Responce to Claim that Debt Validation was Insufficient

[jschneider373]

I sent a debt validation letter to the law offices of Bleier & Cox LLP. They replied by sending a photocopy of the front and back of a statement showing account balance and my name & address. The back of the page contained just general terms. I sent them a letter informing them that they had not satisfied the debt validation requirements and requesting that they cease all collection activity until they did.

This is their reply:

We are in receipt of your recent letter in which you contend that the information we previously sent you to validate this debt was insufficient.

Please be aware that our previous response fully complies with all applicable State and Federal laws and statutes. I respectfully refer you to 15 USC 1692g (a) and (

, as well as Clark vs. Capital Credit & Collection Services, Inc., 460 F.3d 1162 (citing Chaudhry vs. Gallerizzo, 174 F. 3d 394). Clark follows the holding in Chaudhry stating "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." Chaudhry vs. Gallerizzo, 174 F. 3d 394, 406.

If you have any questions, or want to discuss a reasonable repayment plan, please call me or my legal assistant Denise R. Reddish at 818-784-3366 or 866-784-8084 Ext. 112. Otherwise, we have been instructed to review the legal remedies which are available.

Can anyone please provide me with some insight into determining the validity of their response, and also suggest some strategies to reply? Your help will be much appreciated!

Thank you,

John

[Dr. Evil]

Their response is 100% valid and is their form letter that they use in response to your form letter.

[Coltfan1972]

Their response is 100% valid and is their form letter that they use in response to your form letter.

Dr. Evil is correct.

You're demands and your requirements mean zero in the eyes of the law. You have a form letter being sent, while they sent back a form letter, their letter has federal appeals court case precedent backing their form letter.

They have properly validated, per the FDCPA.

[jschneider373]

Dr. Evil is correct.

You're demands and your requirements mean zero in the eyes of the law. You have a form letter being sent, while they sent back a form letter, their letter has federal appeals court case precedent backing their form letter.

They have properly validated, per the FDCPA.

So, what is the purpose of all of the items demanded in the sample DV letter on this forum? If all the CA has to do is sent a photocopy of a statement, not provide a copy of the contract, not provide anything showing they've been authorized to collect on the behalf of the original creditor, then what is the purpose of all the discussion on this forum (as well as books that discuss similar strategies)?

[Dr. Evil]

So, what is the purpose of all of the items demanded in the sample DV letter on this forum? If all the CA has to do is sent a photocopy of a statement, not provide a copy of the contract, not provide anything showing they've been authorized to collect on the behalf of the original creditor, then what is the purpose of all the discussion on this forum (as well as books that discuss similar strategies)?

Exactly!

[BV80]

So, what is the purpose of all of the items demanded in the sample DV letter on this forum? If all the CA has to do is sent a photocopy of a statement, not provide a copy of the contract, not provide anything showing they've been authorized to collect on the behalf of the original creditor, then what is the purpose of all the discussion on this forum (as well as books that discuss similar strategies)?

I don't know why that letter was included on this forum.

The other information requested in the letter would be info that you'd request if you were sued by a JDB. You'd want proof of ownership and a full accounting of the amount. It's just not required for validation.

[Coltfan1972]

What is the purpose of all the discussion on this forum (as well as books that discuss similar strategies)?

Debt validation is simply just one of the numerous topics discussed. Surly you're not naive enough to think you can just send a DV letter and then poof everything just goes away with a letter.

Using your logic, a prosecutor should drop every criminal case as soon as the Defendant pleads "not guilty." Look at a DV as pleading not guilty.

Books on the strategy? Everybody is entitled to try to make money. People write instruction books on numerous subjects, where the info could be found for free, with just minimal research.

It's America, free enterprise.

[jschneider373]

Debt validation is simply just one of the numerous topics discussed. Surly you're not naive enough to think you can just send a DV letter and then poof everything just goes away with a letter.

That's true. I'm not. But, in most of the articles I've read online and in related books it's stated that in 95% of cases CAs cannot properly validate a debt. It is also stated that it's difficult and time-consuming for CAs to properly comply with the DV requirements, and that requesting proper DV will cause many CAs (in fact I think it's often claimed that the majority) to move to other cases where they can simply obtain default judgements because the person being collected from does not respond to letters and summons.

Using your logic, a prosecutor should drop every criminal case as soon as the Defendant pleads "not guilty."

As we all often see, when faced with prosecution a tactic that often deters the prosecutor is being buried with discovery motions. Aside from the work of complying with the motions, that sends a message that the case will be vigorously contested. Certainly that is one reason why persons with means may not even be charged, while those with no legal representation are often more readily prosecuted with much less evidence.

