Recommended Posts

Collection letter had the usual 30 day initial FDCPA disclaimer.

Then it says, "We want to help and are willing to work with you, but you must contact our office PROMPTLY.

So which is it, within 30 days or promptly. Not just the least sophisicated, but I think anybody would not consider 30 days "promptly"

"Avoid further collection activity by enclosing your payment."

Talk about overshadowing the validation period by stressing that I can do away with further collection activity if I just pay them, and if I do it promptly.

I guess I'm going to have to take out an office over at the federal courthouse and hire some staff to assist. I wonder if I can request the same Judge so we can just do them one after another.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I hate doing this but in my search to start the lawsuit train, I found this "garbage" :evil:

Hot of the presses on May 11, 2012, 7th Circuit of appeals. boo :(

Misty M. Zemeckis v. Global Credit & Collection Corporation, No. 11-2334, 7th Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9557)

Bottom line; the court ruled that act now, promptly, call now, hurry, we urge you to take action now, & call our office today are considered............

"PUFFERY" and do not overshadow since there is no hard and fast deadline that contradicts the 30 day validation period.

The ruling states the the LSC would know that a debt collector is obviously in a hurry to get payment.

And it's obvious to even the "dimmest" of consumers that a debt collector would like payment immediately.

It's 7th Cir. Appeals so of course there could be some rulings the other way in different circuits, but May 11, 2012 and on federal appeal is pretty good ammo for the other side on this one.

I'm might not be the smartest, but I'm far from the dimmest.

Even the player that wins the world series of poker has to know when to fold a hand and not put their chips at risk when the value is just not there.

However, shuffle up and deal and on to round two. Sometimes winning is knowing when to not pick the wrong fight at the wrong time, because you know your opponent is likely to drop their guard later and give you a clear shot at knocking them out with one punch.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I hate doing this but in my search to start the lawsuit train, I found this "garbage" :evil:

Hot of the presses on May 11, 2012, 7th Circuit of appeals. boo :(

Misty M. Zemeckis v. Global Credit & Collection Corporation, No. 11-2334, 7th Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9557)

Bottom line; the court ruled that act now, promptly, call now, hurry, we urge you to take action now, & call our office today are considered............

"PUFFERY" and do not overshadow since there is no hard and fast deadline that contradicts the 30 day validation period.

The ruling states the the LSC would know that a debt collector is obviously in a hurry to get payment.

And it's obvious to even the "dimmest" of consumers that a debt collector would like payment immediately.

It's 7th Cir. Appeals so of course there could be some rulings the other way in different circuits, but May 11, 2012 and on federal appeal is pretty good ammo for the other side on this one.

I'm might not be the smartest, but I'm far from the dimmest.

Even the player that wins the world series of poker has to know when to fold a hand and not put their chips at risk when the value is just not there.

However, shuffle up and deal and on to round two. Sometimes winning is knowing when to not pick the wrong fight at the wrong time, because you know your opponent is likely to drop their guard later and give you a clear shot at knocking them out with one punch.

Prescient advice given the following:

From Insidearm.com

Death to Foti? Supreme Court to Hear FDCPA Case on Awarding Costs to Defendants

Email

Print

Comments

RSS

18

inShare

Patrick Lunsford May 30, 2012 3 Responses

The U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday said that it would hear a case where a debt collection agency was awarded costs after prevailing in an FDCPA case. The Court will consider whether a defendant in an FDCPA case is entitled to costs should they win the case, even if the case was not initially brought by the plaintiff in bad faith or for the purposes of harassment.

Advertisement

The Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it had granted certiorari (meaning it will review the decision) in the case Marx v. General Revenue Corp. The action was originally brought by a student loan debtor who claimed General Revenue violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by sending an employment verification fax to her job while attempting to collect the debt.

A federal judge found that General Revenue’s actions did not violate the FDCPA and dismissed the case. The district court judge in Colorado awarded General Revenue $4,543 in costs, despite the absence of a finding that Marx had brought the case “in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment.”

Collection agencies have long been able to recover costs in cases in which they prevail if it can be shown that a consumer brought a case in bad faith. But this case may set a precedent for costs being awarded to prevailing FDCPA defendants when the case is not found to be in bad faith or for the purpose of harassment.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), courts can award costs to the prevailing party unless a federal statute provides otherwise. Marx is arguing that a cost-shifting provision of the FDCPA does supersede the rule, allowing costs to be awarded only in cases brought in bad faith. So far, two courts have disagreed and awarded costs to General Revenue.

The U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday decided to hear the case and address the issue of awarding costs to prevailing FDCPA defendants.

Regardless of the outcome of the Supreme Court procedures, one of the attorneys involved in the case thinks the Supreme Court sent a strong message with Tuesday’s announcement, one that could have Foti implications.

