atpadilla22

Asset Acceptance trying to scam me!!!!!!

Recommended Posts

When I was in college I was stupid with credit cards, I opened 2 $3000 limit CitiBank cards and maxed them out with no ability to keep up with payments. I was young and stupid! I defaulted on them and they went into collections in 2006. I finally have a job that allows me to beging paying these debts back. I was making payments on one account that began at $3600, got it down to $2500 before they started dicking me around on the other account. On my second account I owed $3900, and agreed to settle for $1500. Which was paid in 10/2012, I was going to work on paying down or settleing the $2500 but Asset Acceptance just placed an additional negative report on my credit.

They are trying to say that I paid $1500 to settle the $2500 account and that I still owe them $3900. Even though the two accounts were not even in the same offices, one was Asset Recovery and the other was Assest Acceptance.

Problem is I have no clue what to do about it... Should I ask for debt validation? Will they give me validation of a debt that they are saying is settled?

Any one know how to help me? I want to fix my debt, and help my credit!

Thanks!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

They smell money when someone starts to pay back.  The optimal position for them is to make up demands just beyond what the victim is able to pay.  Basically, whatever money you have, they want it.  It's what they do.

 

Basically, what you should do, or should have done, is save the money yourself without them even knowing, then settle up once either of these things happen:  you have enough money to pay off whatever settlement you can get for everything all at once ... or they sue.

 

And is Asset Acceptance and Asset Recovery the same?  I have my doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Asset Acceptance and Asset Recovery Solutions are subsidieres of each other. Trust me I asked, the funny thing is, Asset recovery was offering me a settlement of $1400 on $2500 and Asset Acceptance took $1500 on $3900... I need to figure out how to prove that, I have the settlement confirmation for the account but it does not state the orginial amount for the settlement. If I ask them to provide this, do you think they would?

Link to post
Share on other sites

A$$et, where to begin!

Newbie,

You are dealing with one of the worst violators in this country. Yes, they purchased the debt for pennies on the dollar, usually less than $.25 per. The SOL in your state is 6 yrs. I have not checked, but, will assume that in your state, a payment resets the clock. Oldtimers, if you know different, please share. Just in case we can use the SOL to stop further activity.

Going strictly by your post, I'll respond like this. When you paid that account off, was it considered "payment in full"? Did you receive a 1099 for balance if over $600? What paperwork do you have regarding this settlement? Please share with us what the contents say. If none, and you did not note the conversations, such as date, time, and name of rep, it is a he said, she said mess. And, unless you can get the rep you spoke to to admit the agreement, they usually win. To catch the rep, you would remind them of the conversation, such as "you said this", in your DV letter.

Yes, you can ask for validation. If they refuse, sayig you did not dispute within 30 day window, or some other excuse, let us know. FDCPA 807(8) makes it clear you can dispute at any time, as they will "have knowledge", plus, nowhere in FDCPA 809 does it say you cannot dispute after that window. You could also try by claiming you are confused as you understood your settlement resolved entire claim. What are they trying to do? Your goal is to get them to lay it all out on paper as to the whole of everything. By this, if they say your settlement was for in full, but, for example, changed their minds, that is a no-no. If they have combined the accounts, it is a no-no. They were purchased seperately, they must be collected seperately.

As to their reporitng this latest item on your CR. Did they notify you in writing within 30 days before or after date of reporting. If not, a violation, which you can use against them. If you find that your paying does not reset the clock but, a new agreement voluntarily signed by you, must be present, you would simply send them a C&D to go eat Maggot Droppings.

IF you must pay these amounts, after you make them work for it, you will offer them $.20 on the dollar, to which, they will respond with at least $.75 on the dollar. You would counter back at $.25, and so on.

FYI, some years back, they convinced an idiot judge in Michigan that since they now own debt, they are not bound by the FDCPA. Of course, it is not true, but, they have tried to use it in other states.

If you would, let us know a little more on this, by seperating the accounts, showing payment and dates, etc. Maybe we can find something else to help you with to offset the balance claimed to be more to your favor. Remember, when you work to resolve an acocunt, your goal is to resolve amicably to your benefit, not theirs. Also tell us if any letters you have received told you they were reporting negative info.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you can ask for validation. If they refuse, sayig you did not dispute within 30 day window, or some other excuse, let us know. FDCPA 807(8) makes it clear you can dispute at any time, as they will "have knowledge", plus, nowhere in FDCPA 809 does it say you cannot dispute after that window.