So while it may be naive (since I'm just learning the ropes here) I don't think it's unreasonable after reading so much online and in books on the subject to have believed that it was difficult for CAs to properly validate debts and that asserting my consumer rights may cause many to give up and move on. (After all, that's exactly what's written all over the Internet.) If that's a naive belief, then I'm glad to know that so I can move on to continue research that hopefully will prove helpful.

Thank you for taking the time to reply. If you have any suggestions as to what I might research for next steps, I would appreciate them.

[jschneider373]

I don't know why that letter was included on this forum.

The other information requested in the letter would be info that you'd request if you were sued by a JDB. You'd want proof of ownership and a full accounting of the amount. It's just not required for validation.

That makes sense. I expect to be sued to by this firm. They sued me before, but dropped the suit -- presumably because I was not properly served. But, now we've been in contact and they can serve me properly.

Would it make sense to reply and say something like, "Yes, but if you intend to file suit please be advised that I will require those items mentioned."

Thanks for the reply.

[BV80]

That makes sense. I expect to be sued to by this firm. They sued me before, but dropped the suit -- presumably because I was not properly served. But, now we've been in contact and they can serve me properly.

Would it make sense to reply and say something like, "Yes, but if you intend to file suit please be advised that I will require those items mentioned."

Thanks for the reply.

No, I wouldn't send that, because they wouldn't care. If it were me, I'd be studying the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Evidence of the court in which you'd be sued. Becoming familiar with the rules is extremely important.

Does the OC still own the account? To be sure, check your credit report. If the OC has sold the account, their entry will state "sold" or "transferred". If one of those words is not there, and if the OC is still updating the entry, then the OC still owns it.

As a result, ownership of the debt wouldn't be a question.

BTW, you wouldn't be sued by the law firm. You'd be sued by the entity whom the law firm represents.

[Coltfan1972]

You're right about prosecutions, but missing the point just a little. I'm talking about the very initial stage for a plea, where 99% of everybody pleads not guilty.

The prosecutor is not even going to even be listening, everybody pleads not guilty, just as most everybody is going to dispute a junk debt. It's just the initial stages of the game.

I'm sure you've seen My Cousin Vinny. Remember at the plea where he tries to win the case? That is what these horrible ask for everything under the sun DV letters are trying to accomplish. They are wanting to win the case at the initial stage, like Vinny was trying to do at the plea.

Once the case/claim starts moving forward, then there has to be a legit consideration of "is this worth it"

As to what the books and internet say. There are books and even a show on Animal Planet about finding bigfoot, even though the guys that did the bigfoot hoax in the late 60's (not sure on the date) have fully admitted it was a hoax.

Some people will believe anything and some people have money they don't care to waste. You get that combination together, and it's a receipe for somebody getting ready to lose some money.

I'm not saying don't DV, in fact, do !! A ton of the business models for these collection agencies and JDB is drop an account in record time if there is any dispute, legit or frivilous. That is part of the reason you see these letters still around. People claim they work, when the same letter Dr. Evil and BV80 advised would have accomplished the exact same result.

[usagi555]

That's true. I'm not. But, in most of the articles I've read online and in related books it's stated that in 95% of cases CAs cannot properly validate a debt. It is also stated that it's difficult and time-consuming for CAs to properly comply with the DV requirements, and that requesting proper DV will cause many CAs (in fact I think it's often claimed that the majority) to move to other cases where they can simply obtain default judgements because the person being collected from does not respond to letters and summons.

Just because it's in a book doesn't make it true.

15 USC 1692g(:

If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. Collection activities and communications that do not otherwise violate this title may continue during the 30-day period referred to in subsection (a) unless the consumer has notified the debt collector in writing that the debt, or any portion of the debt, is disputed or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor. Any collection activities and communication during the 30-day period may not overshadow or be inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumer’s right to dispute the debt or request the name and address of the original creditor.

Translation: Not much is required. Basically, verification that the amount is correct and you're the person who owes that, and who the OC is if you're dealing with a JDB, as well as verification of a judgment if one exists.

[Big Time]

The verification in writing that Clark got was an itemized statement from her doctor (the original creditor.)

The verification in writing that Chaudry got was a complete accounting of all monies into and out of the account with the dates of each transaction and it also came from the original creditor.

[Big Time]

You should also see Spears vs. Brennan, a persuasive case from the Indiana court of Appeals. Brennan was a debt collection lawyer who only sent a copy of a contract. Although he did obtain it from the OC, the court was more concerned with what it did and didn't contain:

The contract in no way provides sufficient verification of the debt.   A review of the document reveals that it identifies only the terms of Spears' loan, including a 17.99% annual interest rate and the original loan amount of $2,561.59.   The loan agreement contains no accounting of any payments made by Spears, the dates on which those payments were made, the interest which had accrued, or any late fees which had been assessed once Spears stopped making the required payments.