On initial appeal, Marx consolidated her FDCPA claims to one potential violation: a third party disclosure violation concerning a fax. General Revenue sent a fax to Marx’s place of work to verify employment. The fax included the company’s name, logo, and address, its internal identification number for Marx’s account, and stated “Sallie Mae” (General Revenue’s parent company) in the fax information line at the top of the page. The fax requested the employer’s address and corporate payroll address, Marx’s date of hire, whether she was full or part time, and her position.

The district court dismissed Marx’s claim, holding that the fax did not violate the FDCPA’s prohibition on communicating with third parties “in connection with the collection of a debt” because it was not a “communication” at all. The court noted that a debt collector can contact an employer to ask for information in addition to “location information,” as long as the debt collector does not convey information concerning the debt. The appeals court in the case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, agreed and upheld the ruling.

Adam Plotkin, of Adam L. Plotkin, P.C. – a law firm defending General Revenue in the case – said that by refusing to consider the FDCPA “communication” question before it, the Supreme Court left the appeals court opinion as the highest court in the country to have ruled upon this issue.

“The Marx court, the Tenth Circuit Court, ruled that if you don’t convey information about the debt, you don’t have a ‘communication’ under the FDCPA, and therefore there is no third-party disclosure under the FDCPA,” said Plotkin. “By applying the express definition of ‘communication’ as it is set forth in the FDCPA, the Marx Court stuck a dagger in the heart of Foti.”

Plotkin will be arguing before the Supreme Court in the fall on behalf of General Revenue.

Marx’s initial appeal of the lower court decision was heard by the Tenth Circuit Court, with a decision handed down in December 2011. The majority decision affirmed the lower court rulings on the FDCPA violation and the award of $4,543 in costs for General Revenue.

But the 2-1 split decision did draw an interesting dissent. The dissenting appellate judge noted that he disagreed with the decision in the FDCPA violation question. He said that he thought the fax was a violation, rendering moot the discussion about awarding costs to General Revenue.

Marx appealed the Tenth Circuit Court decision to the Supreme Court and presented two potential questions to the high court: 1) whether FDCPA cases can be allowed to award costs to a prevailing defendant in the absence of a finding of bad faith litigation, essentially arguing that the FDCPA supersedes Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), and 2) whether the FDCPA’s strict limits on communications with third parties cease to apply when a debt collector, contacting a third party in connection with the collection of a debt, does not indicate the reason for the communication.

The Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it would hear arguments only on the first question.

The case will be heard after the Supreme Court convenes its next session in October. In the interim, both sides will file briefs and encourage interested parties to file amicus briefs on their behalf.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Devil's Advocate says:

"We want to help and are willing to work with you, but you must contact our office PROMPTLY.

Bill Clinton says: Depends on the legal definition of "promptly."

prompt (prmpt)

adj. prompt·er, prompt·est

1. Being on time; punctual.

2. Carried out or performed without delay: a prompt reply.

tr.v. prompt·ed, prompt·ing, prompts

1. To move to act; spur; incite: A noise prompted the guard to go back and investigate.

2. To give rise to; inspire: The accident prompted a review of school safety policy.

3. To assist with a reminder; remind.

4. To assist (an actor or reciter) by providing the next words of a forgotten passage; cue.

n.

1.

a. The act of prompting or giving a cue.

b. A reminder or cue.

2. Computer Science A symbol that appears on a monitor to indicate that the computer is ready to receive input.

3. Business

a. A prompt note.

b. The time limit stipulated in a prompt note.

There isn't anything here that suggests mandatory action, or that they delivered an ultimatum which contradicts law. In fact, their language suggests cooperation based upon conditional action. (you do what they suggest) "We want to help." Yeah, who believes that, but they put it in the letter. The case law you posted supports the position that they still gave you 30 days despite what the rest of the letter says.

"Avoid further collection activity by enclosing your payment."

Obviously a payment (consent to the debt on the consumer's part) would obviate any further legal action. A payment would be viewed by the court as an admission to the debt, etc., and would probably cancel any further claims of violations. That's what they are hoping for.

Based upon your stellar history in court, you may have a hard time convincing a judge that you are the least sophisticated. Who knows, maybe a good bluff will work. They aren't that smart. Send an ITs letter and attach a copy of your last complaint. Could be a winner.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Prescient advice given the following:

From Insidearm.com

Death to Foti? Supreme Court to Hear FDCPA Case on Awarding Costs to Defendants

Email

Print

Comments

RSS

18

inShare

Patrick Lunsford May 30, 2012 3 Responses

The U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday said that it would hear a case where a debt collection agency was awarded costs after prevailing in an FDCPA case. The Court will consider whether a defendant in an FDCPA case is entitled to costs should they win the case, even if the case was not initially brought by the plaintiff in bad faith or for the purposes of harassment.