 

Yes, you can request validation and dispute at any time.  However, the CA/JDB does not have to respond if the DV request is made after the 30 day requirement.

 

 

As to their reporitng this latest item on your CR. Did they notify you in writing within 30 days before or after date of reporting. If not, a violation, which you can use against them. If you find that your paying does not reset the clock but, a new agreement voluntarily signed by you, must be present, you would simply send them a C&D to go eat Maggot Droppings.

 

The section to which you're referring states:

 

(7) Negative information (A) Notice to consumer required

(i) In general If any financial institution that extends credit and regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency described in section 1681a (p) of this title furnishes negative information to such an agency regarding credit extended to a customer, the financial institution shall provide a notice of such furnishing of negative information, in writing, to the customer.
 
Notice that it says "financial institution".  Asset Acceptance is not a financial institution.  Also, this particular section is under 623(a) (15 USC 1681s-2(a)).  Unfortunately, there is no private right of action under 623(a).
Link to post
Share on other sites

No where in the FDCPA does it say that a consumer is forbidden to DV an alleged debt after the 30 day window. It simply says that if you don't, "they may assume the debt is valid". Using 807(8) is fun, especially when most collectors somehow ignore that one. It is best used to delete the TL if they don't report the "disputed".

To add, a CA/JDB/ATTY is never required to respond to a DV. We know some sue anyway, but, they are supposed to cease all activity until such time as debt is valaidated, plus, report the debt as "disputed". NCO is the most famous for this violation, using their affiliates to try and get around it.

If you read my comment, I said nothing about being actionable. True, I could have been more exact and said what I've done with great success. That is to use it against the collector by threats of complaints. Remember, we may not have action, but, the AG, or, your state agency may.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To add, a CA/JDB/ATTY is never required to respond to a DV. We know some sue anyway, but, they are supposed to cease all activity until such time as debt is valaidated, plus, report the debt as "disputed". NCO is the most famous for this violation, using their affiliates to try and get around it.

 

True, but ceasing to collect until they validate the debt only applies if the DV was sent within the first 30 days after receiving the 30 day validation notice.

 

 

If you read my comment, I said nothing about being actionable.

 

I know you didn't, but sometimes we forget that not everyone knows that there's no private right of action for certain sections of the FCRA. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

BV80,

Again, you are reading into a section, what isn't there. As is written, if the consumer fails to respond, in writing, within the 30 days, the collector "may assume the debt is valid". Where does it say they do not have to respond if receipt of dispute is after 30 days? It doesn't say it anywhere. The collector I had my dealings with back than, besides the 807 BS, also tried to get around my disputing by claiming they only had verbal (807(8), not written, therefore, not required to respond or act. They lost, which also highly upseet the state agent handling my complaint, as, to him, it was simple stupidity to even think he did not know the statutes. He was not a happy ccamper.

We all know that the FDCPA is written so that the "Least Sophisicated Consumer" can understand it. But, nowhere, in any rule, ordinance, code, staute, or law, does it say that any section can be interpreted as the reader so desires, or construed to fit one's agenda. In short, what it says is what it means, no interpretation necessary. That is one of the main reasons our courts today fail, and the rule of law does not exist. Too many decisions, all the way to the top, are based on opinion and theory, not facts, at law. Yes, I am an old student of our founding documents as well as the Common Law, the only real law in this country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, you are reading into a section, what isn't there.  As is written, if the consumer fails to respond, in writing, within the 30 days, the collector "may assume the debt is valid".

 

No, I'm not reading anything into the FDCPA.  1692g(a)(3) and (4) give a specific time limit:

 

(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;

 

(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector;

 

 

 

Where does it say they do not have to respond if receipt of dispute is after 30 days? It doesn't say it anywhere.

 

It doesn't say it.  That doesn't mean you can add such a requirement.

 

The 30 day notice means nothing?  Congress put it in there just for heck of it? 

 

 

In short, what it says is what it means, no interpretation necessary.

 

Precisely.  "in writing WITHIN 30 days" means just that.  The following citation is from 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:

 

We conclude the evidence established, without a genuine dispute of any material fact, that the Notice sent to the Mahons on September 21, 1995 was received by them shortly thereafter. They did not request verification of the debt to Dr. Bowen until June 5, 1996, almost nine months later. For their request to have been effective, it had to be made within thirty days from the date they received the Notice from the Credit Bureau. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(3). The Mahons' tardy request for verification of the debt, therefore, did not trigger any obligation on the part of the Credit Bureau to verify the debt.   Mahon v. Credit Bureau of Placer County Inc., 171 F.3d 1197, 1202, 1203 (9th Cir.1999).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Precisely.  "in writing WITHIN 30 days" means just that.  The following citation is from 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:

 

We conclude the evidence established, without a genuine dispute of any material fact, that the Notice sent to the Mahons on September 21, 1995 was received by them shortly thereafter. They did not request verification of the debt to Dr. Bowen until June 5, 1996, almost nine months later. For their request to have been effective, it had to be made within thirty days from the date they received the Notice from the Credit Bureau. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(3). The Mahons' tardy request for verification of the debt, therefore, did not trigger any obligation on the part of the Credit Bureau to verify the debt.   Mahon v. Credit Bureau of Placer County Inc., 171 F.3d 1197, 1202, 1203 (9th Cir.1999).

 

And even this court is technically wrong, if we are using the principle of "the law says what it says" because the law does not place this obligation on the collector in cases where the consumer requests verification within 30 days.  It merely prohibits the collector from further collection until the verification request is properly answered.  Once the timely DV is sent, the 30 days doesn't affect anything else.  The collector could verify in a day and resume collection activity very quickly, or they could just not do anything at all, and not be allowed to act to collect.

 

The law gives the consumer a limited means to bar the collector from collecting, and gives the collector an easy and unlimited means to resume collecting.  The only obligation upon the collector is to not attempt collection if sent a timely DV, until after they (choose to, at any time) answer that DV.

 

For extra credit:  If a collector who receives a timely request for verification, and chooses to not answer that request for 3 years, and does not attempt to collect during those 3 years, then sends a valid verification to the debtor's last known address as given in the timely request, receives the notice back stating the debtor no longer resides there, are they still obligated to not attempt to collect the debt?  Would such a collector be wise to keep all letter and return notification in their file for this account?

Link to post
Share on other sites

And even this court is technically wrong, if we are using the principle of "the law says what it says" because the law does not place this obligation on the collector in cases where the consumer requests verification within 30 days.  It merely prohibits the collector from further collection until the verification request is properly answered.

 

The court was not wrong.  It didn't state that a debt collector MUST validate if the consumer makes the request within 30 days.  The court merely ruled that in for a DV request to be effective (forcing the debt collector to either validate or stop collection efforts), the request must be timely.

 

 

Once the timely DV is sent, the 30 days doesn't affect anything else.  The collector could verify in a day and resume collection activity very quickly, or they could just not do anything at all, and not be allowed to act to collect.

 

I agree.  The 30 day notice is simply an allotted time placed upon the consumer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The part that says "did not trigger any obligation on the part of the Credit Bureau to verify the debt" sure implies that there is some other means to do that triggering but this was not it.  The ruling was correct in its result, but the conclusions were not.  It's as if the court never actually read the statutes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The part that says "did not trigger any obligation on the part of the Credit Bureau to verify the debt" sure implies that there is some other means to do that triggering but this was not it.  The ruling was correct in its result, but the conclusions were not.  It's as if the court never actually read the statutes.