[jschneider373]

If it were me, I'd be studying the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Evidence of the court in which you'd be sued.

I know that's good advice and I'm working on that. Thanks for your reply!

You're right about prosecutions, but missing the point just a little.

I see what you mean. I guess I'll have to prepare for the next phase by continuing to learn the law and also the court procedures as BV80 suggested.

Is it true that these debts get sold around so much that there's a good opportunity to defeat the claim in many cases? My concern is the possibility of adding expensive attorney and collection fees to the debt (on the side of the Plaintiff) by the time all is said and done if I lose, and having to pay twice what I owe because of that.

[jschneider373]

Thanks for the advice Big Time. I'll look into that, as well. And thanks also for the clarification of Clark & Chaudry cases.

[BV80]

Is it true that these debts get sold around so much that there's a good opportunity to defeat the claim in many cases? My concern is the possibility of adding expensive attorney and collection fees to the debt (on the side of the Plaintiff) by the time all is said and done if I lose, and having to pay twice what I owe because of that.

Most of the time, when a JDB files suit, they are the 1st entity to have purchased the debt from the OC. However, on occasion, there is more than one purchase between the OC and the plaintiff JDB. It doesn't happen often, though.

But that doesn't matter. Even if your JDB has a bill of sale from the OC to your JDB, more than likely that bill of sale will not reference your name or account number. They have trouble showing that they purchased your specific account from the OC. That's where you get them on standing to sue.

Standing to sue means the Plaintiff has suffered an injury. In the case of a creditor or JDB, that means failure to pay is the injury. If the JDB can't prove they purchased your account, they can't prove they suffered an injury. As a result, they haven't proven standing to sue you.

They might be able prove you had the account with the OC. They might provide copies cc statements that show charges and payments.

BUT, if they can't prove that they own the account (standing to sue) and that you owe that money to THEM, none of that evidence matters. You may owe the money, but they haven't proven you owe it to THEM.

Edited April 6, 2012 by BV80

[Coltfan1972]

Is it true that these debts get sold around so much that there's a good opportunity to defeat the claim in many cases?

To the point that I stipulated prior to the trial that I owed every dime claimed in the JDB lawsuit. I simply told the judge, not to them and challenged their standing to even sue me.

I won in about five minutes and that was with never disputing the debt and putting on the official record I was liable for the amount claimed in their complaint.

While I'm not recommending you do that, and I had already won the case with discovery when their witness list did not disclose a witness from the original creditor, I did this as pouring salt in the wound.

I wanted to humiliate the attorney's for the other side, on their own home court, because they had tried to run me over in the initial stages, and played me for a fool. I was sending a message.

I even told them what was coming prior to doing it, and told them "and you're not going to be able to damn thing about it."

So, with all that, they still lost. They put up a very pathic attempt at the business records exception to hearsay. The judge actually looked insulted and did not even let me get going on the hearsay objection before he shut them down on that b.s., in record time.

I'm not advocating being a complete nightmare to the other side (well actually I am). This thing got way out of hand quick, and became personal when the other side tried to bully me. But to answer your question, yes, their evidence is simply pathic and insults the intelligence of a fifth grader.

You beat these clowns in discovery and the trial (which is almost a 100% guarantee they won't show for) is already decided before the judge even takes the bench.

Read the numerous threads, mostly deal with Midland, where they just tuck tail and run when faced with even the most minimal of opposition. The only way I got these cowards to actually take this to trial, was by goading them to the point they simply could not stand to drop the case.

[jschneider373]

Most of the time, when a JDB files suit, they are the 1st entity to have purchased the debt from the OC... But that doesn't matter. Even if your JDB has a bill of sale from the OC to your JDB, more than likely that bill of sale will not reference your name or account number. They have trouble showing that they purchased your specific account from the OC. That's where you get them on standing to sue. You may owe the money, but they haven't proven you owe it to THEM.

To the point that I stipulated prior to the trial that I owed every dime claimed in the JDB lawsuit. I simply told the judge, not to them and challenged their standing to even sue me. [...] I won in about five minutes and that was with never disputing the debt and putting on the official record I was liable for the amount claimed in their complaint. [...] While I'm not recommending you do that, and I had already won the case with discovery when their witness list did not disclose a witness from the original creditor [...] But to answer your question, yes, their evidence is simply pathetic and insults the intelligence of a fifth grader.

Thanks for the help! I'll study court procedures and rules of evidence as it seems my case will need to be won in the discovery phase, once/if they bring suit (which I think they will). Also, I'll study this board and read-up on the material you recommended. Take care.