Advertisement

The Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it had granted certiorari (meaning it will review the decision) in the case Marx v. General Revenue Corp. The action was originally brought by a student loan debtor who claimed General Revenue violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by sending an employment verification fax to her job while attempting to collect the debt.

A federal judge found that General Revenue’s actions did not violate the FDCPA and dismissed the case. The district court judge in Colorado awarded General Revenue $4,543 in costs, despite the absence of a finding that Marx had brought the case “in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment.”

Collection agencies have long been able to recover costs in cases in which they prevail if it can be shown that a consumer brought a case in bad faith. But this case may set a precedent for costs being awarded to prevailing FDCPA defendants when the case is not found to be in bad faith or for the purpose of harassment.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), courts can award costs to the prevailing party unless a federal statute provides otherwise. Marx is arguing that a cost-shifting provision of the FDCPA does supersede the rule, allowing costs to be awarded only in cases brought in bad faith. So far, two courts have disagreed and awarded costs to General Revenue.

The U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday decided to hear the case and address the issue of awarding costs to prevailing FDCPA defendants.

Regardless of the outcome of the Supreme Court procedures, one of the attorneys involved in the case thinks the Supreme Court sent a strong message with Tuesday’s announcement, one that could have Foti implications.

On initial appeal, Marx consolidated her FDCPA claims to one potential violation: a third party disclosure violation concerning a fax. General Revenue sent a fax to Marx’s place of work to verify employment. The fax included the company’s name, logo, and address, its internal identification number for Marx’s account, and stated “Sallie Mae” (General Revenue’s parent company) in the fax information line at the top of the page. The fax requested the employer’s address and corporate payroll address, Marx’s date of hire, whether she was full or part time, and her position.

The district court dismissed Marx’s claim, holding that the fax did not violate the FDCPA’s prohibition on communicating with third parties “in connection with the collection of a debt” because it was not a “communication” at all. The court noted that a debt collector can contact an employer to ask for information in addition to “location information,” as long as the debt collector does not convey information concerning the debt. The appeals court in the case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, agreed and upheld the ruling.

Adam Plotkin, of Adam L. Plotkin, P.C. – a law firm defending General Revenue in the case – said that by refusing to consider the FDCPA “communication” question before it, the Supreme Court left the appeals court opinion as the highest court in the country to have ruled upon this issue.

“The Marx court, the Tenth Circuit Court, ruled that if you don’t convey information about the debt, you don’t have a ‘communication’ under the FDCPA, and therefore there is no third-party disclosure under the FDCPA,” said Plotkin. “By applying the express definition of ‘communication’ as it is set forth in the FDCPA, the Marx Court stuck a dagger in the heart of Foti.”

Plotkin will be arguing before the Supreme Court in the fall on behalf of General Revenue.

Marx’s initial appeal of the lower court decision was heard by the Tenth Circuit Court, with a decision handed down in December 2011. The majority decision affirmed the lower court rulings on the FDCPA violation and the award of $4,543 in costs for General Revenue.

But the 2-1 split decision did draw an interesting dissent. The dissenting appellate judge noted that he disagreed with the decision in the FDCPA violation question. He said that he thought the fax was a violation, rendering moot the discussion about awarding costs to General Revenue.

Marx appealed the Tenth Circuit Court decision to the Supreme Court and presented two potential questions to the high court: 1) whether FDCPA cases can be allowed to award costs to a prevailing defendant in the absence of a finding of bad faith litigation, essentially arguing that the FDCPA supersedes Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), and 2) whether the FDCPA’s strict limits on communications with third parties cease to apply when a debt collector, contacting a third party in connection with the collection of a debt, does not indicate the reason for the communication.

The Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it would hear arguments only on the first question.

The case will be heard after the Supreme Court convenes its next session in October. In the interim, both sides will file briefs and encourage interested parties to file amicus briefs on their behalf.

When I go to court I don't lose, period, and won't lose so I won't ever have to worry about this. That is the reason I threw in the towel in my prior post after reading the decision of the court.

Only losers have to worry about paying the other sides fees. I don't care how the Supreme Court rules, because it won't effect me.

I know that sounds very cocky and arrogant, the reason is because it is and I am.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Legal,

Read post #4. We are on the same page. I'm not walking into even a small claims court throwing around an argument that a federal appeals court, even not in my circuit, has ruled even the dimmest consumer would not be confused by.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I'd figure the collection industry would be upset with the Court. I figure they would much rather have the third party issue resolved rather than if the FDCPA trumps a federal rule of procedure.

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