 

I'm not understanding what you mean.  The court stated that an untimely DV did not trigger any obligation on the part of the Credit Bureau to verify the debt.  That doesn't imply that there's some other means to create an obligation to verify a debt.  In other words, a timely DV would trigger that obligation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Torden, you are absolutely correct. Over and above the comments made by the court, which are ridiculous regarding the whole of the complaint, as shown here,  FDCPA 807(8) would apply, as the collector would have knowledge of dispute.  There is no timeframe in section.  To include, if it were true that the consumer lost all rights to dispute the debt  (This is what the court is saying), and, collector not obligated to respond (court also saying), if no written dispute was submitted within the 30 days, then, why would congress write 809©?  By this, if the court is not allowed to construe as admission of liability due to no response,  and the collector is not required to validate the debt,  as 30 day window had passed, what is going to happen when the consumer simply states when their turn to speak, in court,  presenting their defense, that the debt has never been validated?   In short, we deny all claims.  Is it not true that the plaintiff must now provide proof of debt to the court before it can proceed?  Remember, a judge must stop all proceedings until all challenges have been presented and answered.  Though prepondrance of the evidence prevails, both sides must be afforded their right to speak, and present their claim, or defense.  As a side, this is how you get cases dismissed, by placing the judge in a predicament to where they must answer, or dismiss.  Another story here.

 

This reminds me of another decision out of Michigan a few years back when A$$et convinced a court of morons that since they purchased the debt, they were now the OC and not  bound by the FDCPA..  The court totally ignored FDCPA 803.  All it takes to get a favorable decision that does not represent the true meaning of a statute is to convince the court using the good old "Gift of Gab".  It is obvious one of two things are true regarding this case.  My bet lies in that the plaintiff had very poor counsel who never read the statutes, either.   I wonder if Philips' name is on that decision.

 

It needs to be understood that what I say is not just me talking.  I've been doing this for over 10 years, and, have never lost on what I said above. One of my attorney friends was (retired last July) a tax, probate, and consumer attoney.  So, yes, I had some insight on things.

 

Anyone who accepts any decision out of the 9th should ignore all they say.  They are the worst pieces of "Stuff" that ever pretended to play referee.  This is the same court who reversed the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", and, the "Stolen Valor Act".  Philips accepted the claim that the wearing of an unearned medal, is protected by the 1st Amendment, as Freedom of Speech.  In short, it is OK by her that any coward can buy a Purple Heart, brag about being wounded, though never served, and that is OK.  I'm horribly scarred, and totally disabled, from one of my "incidents".  Yes, I receive VA Comp, and part of my retirement funds, but, was denied being able to follow my dream career, had to learn how to walk again, wear a brace, regain the use of one arm, accept all of the stares, the soda thrown in my face, and today told it is OK for a coward to pretend they were wounded in action.  And you think I'm going to be polite to this court.  Understand I am one of three Marines who survived that ambush that day.  Ten Marines died, four of them went home as unviewable, two sets incomplete.  She is part of why I've been absent for a while.  I"ve been doing a lot of research on "things", one being a way to have her removed from the bench.   There are other vets working on getting these two items brought back to the front.

 

Torden, in answer to your "extra credit":  1.  Absolutely not.  2.  If they didn't, they should just close their doors as they don't deserve to collect anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 FDCPA 807(8) would apply, as the collector would have knowledge of dispute.  There is no timeframe in section.

 

There's no time frame in that section because it's more than just about disputing the debt.

 

 

To include, if it were true that the consumer lost all rights to dispute the debt  (This is what the court is saying), and, collector not obligated to respond (court also saying), if no written dispute was submitted within the 30 days, then, why would congress write 809©?

 

Ok...Congress included the 30 day time period in 809©.  You keep leaving that out.

 

 

By this, if the court is not allowed to construe as admission of liability due to no response,  and the collector is not required to validate the debt,  as 30 day window had passed, what is going to happen when the consumer simply states when their turn to speak, in court,  presenting their defense, that the debt has never been validated?

 

Requesting validation and a lawsuit are 2 different things.  What's going to happen when the consumer states that the debt has never been validated?   The judge will want to know the details.  Any judge familiar with 1692g will ask if the consumer disputed with the 30 day time period that's specifically stated in that section.

 

Is it not true that the plaintiff must now provide proof of debt to the court before it can proceed?

 

Again, requesting validation after receiving a collection letter and defending oneself in a lawsuit are 2 completely different situations.  In addition, very little is required to validate a debt in response to a DV request.  Much more evidence would be need to prove a debt in court.

 

Anyone who accepts any decision out of the 9th should ignore all they say.

 

The 9th Circuit is not the only court that has made the same determination regarding the 30 day validation period.

 

By demanding payment within five days, the debt collector gave the debtor only 25 days from the date of the first notice to decide whether to challenge the claim. This period of time is less than the 30 days required to be given a consumer under the Act. See § 1692g(a)(4). Russell v. Equifax ARS, 74 F. 3d 30 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1996.

 

The notice must incorporate "a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt." Id. § 1692g(a)(4). Jacobson v. Healthcare Financial Services, Inc., 516 F. 3d 85 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2008.

 

The plaintiff is advised in advance that a debt collector is under no legal obligation to cease and desist with collection efforts if the debtor fails to dispute the debt within validation period. Campbell v. CREDIT BUREAU SYSTEMS, INC., Dist. Court, ED Kentucky 2009.

 

Therefore, Plaintiff's request for validation of the debt would have occurred outside the thirty-day period required by the FDCPA. Peck v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LCC, Dist. Court, D. Utah 2012.

 

By way of further explanation, if CAI did send a § 1692g(a)-compliant letter to Mr. Searle in June 2007 but he failed to dispute the debt in the 30-day period allowed, CAI was entitled to treat the debt as valid, start charging interest as allowed under Ohio law, and seek the judicial remedies that it described in its letters of September and October 2010.

 

Under § 1692g, a consumer has the right to request verification of his or her debt if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within thirty days after receiving initial notice of the debt. Akalwadi v. Risk Management Alternatives, Inc., 336 F. Supp. 2d 492 - Dist. Court, D. Maryland 2004.

 

A demand for payment or action by the consumer within a time less than the disclosed thirty-day validation period contradicts § 1692g(a) and thus violates the Act. Morgan v. Credit Adjustment Bd., Inc., 999 F. Supp. 803 - Dist. Court, ED Virginia 1998.

Paragraphs 3 through 5 of § 1692g(a) contain the validation notice, i.e., the statements that inform the consumer both how to obtain verification of the debt and that he has thirty days in which to do so. Greer v. Shapiro & Kreisman, 152 F. Supp. 2d 679 - Dist. Court, ED Pennsylvania 2001.

 

This Court dismissed with prejudice Count I of his Second Amended Complaint because the plaintiff failed to request verification of the debt within thirty days of receipt of the notice as required under the federal FDCPA.  ABANTO v. HAYT, HAYT & LANDAU, PL, Dist. Court, SD Florida 2012.

 

I guess all the above courts are pieces of "Stuff". 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not understanding what you mean.  The court stated that an untimely DV did not trigger any obligation on the part of the Credit Bureau to verify the debt.  That doesn't imply that there's some other means to create an obligation to verify a debt.  In other words, a timely DV would trigger that obligation. 

 

The court said the untimely DV did not trigger ... a specific obligation ... that isn't in the law to begin with.  Maybe it's an accidental miswording.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Torden, you are absolutely correct. Over and above the comments made by the court, which are ridiculous regarding the whole of the complaint, as shown here,  FDCPA 807(8) would apply, as the collector would have knowledge of dispute.  There is no timeframe in section.  To include, if it were true that the consumer lost all rights to dispute the debt  (This is what the court is saying), and, collector not obligated to respond (court also saying), if no written dispute was submitted within the 30 days, then, why would congress write 809©?  By this, if the court is not allowed to construe as admission of liability due to no response,  and the collector is not required to validate the debt,  as 30 day window had passed, what is going to happen when the consumer simply states when their turn to speak, in court,  presenting their defense, that the debt has never been validated?   In short, we deny all claims.  Is it not true that the plaintiff must now provide proof of debt to the court before it can proceed?  Remember, a judge must stop all proceedings until all challenges have been presented and answered.  Though prepondrance of the evidence prevails, both sides must be afforded their right to speak, and present their claim, or defense.  As a side, this is how you get cases dismissed, by placing the judge in a predicament to where they must answer, or dismiss.  Another story here.

I am under the impression that Mahon v. Credit Bureau of Placer County Inc is about an FDCPA suit claiming a violation of 1692g(B).  Mahon is plaintiff and CBPC is defendant.  So "... the consumer simply states when their tunr to speak, in court, presenting their defense, that the debt has never been validated?" is backwards.  The consumer is the plaintiff and must present their case (and failed to present a valid one by not showing the DV was timely).

 

This isn't about the merits of the debt itself.  This doesn't say that Mahon lost all rights.  It is saying that because Mahon's DV is tardy, Mahon lost the right to ... uh ...

 

Now this is where the ruling goes astray.  It says "... did not trigger any obligation ..." for an action that even a timely DV would not trigger.  Just to be clear here, a timely DV does not trigger an obligation to validate (title of 1692g).  Instead, it triggers a "cease communication" that stands until the collector does validate in a specific (and very easy) way.  If the collector never validates and never communicates ever again, there is no violation.  But the court wrote as if they did not understand this.  Or is the court trying to rewrite this section of law?  What the court should have said may have been hard to construe from the wording of the law itself.  But here's my attempt: 

 

The Mahons' tardy request for verification validation of the debt, therefore, did not trigger any obligation on the part of the Credit Bureau to verify the cease communication regarding this debt.

 

So no $1000 for Mahon since there was no violation by CBPC.

 

In a case of the CPBC suing Mahon for the debt itself (if that ever happened), this would NOT prohibit Mahon utilizing the procedures of the court to demand validation (of court procedure quality, not FDCPA quality) through discovery, and move for dismissal if the plaintiff fails to provide it, under "plaintiff fails to make a case that the debt is valid".

 

 

This reminds me of another decision out of Michigan a few years back when A$$et convinced a court of morons that since they purchased the debt, they were now the OC and not  bound by the FDCPA..  The court totally ignored FDCPA 803.  All it takes to get a favorable decision that does not represent the true meaning of a statute is to convince the court using the good old "Gift of Gab".  It is obvious one of two things are true regarding this case.  My bet lies in that the plaintiff had very poor counsel who never read the statutes, either.   I wonder if Philips' name is on that decision.

15 USC 1692a (4) The term “creditor” means any person who offers or extends credit creating a debt or to whom a debt is owed, but such term does not include any person to the extent that he receives an assignment or transfer of a debt in default solely for the purpose of facilitating collection of such debt for another.

 

A JDB isn't even a "creditor" according to this.

 

My understanding of the principle of the FDCPA is that it is providing protection of consumers from parties that are not chosen by the consumer.  The consumer chose their OC.  They did not choose the collectors or debt buyers.  The OC might be less inclined to abuse a consumer for their reputation among consumers.  The consumer might use this kind of reputation in their choice of credit provider.  The collector and debt buyers have much less to worry about in this regard (unless, and until, there is a big effort made to connect specific credit providers with specific abuse collections practices based on the credit provider's choices).

 

An ambiguity exists for non-collector account buyers transferring or assigning accounts not (yet) in default.  Say ABC Bank sells off their entire credit card operations to XYZ Bank.  John Doe has a credit card account with ABC Bank, and just lost his job, and has incurred huge medical expenses for a problematic delivery by his wife.  He just can't pay the credit card anymore (despite all those debt collectors that say "just pay your bills" and "don't borrow what you cannot pay back").  But instead of ABC Bank going after him, it's XYZ Bank.  This is probably not a big deal since XYZ Bank isn't in the collections business.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The court said the untimely DV did not trigger ... a specific obligation ... that isn't in the law to begin with.  Maybe it's an accidental miswording.

 

Again, I don't understand what you mean.  After receiving a timely DV, the obligation is to validate or cease collection efforts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I don't understand what you mean.  After receiving a timely DV, the obligation is to validate or cease collection efforts.

But that is not how the law is written.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please elaborate.  How is the law written?

 

It is written in words that say the obligation is to cease communication.  There is no other.  It then says how how the collector can end the cease communication obligation.  There is no specific obligation to validate.  The collector can choose to do so or not do so.  That choice, not any action by the debtor, can then create an obligation to validate.

 

I don't know what else to say.  I read the law in its original wording and I understand this clearly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you about what the law says about ceasing communication.  There's no question about that.  But you have to take into consideration the entire section.  There is more than one obligation depending upon what the debt collector wants to do.  If he wants to continue collection efforts, he is obligated to validate the debt.  That's why the section includes "the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, UNTIL the debt collector obtains verification of the debt."

There is no obligation to respond to a timely DV UNLESS the CA wants to continue collection activity.  In other words, it depends upon the circumstance.  If the CA doesn't want to continue collecting, he doesn't have to validate.  That's one circumstance.  If he does want to continue collecting, he must validate.  That's another circumstance.

You're misunderstanding the caselaw.  The case law I provided did not state "the obligation to verfiy the debt".  "THE obligation" is specific.  "THE obligation" would imply there was a definite obligation to verify the debt no matter what as long as the DV was timely.

What the court stated was "any obligation" to verify the debt.  "Any obligation" is not specific.  It implies there's an obligation, but it doesn't imply that there is only one obligation.  It would depend upon the circumstances.  If they wanted to continue collection activity, there would be an obligation to validate if the DV had been timely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you about what the law says about ceasing communication.  There's no question about that.  But you have to take into consideration the entire section.  There is more than one obligation depending upon what the debt collector wants to do.  If he wants to continue collection efforts, he is obligated to validate the debt.  That's why the section includes "the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, UNTIL the debt collector obtains verification of the debt."

There is no obligation to respond to a timely DV UNLESS the CA wants to continue collection activity.  In other words, it depends upon the circumstance.  If the CA doesn't want to continue collecting, he doesn't have to validate.  That's one circumstance.  If he does want to continue collecting, he must validate.  That's another circumstance.

You're misunderstanding the caselaw.  The case law I provided did not state "the obligation to verfiy the debt".  "THE obligation" is specific.  "THE obligation" would imply there was a definite obligation to verify the debt no matter what as long as the DV was timely.

What the court stated was "any obligation" to verify the debt.  "Any obligation" is not specific.  It implies there's an obligation, but it doesn't imply that there is only one obligation.  It would depend upon the circumstances.  If they wanted to continue collection activity, there would be an obligation to validate if the DV had been timely.

At what point in any time sequence is a collector obligated to perform an action that, if they do perform that action, will not be in violation?  This can't be because prior to communicating they do not have to validate, and after communicating, they are in violation.  It isn't an obligation before the communication (because they don't have to validate).  Even after they communicate (and thus violate on the communication), there is STILL no obligation to validate (a 2nd communication would just be a another violation).  There is simply no provision in the law that creates an obligation to validate, ever.  They can communicate every month, be sued every month, pay the $1000 penalty and legal costs every month, and STILL there is no obligation to validate.

 

To the extent the case law says there is an obligation, then it is apparently trying to creating new law.  Yet such new law is also outside the scope of the case itself.  This new law would not have changed the case since it determined the DV was not timely.  I believe the court merely decided the DV was not timely (as far as I saw, that was correct) and tried to explain it (doesn't establish any case law) in a way that did not match the law (but I do not see how this makes the ruling defective, either).

 

The case was about whether the collector violated.  The law already supports that a tardy DV would not create a barrier to further communication.  The court ruled that way.  No change in law.  The court then put its foot in its mouth trying to explain what needed no explanation.

 

If they wanted to continue collection activity, they could CHOOSE to validate OR be in violation for communicating (not for failing to validate).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

At what point in any time sequence is a collector obligated to perform an action that, if they do perform that action, will not be in violation?  This can't be because prior to communicating they do not have to validate, and after communicating, they are in violation.  It isn't an obligation before the communication (because they don't have to validate).  Even after they communicate (and thus violate on the communication), there is STILL no obligation to validate (a 2nd communication would just be a another violation).  There is simply no provision in the law that creates an obligation to validate, ever.  They can communicate every month, be sued every month, pay the $1000 penalty and legal costs every month, and STILL there is no obligation to validate.

 

Of course, they can communicate every month, be sued every month, and pay the penalty every month.  The obligation arises if they to collect, but don't want to violate the law.  

 

 

To the extent the case law says there is an obligation, then it is apparently trying to creating new law.

 

It was because the plaintiff claimed the defendant CA violated the law by continuing collection efforts when the CA didn't respond to the untimely DV that the court ruled the untimely DV didn't trigger any obligation to respond.  The court was responding to the plaintiff's claim. 

 

You're simply misinterpreting the court's ruling and the law itself.  There is an obligation.  It is to cease collection efforts.  If the debt collector wants to continue to collect WITHOUT BREAKING THE LAW, he must validate.

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