr. My Cousin Vinny, you won't have to worry about that anymore. You can use discovery, if you wish, to obtain their evidence. If they fail to cooperate, notify the court and we can set a hearing. If you ask them for something (properly) and they don't give it to you, and if I determine it's relevant, I'll order them to provide you what you requested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts