bored7one4

DV or dispute with bureau new collections that just reported on my credit report?

Recommended Posts

The last resort? Really? Why do you say that? 

Absolutely.  The hit on your credit lasts for 3 years longer than going without a BK.   This is an extreme step that can be avoided. 

 

What other options are there for the people who are in a situation like Zelph described? 

Dispute with the credit bureaus, wait it out and save your money up for a settlement.  Or simply do nothing.  If a JDB sues you, you can beat them in court.  

 

So you're saying that the potential reactions I have elaborated on aren't possible? 

You haven't proved otherwise.  It could be a coincidence that people DVing get sued.  As stated here many times, some people have reported DVing and never got sued.  Some people never DV and get sued.  I don't see any hard data proving your statements.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm interpreting your statement as you saying that Midland will sue on all of their accounts. Is that what you're saying? 

 

And regardless if they do or don't my point is: how is it in the consumers best interest to potentially prepare a collection entity, that is well known to litigate more commonly than others, with the documentation they would need to successfully obtain a judgement? 

 

Isn't the consumer better off if they're sued when Midland doesn't have the documentation? 

 

 

You can interpret my statement to say that your assessment of Midland Funding was wrong.   You are supposed to be an authority on the business practices of debt collectors.  You said that Midland will sue IF THEY CAN VALIDATE YOUR DEBT and per the court's ruling, that was an INCORRECT ASSESSMENT.  The court said Midland's whole business model was just to sue, even if they did not have a valid claim.  Now do you understand?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@jared_strauss
 

 

 

And regardless if they do or don't my point is: how is it in the consumers best interest to potentially prepare a collection entity, that is well known to litigate more commonly than others, with the documentation they would need to successfully obtain a judgement?

 

 

You can keep stating that a DV arms a JDB with the documentation required to successfully obtain a judgment, but it doesn't make it true. 

 

As I've pointed out, Midland sues when a consumer has not sent a DV request.  To state that a validation request would cause Midland to sue when it's well known that they sue when no validation has been requested makes your statement misleading.

 

You have no statistics to support your claim. 

 

Do you believe that the collection agency will be as cooperative if they feel like they're dealing with someone that is making their job more complicated than it should be?

 

Do you believe it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely.  The hit on your credit lasts for 3 years longer than going without a BK.   This is an extreme step that can be avoided. 

 

 

You say this as if Chapter 7 will adversely impact someone for the entire 10 years. Do you believe that it does? And if so, how so? 

 

 

Dispute with the credit bureaus, wait it out and save your money up for a settlement.  Or simply do nothing.  If a JDB sues you, you can beat them in court.  

 

 

Let's look at what Zelph described and why I bring up Chapter 7 bankruptcy...

 

"Take on a few who have lost their jobs, have health issues that make it so they can't work or get work, had their house foreclosed on or have 50k+ debt without having a dime in savings or nothing left to give to the blood sucking financial establishments."

 

Is it just me, or do you also notice that the above described consumer is unemployed, penniless, assetless, and in significant debt?

 

A consumer in this situation is generally focused on one thing: survival. The rent, utilities, food, gas, child related expenses. And as things begin to improve after they regain employment: generally their next priority is to build some financial security; or at least it should be.

 

After experiencing such a life-changing financial calamity it is not only natural instinct to react to it by safe-guarding your financial future by building savings, but it is also what is most financially sound for them.

 

Admin, you mention "Dispute with the credit bureaus, wait it out and save your money up for a settlement.  Or simply do nothing.  If a JDB sues you, you can beat them in court."   as the alternatives to Chapter 7 for consumers in this situation.

 

All of the options you mention come with great risk and the potential for long-term credit purgatory. Sure, I get it that most people in this situation aren't immediately concerned about their credit, but that changes over time. Doing nothing should be reserved for those that can say with complete certainty that they will not have another need for credit for the following 7 years. Such as the elderly. 

 

So when a consumer debates "doing nothing" they should ask themselves if they truly will not have a future need or desire for credit over the next 7 years. Whether that be for a home, car, business loan, loans for their children: whatever. 

 

Secondly, they should also consider their future exposure when debating this approach.  

 

  • Is their job in the public eye or likely to be posted on a website that will be indexed by Google?
  • Do they live in a state that permits wage garnishment?  
  • Do they own a home but just can't get to that equity because of poor credit?
  • Do they have previous settlements or paid charge-offs on their credit report?
  • Do they still maintain the same checking or savings account? 

 

If a consumer meets any of these parameters they should consider the "do nothing" approach very carefully. Since these are common criteria for projecting collection probabilities and they'll be more likely to be targeted for collection in the future.

 

And if they are and they don't successfully defend themselves, they will now have to deal with a new fresh judgment that will more than likely remain on their credit report well beyond the 7 years that they were expecting.

 

And not only that, but they may also have to contend with an inflated balance due to court costs, attorneys fees, and potential back interest. Not to mention, the likelihood of experiencing a lot less flexibility in respect to a settlement, since the collection attorney will be confident of collection if they garnish wages or a place a lien on a property that possesses equity. 

 

Whereas if this consumer is able to file a Chapter 7 they would eliminate these exposures and they wouldn't sit idle in credit purgatory for 7 years. 

 

As I mentioned in a previous post: If you choose to resolve your debts by way of Chapter 7 bankruptcy, you will generally qualify (credit-wise) for an FHA mortgage loan after 2 years of discharge. Chapter 7 bankruptcies generally discharge around 90 days after filing. However, you must establish some credit history in those two years without any delinquency.

 
Also, if your bankruptcy resulted from conditions outside of your control, such as the death of your spouse, serious illness or natural catastrophe, you may be able to qualify 12 months after your discharge date.
 
Whereas if you do nothing: it may take 7 years and possibly longer if you don't establish any new forms of credit until they fall off.    
 
Furthermore, and this is one of the most important considerations to make, Chapter 7 eliminates the sources of stress. A lot of people don't want to be exposed to these dangers that will cause them worry for 7 years. It causes depression and has the potential to harm relationships that can lead to life-altering changes that the consumer may not desire.  

 

The next option you mention is debt settlement

 

Did you know that according to the FTC and the GAO that less than 10% of consumers who participate in a long-term debt settlement program actually resolve all of the delinquent debt? Check it out on page 2, in the first paragraph - http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10593t.pdf

    

Zelph, the potential outcome that I'm about to describe below is the biggest reason why I don't offer a long-term debt settlement plan... (there are many other reasons but this is the biggest)
 

Let's say that the consumer attempts long-term debt settlement rather than building up their financial security to protect themselves and their family....   

 
Zelph, if I were to take on a few of these people this is what may happen to them. I would never be able to live with myself if I put someone who depended and relied on my advice through the below situation. People who are behind on their debt need help, not snake oil. This is why I don't even go there...

 

A lot of consumers who participate in a long-term debt settlement plan settle about half of their delinquent debt. 
 
Let’s look into the future for a moment and use a typical 36-month debt settlement plan as an example. If you settle half of your debt, it’s safe to assume that it would take you half the length of the program.
 
In this case, 18 months. Please keep in mind that this means you haven’t made any payments to your creditors for at least 18 months.
 
This means your remaining accounts will be charged off and you will be in very dangerous territory since litigation becomes more common once you exceed 12 - 18 months of delinquency.
 
It also means the balances on your remaining accounts may be much higher due to the possible exposure to 18 months’ worth of interest.
 
In respect to your credit, you won’t fully recover until you resolve all of your delinquent accounts. So you received very little benefit to rebuilding your credit at this point in the process.
 
All of the money you spent on your settlements and the fees you paid to the debt settlement company is potentially wasted if you don’t find a way to resolve your remaining accounts. Which is questionable, considering you just unenrolled from your debt settlement service, in this scenario.
 
And it’s not uncommon for people to find themselves with one or more pending lawsuits against them and end up filing for bankruptcy protection.
 
If you find yourself in that situation, this means you wasted all the money you spent on the settlements.
 
And, it also means you wasted all that time. Considering that if you filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy to begin with, you would be 18 months into the rehabilitation process.
 
And, you should realize, that if you did file Chapter 7, all that money you wasted on the settlements could have been used to build up your financial security after the fact.

 

Admin, I personally feel that if a consumer can file Chapter 7 as opposed to taking this risk that they'll not only recover sooner (it takes approximately 2 years to establish new credit after settling all of your debts, so in this scenario we're talking 5 years if they were successful vs. 2 years after discharge with a Chapter 7) but they would also be able to rebuild their future financial security. And most importantly, they would avoid the potential of the above scenario that would rob them of both. 

 

When it comes to looking out for what is in the best interest of the consumer in this type of situation: Chapter 7 is the obvious choice unless there are other circumstances that would prevent the consumer from wanting to file. 

 

 

You haven't proved otherwise.  It could be a coincidence that people DVing get sued.  As stated here many times, some people have reported DVing and never got sued.  Some people never DV and get sued.  I don't see any hard data proving your statements.  

 

 

Admin, it's logic and common sense in respect to the reactions to the action itself. Perhaps it may help you to think like a collector would. How would you react to a debt validation letter on a valid debt or to a cease and desist letter?  

 

You guys seem to think that I'm saying that sending a debt validation or cease and desist letter will most definitely get you sued. I'm not. I would have thought that I've made that clear repeatedly now.

 

I'm simply saying, for all of the reasons that I have pointed out in this thread, that it increases the probability.

 

It's adversarial, it potentially arms the collector with what's needed to prove their claim, it has the potential to cause account segregation that may cause it to receive more attention by more specialized personnel, and it projects an unwillingness to cooperate. 

 

And if a solution isn't quickly found after acquiring the documentation via this method: the consumer confirms their unwillingness to cooperate and forces the collector to make a decision.

 

A decision that otherwise may not be made if they mingled with the "herd" to begin with.  

 

In respect to the data: you know just as well as I do that there isn't any published data that's available. Just like if I were to ask you what percentage of people are successful at defending a collection suit? You don't know that either. But at least my caution sides on the side of eliminating risk and not enhancing it.

 

And more importantly, at least my information is for the purpose of explaining both sides of the equation so the consumer can weigh the pros and the potential cons so they can make a well educated decision for themselves. Again, to each their own. If they want to send a debt validation letter on a valid debt they should do so: but they should be able to do so with these considerations in mind.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can interpret my statement to say that your assessment of Midland Funding was wrong.   You are supposed to be an authority on the business practices of debt collectors.  You said that Midland will sue IF THEY CAN VALIDATE YOUR DEBT and per the court's ruling, that was an INCORRECT ASSESSMENT.  The court said Midland's whole business model was just to sue, even if they did not have a valid claim.  Now do you understand?

 

I didn't say that. What I said is: "Midland is a fairly aggressive debt buyer who has a high propensity to sue if they're able to validate your debt and you fail to arrive to a timely arrangement."

 

I also asked you: "And regardless if they do or don't my point is: how is it in the consumers best interest to potentially prepare a collection entity, that is well known to litigate more commonly than others, with the documentation they would need to successfully obtain a judgement? 

 
Isn't the consumer better off if they're sued when Midland doesn't have the documentation?"
 
Please respond to those questions.
 
In respect to the incorrect assessment: I believe you're interpreting that information incorrectly. I believe that you're saying that if they sue without the documentation that the probability of being sued after requesting it through a debt validation letter on a valid debt would be the same since they are known to sue without it... right? 
 
I'll address the additional commentary once I know we're on the same page...
Link to post
Share on other sites

@jared_strauss

 

 

You can keep stating that a DV arms a JDB with the documentation required to successfully obtain a judgment, but it doesn't make it true. 

 

 

 

You just said in your previous reply: "The JDB may have to purchase some documentation from the OC, but how much of their margin is eaten away depends on how much documentation they purchase.  You seem to be assuming that all JDBs purchase loads of documentation. That's not the case.

 

This is especially true in courts where judges are require very little from JDBs to prove their cases.  Part of that is based upon precedent and another part is based on the "good ol' boy system"."

 

Which is it? 

 

As I've pointed out, Midland sues when a consumer has not sent a DV request.  To state that a validation request would cause Midland to sue when it's well known that they sue when no validation has been requested makes your statement misleading.

 

 

The fact that Midland sues when they lack the proof to sue has nothing to do with the probabilities of being sued. The information that Debtzapper is referring to doesn't indicate the frequency or concentration of suits. It only indicates that they are known to sue without it. Again, they do not sue every account.

 

Is it not total common sense to realize that if they're known to sue without the documentation that they would be more prone to do so when they do? 

 

And I'll ask you the same questions: 

 

How is it in the consumers best interest to potentially prepare a collection entity, that is well known to litigate more commonly than others, with the documentation they would need to successfully obtain a judgement? 

 
Isn't the consumer better off if they're sued when Midland doesn't have the documentation?
Link to post
Share on other sites

@jared_strauss  You're muddling the water again

 

 

 

How is it in the consumers best interest to potentially prepare a collection entity, that is well known to litigate more commonly than others, with the documentation they would need to successfully obtain a judgement? 

 

 

 

 

Collection Agencies sue on behalf of the original creditor.  By sending the CA a DV letter you're asking them to prove they have the right to do so.  Its up to the OC to determine if a suit is filed...and if they determine its a good idea, they have the info already.

 

If the CA is representing a junk debt buyer, that's when the JDB has to spend extra money to get "proof" from the OC...and since that probably will cost them money, they're more likely to try to get a judgement with an "account stated".  Easily defended against in court.

 

A DV letter in no way gives the CA any evidence they can use against the debtor in court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I didn't say that. What I said is: "Midland is a fairly aggressive debt buyer who has a high propensity to sue if they're able to validate your debt and you fail to arrive to a timely arrangement."

 

I also asked you: "And regardless if they do or don't my point is: how is it in the consumers best interest to potentially prepare a collection entity, that is well known to litigate more commonly than others, with the documentation they would need to successfully obtain a judgement? 

 
Isn't the consumer better off if they're sued when Midland doesn't have the documentation?"
 
Please respond to those questions.
 
In respect to the incorrect assessment: I believe you're interpreting that information incorrectly. I believe that you're saying that if they sue without the documentation that the probability of being sued after requesting it through a debt validation letter on a valid debt would be the same since they are known to sue without it... right? 
 
I'll address the additional commentary once I know we're on the same page...

 

 

We are not on the same page and we will never be on the same page because you are so defensive about being a debt fixer that you cannot admit you were wrong about Midland.  Do you think saying "high propensity to sue" qualifies your statement or makes it correct?  It does not.   Midland has a high propensity to sue whether or not they can validate a debt., which is contrary to what you said.   Your other questions to me are irrelevant because my sole focus is your inaccurate statement about Midland.  I will leave to others to argue the merits (or lack of) of debt fixing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@jared_strauss  You're muddling the water again

 

 

Collection Agencies sue on behalf of the original creditor.  By sending the CA a DV letter you're asking them to prove they have the right to do so.  Its up to the OC to determine if a suit is filed...and if they determine its a good idea, they have the info already.

 

 

 

 

In most circumstances the collection agency will generally make the recommendation to the original creditor since they're the ones that acquired the information necessary to make the recommendation. Then, you're right, the original creditor makes the final call when placing it with a local collection attorney. Most collection agencies don't actually sue accounts themselves. 

 

In the JDB situation: the JDB generally won't be spending any money on the validation until they have exceeded a 10% threshold on the portfolio. As that is pretty standard for most debt purchasing agreements.

 

In the event that they have exceed the 10% threshold: if the consumer is collectable, either by wage garnishment of through a lien on a home, the cost of the validation will likely not deter them. 

 

 

If the CA is representing a junk debt buyer, that's when the JDB has to spend extra money to get "proof" from the OC...and since that probably will cost them money, they're more likely to try to get a judgement with an "account stated".  Easily defended against in court.

 

 

Why would a JDB be less likely to pursue litigation with no documentation when you have already demonstrated that you're likely to fight it when you sent the debt validation letter to begin with? 

 

 

 

A DV letter in no way gives the CA any evidence they can use against the debtor in court.

 

BV80 said "This is especially true in courts where judges are require very little from JDBs to prove their cases.  Part of that is based upon precedent and another part is based on the "good ol' boy system"." 

 

So I'll ask you like I did her, which is it? 

 

Furthermore, how can you say that? What if the collection agency makes a request for the statements or the original credit app after they receive the DV request?

 

I always did. In fact, it was the fist thing that I did. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are not on the same page and we will never be on the same page because you are so defensive about being a debt fixer that you cannot admit you were wrong about Midland.  Do you think saying "high propensity to sue" qualifies your statement or makes it correct?  It does not.   Midland has a high propensity to sue whether or not they can validate a debt., which is contrary to what you said.   Your other questions to me are irrelevant because my sole focus is your inaccurate statement about Midland.  I will leave to others to argue the merits (or lack of) of debt fixing.

 

Please explain to me how we're not on the same page. I really would like to understand the point you're trying to make. 

 

How does that case reflect that there isn't increased risk when sending a debt validation letter on a valid debt? 

 

Because they'll sue regardless? And if so, are you saying that they sue every account? Because again, that would be the only way that a debt validation letter on a valid debt wouldn't have an impact on the probabilities. Do you disagree with that?   

 

From what I gathered from your response, this is my response: the fact that Midland sues when they lack the proof to sue has nothing to do with the probabilities of being sued. The information that Debtzapper is referring to doesn't indicate the frequency or concentration of suits. It only indicates that they are known to sue without it. Again, they do not sue every account.

 

If that isn't what you mean, please elaborate.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can rephrase your endless replies all you wish, and even toss in some irrelevant questions, but nothing will detract from the FALSITY of your original statement of June 11, Post "7, when you stated that ".Midland is a fairly aggressive company that has a high propensity to sue IF they're able to validate your debt." Note your operative use of the word "IF," which implies that they have a low propensity to sue if they cannot validate your debt. But as the court said in "Midland v. Samuels,"

"The information received by the defendant when it purchases in bulk is TOO LIMITED TO ESTABLISH THE VALIDITY OF THE DEBT, the defendant's ownership of the debt, or a calculation of the balance claimed; the information the defendant possesses, in short, is patently insufficient to support judgment in its favor. The defendant's uniform practice is to make NO EFFORT TO OBTAIN EVIDENCE that could sustain its burden of proof at trial, and the defendant has NO INTENTION OF OBTAINING SUCH EVIDENCE or of proving its claims at trial. Instead, the defendant files suit with the intention of either obtaining a default judgment or settling with the consumer if he or she responds to the complaint."

As the court said, Midland will JUST FILE. Regardless of whether they can validate.

It is pointless to go back and forth like this. Your verbiage is just sheer obsfucation. You were wrong about Midland. End of story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@jared_strauss

 


 

You just said in your previous reply: "The JDB may have to purchase some documentation from the OC, but how much of their margin is eaten away depends on how much documentation they purchase.  You seem to be assuming that all JDBs purchase loads of documentation. That's not the case.

 

This is especially true in courts where judges are require very little from JDBs to prove their cases.  Part of that is based upon precedent and another part is based on the "good ol' boy system"."

 

Which is it?

 

 

Which is it?  Did you not notice the "and" in my statement?  That means it's both. 

 

Do I honestly have to explain the difference between precedent and "the good ol' boy system"?   Well, here it is.

 

When a higher court has ruled a certain way, if that ruling is published, it becomes precedent for lower courts.  The lower courts must follow that ruling.  If a higher court rules that a few credit card statements, a generic bill of sale, and an affidavit from the JDB is enough for the JDB to prove it's case, and that ruling becomes published, then lower courts have to follow it.

 

Not all states have published case law regarding credit card debt or JDBs.  In those states, individual judges in lower courts don't have precedent from higher courts to guide them.  Some judges want to see evidence.  Others don't care.  The JDB attorney is their buddy, the debtor is a deadbeat, so guess who wins?  That's the good ol' boy system.

 

 


 

How is it in the consumers best interest to potentially prepare a collection entity, that is well known to litigate more commonly than others, with the documentation they would need to successfully obtain a judgement? 

 
Isn't the consumer better off if they're sued when Midland doesn't have the documentation?

 

 

 

You already asked @admin that question, and she answered.   That's the purpose of the discovery process.  You worked for a JDB who sues people, yet you never learned anything about the court process? 

 

I've answered your questions.  Now it's your turn.  I asked the following questions before, but you either didn't read them, or you ignored them.

 

You have stated:

 


Requesting validation on valid debts is one of the stupidest things you could do. Previous to your request they're not sure if they will acquire the backup. Thus, they're typically more negotiable due to that lack of confidence. Once collectors receive the validation it is common practice for them to become less negotiable since they now have the documents that would be necessary to sue you

 

Then, in a response to Admin when she referred to the discovery process, you stated:

 


Isn't that lengthy process to the consumers benefit? It buys them time which eats into the margins of the collector when you consider the time-value. It also potentially makes the collector more likely to settle for less since it's creating a lot of additional work for them.

 

First, you say that because a JDB has to get documentation to answer a DV request, they become less negotiable because they've gotten that documentation.  That's the documentation you claim arms them with the necessary documents to sue you.

 

Then you say that a JDB becomes more likely to settle during a lawsuit because they have to get documents and that creates more work for them.  

 

Here's the question.  If a JDB is willing to obtain documentation for debt validation, why would they not be willing to obtain documentation during the discovery process in a lawsuit?  

 

They had to pay a filing fee when they filed the complaint.  They're willing to let that fee go down the drain just because they don't want to get documentation?   They'd be willing to get it for debt validation but not for a lawsuit in which they've already invested money?

 

Then, to top it off, you ask:

 


 

 

Do you believe that the collection agency will be as cooperative if they feel like they're dealing with someone that is making their job more complicated than it should be?

 

 

You contradict yourself.  First, you claim a collector is less negotiable because they've obtained documentation for a DV request.  Then you claim that obtaining documents in a lawsuit is too much work, so they become more likely to settle.  Now, you're back to saying a collector becomes less likely to cooperate if a consumer is creating more work for them.

 

Which is it? 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Admin, you mention "Dispute with the credit bureaus, wait it out and save your money up for a settlement.  Or simply do nothing.  If a JDB sues you, you can beat them in court."   as the alternatives to Chapter 7 for consumers in this situation.

 

All of the options you mention come with great risk and the potential for long-term credit purgatory. Sure, I get it that most people in this situation aren't immediately concerned about their credit, but that changes over time. Doing nothing should be reserved for those that can say with complete certainty that they will not have another need for credit for the following 7 years. Such as the elderly. 

 

So when a consumer debates "doing nothing" they should ask themselves if they truly will not have a future need or desire for credit over the next 7 years. Whether that be for a home, car, business loan, loans for their children: whatever. 

 

 

Filing a BK puts you in long term credit purgatory for longest and more restrictively than any of the options I'm mentioned, including doing nothing.  Filing a bankruptcy puts you in credit purgatory for 10 years, while just letting things go to collections only puts you there potentially for 7 years.  In a state with a 3 year SOL, it might be an attractive option to sit back and do nothing.  

 

 

The best option is to save up your money until you have enough for a lump sum settlement.   You can dispute with the credit bureaus to get collections and even original creditor negative listings off of your credit report.  Collection agencies and JDBs will settle for very little money the older the collection is.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can rephrase your endless replies all you wish, and even toss in some irrelevant questions, but nothing will detract from the FALSITY of your original statement of June 11, Post "7, when you stated that ".Midland is a fairly aggressive company that has a high propensity to sue IF they're able to validate your debt." Note your operative use of the word "IF," which implies that they have a low propensity to sue if they cannot validate your debt. But as the court said in "Midland v. Samuels,"

"The information received by the defendant when it purchases in bulk is TOO LIMITED TO ESTABLISH THE VALIDITY OF THE DEBT, the defendant's ownership of the debt, or a calculation of the balance claimed; the information the defendant possesses, in short, is patently insufficient to support judgment in its favor. The defendant's uniform practice is to make NO EFFORT TO OBTAIN EVIDENCE that could sustain its burden of proof at trial, and the defendant has NO INTENTION OF OBTAINING SUCH EVIDENCE or of proving its claims at trial. Instead, the defendant files suit with the intention of either obtaining a default judgment or settling with the consumer if he or she responds to the complaint."

As the court said, Midland will JUST FILE. Regardless of whether they can validate.

It is pointless to go back and forth like this. Your verbiage is just sheer obsfucation. You were wrong about Midland. End of story.

 

 

 

Debtzapper that is just ridiculous. 

 

I'll ask again...
 
How is it in the consumers best interest to potentially prepare a collection entity, that is well known to litigate more commonly than others, with the documentation they would need to successfully obtain a judgement? 
 
Isn't the consumer better off if they're sued when Midland doesn't have the documentation?

 

These questions are relevant considering that they're the reason and cause for my statement. Answer them. 

 

If anything, you're the one making false implications due to the impression that you're creating by insinuating that they LITIGATE EVERY ACCOUNT. Again, that is not true, sir. 

 

And, again, it would be the only way your argument would make any bit of sense.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Debtzapper that is just ridiculous. 

 

I'll ask again...
 
How is it in the consumers best interest to potentially prepare a collection entity, that is well known to litigate more commonly than others, with the documentation they would need to successfully obtain a judgement? 
 
Isn't the consumer better off if they're sued when Midland doesn't have the documentation?

You're assuming that your  question makes any sense.  It doesn't.  They are not going to get "more documentation" when someone validates.  This doesn't happen.   The "documention" they need is usually what comes with the debt when they purchase it.  The standards for validation are so low that it doesn't take much to validate. 

 

You still didn't respond to @debtzapper's point - Midland sues whether or not you request debt validation.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

@jared_strauss

 
 
Which is it?  Did you not notice the "and" in my statement?  That means it's both. 
 
Do I honestly have to explain the difference between precedent and "the good ol' boy system"?   Well, here it is.
 
When a higher court has ruled a certain way, if that ruling is published, it becomes precedent for lower courts.  The lower courts must follow that ruling.  If a higher court rules that a few credit card statements, a generic bill of sale, and an affidavit from the JDB is enough for the JDB to prove it's case, and that ruling becomes published, then lower courts have to follow it.
 
Not all states have published case law regarding credit card debt or JDBs.  In those states, individual judges in lower courts don't have precedent from higher courts to guide them.  Some judges want to see evidence.  Others don't care.  The JDB attorney is their buddy, the debtor is a deadbeat, so guess who wins?  That's the good ol' boy system.
 

 

 

That's not what I meant when I asked "which is it".

 

 

You said: ""The JDB may have to purchase some documentation from the OC, but how much of their margin is eaten away depends on how much documentation they purchase.  You seem to be assuming that all JDBs purchase loads of documentation. That's not the case.

 
This is especially true in courts where judges are require very little from JDBs to prove their cases.  Part of that is based upon precedent and another part is based on the "good ol' boy system"."
 

 

 

Admin said: "If a JDB sues you, you can beat them in court."

 

I've read many replies on here that imply that JDB's can't get the documentation. Heck, one on your administrator's - Willingtocope - even tells people "JDBs almost never have any legitimate documentation that the alleged debt is valid." and "And, never send money to a CA or JDB unless ordered to by a court." 

 

On a side note: how radical of a perspective is this? So I'm better off exposing myself to a potential judgment, court costs, back interest, and attorneys fees instead of financially addressing my collection accounts before hand? 

 

But, you say: "This is especially true in courts where judges are require very little from JDBs to prove their cases." 

 

Do you not see the inconsistencies here? So like I said: which is it? 

 

 

 

 

How is it in the consumers best interest to potentially prepare a collection entity, that is well known to litigate more commonly than others, with the documentation they would need to successfully obtain a judgement? 

 
Isn't the consumer better off if they're sued when Midland doesn't have the documentation?
 
You already asked @admin that question, and she answered.   
 

 

 

She did? Where? 

 

 

 

That's the purpose of the discovery process.  You worked for a JDB who sues people, yet you never learned anything about the court process? 

 

 

 

You guys are avoiding these questions like the plague. 

 

I'll ask again...

 

How is it in the consumers best interest to potentially prepare a collection entity, that is well known to litigate more commonly than others, with the documentation they would need to successfully obtain a judgement? 

 

Isn't the consumer better off if they're sued when Midland doesn't have the documentation?

 

Also, you're making the assumption that when a CA or JDB receives a validation request that the CA or JDB will just print off the account information and mail it to the consumer to meet the requirements of the letter. What you're failing to understand is that a debt validation letter signals that the account may not be collected through voluntary channels and if payment arrangements aren't entered into in a timely manner it potentially causes a need to make the request for additional documentation from the original creditor in an effort to collect the account. 

 

Again, think logically - if you were a business owner and you had a client that was past due on their account with you, and you received a validation request from them and you replied to it, and then failed to make arrangements after the fact (that impasse thingy I've been talking about), then, you, the business owner, is left thinking that in order to collect you may need to pursue the account legally. 

 

 

 

 
Quote
 
"Requesting validation on valid debts is one of the stupidest things you could do. Previous to your request they're not sure if they will acquire the backup. Thus, they're typically more negotiable due to that lack of confidence. Once collectors receive the validation it is common practice for them to become less negotiable since they now have the documents that would be necessary to sue you."
 
Then, in a response to Admin when she referred to the discovery process, you stated:
 
Quote
 
"Isn't that lengthy process to the consumers benefit? It buys them time which eats into the margins of the collector when you consider the time-value. It also potentially makes the collector more likely to settle for less since it's creating a lot of additional work for them."
 
First, you say that because a JDB has to get documentation to answer a DV request, they become less negotiable because they've gotten that documentation.  That's the documentation you claim arms them with the necessary documents to sue you.
 
Then you say that a JDB becomes more likely to settle during a lawsuit because they have to get documents and that creates more work for them.  
 
Here's the question.  If a JDB is willing to obtain documentation for debt validation, why would they not be willing to obtain documentation during the discovery process in a lawsuit?  
 
They had to pay a filing fee when they filed the complaint.  They're willing to let that fee go down the drain just because they don't want to get documentation?   They'd be willing to get it for debt validation but not for a lawsuit in which they've already invested money?
 
Then, to top it off, you ask:
 
Quote
 
"Do you believe that the collection agency will be as cooperative if they feel like they're dealing with someone that is making their job more complicated than it should be?"
 
 
You contradict yourself.  First, you claim a collector is less negotiable because they've obtained documentation for a DV request.  Then you claim that obtaining documents in a lawsuit is too much work, so they become more likely to settle.  Now, you're back to saying a collector becomes less likely to cooperate if a consumer is creating more work for them.
 
Which is it? 
 

 

 

 

BV, you clearly haven't been reading my comments correctly. 

 

 

 

Quote

"Requesting validation on valid debts is one of the stupidest things you could do. Previous to your request they're not sure if they will acquire the backup. Thus, they're typically more negotiable due to that lack of confidence. Once collectors receive the validation it is common practice for them to become less negotiable since they now have the documents that would be necessary to sue you."

 

 

 

This comment is based on situations where the consumer hasn't been sued and they would rather not increase their chances of being sued.

 

Maybe you just don't get this but most people would prefer to avoid being sued. 

 

 

Debt validation letters on valid debts

 
Cease and desist letters 
 
Hiring a long-term debt settlement company that communicates with their creditors prior to possessing the financial ability to settle
 
 
The above 3 things are considered adversarial by the collection industry and should be avoided if you're a consumer who wishes to minimize their risks previous to resolving your debts.

 

 

 

Quote

"Isn't that lengthy process to the consumers benefit? It buys them time which eats into the margins of the collector when you consider the time-value. It also potentially makes the collector more likely to settle for less since it's creating a lot of additional work for them."

 

 

 

This comment has to do with a situation when the consumer is already being sued. And, it's relative to filing an answer not sending a debt validation letter on a valid debt. 

 

In my opinion, this stage of collection is when you start to fight and make them prove their case: if you're smart.  

 

Requesting validation previous to this time (when an account is with a non-local CA, JDB or attorney) potentially prepares them for if/when they do. 

 

How is it not stupid to invite the collector, that has the right to sue you, to get the documentation they would need to sue you, prior to suing you? 

 

Especially when Debtzapper is pointing to substantiation that indicates that they sue without it?

 

Again, Isn't the consumer better off if they're sued when Midland doesn't have the documentation?

 

 

 

Quote

Do you believe that the collection agency will be as cooperative if they feel like they're dealing with someone that is making their job more complicated than it should be?

 

 

 

This comment is when the account is with a collection agency. Again, not a situation to where it would be in a consumers best interest to enter themselves into an adversarial situation.

 

 

Unlike the majority of advice that I've read on these boards my advice isn't broad or general. I actually take the specific goals and situations into consideration. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The whole point of me offering this information to begin with was because I was concerned with the broad advice to send debt validation (on valid debts) and cease and desist letters without becoming aware of the consumers goals or disclosing the possible risks. At first I assumed that you guys just didn't know about these possible risks so I figured you would appreciate the information. 

 

However, since you have already stated that you agree that these reactions that I have elaborated on in this thread are possible and you continue to refuse to disclose them when offering the recommendation of sending a debt validation or cease and desist letter, I don't know what to think. 

 

The tone of this thread is unfortunate. 

 

I was hoping that you guys would have an open-mind and be receptive to this information. But instead, it's just been one big pissing match. I didn't post here for that. 

 

I came on here polite as I could possibly be and offered an educated opinion that is based on my lengthy experience. 

 

You guys have said yourselves that you lack any experience on the collection side of the fence, I figured you would have welcomed the information that is based on my experience in the industry. Yet, all you guys have been doing is dodging questions, likening me to con-artists, insinuating that my information is biased, and deflecting away from the main point I've been making which is: 

 

If you're going to encourage people to send a debt validation (on a valid debt) or a cease and desist letter, please disclose the possible reactions that may be created from your advice.  

And I may be asking for too much with this, but maybe you could think about inquiring on their goals while you're at it. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And by the way, I still haven't received a reply to my question about how this site is compensated. So, I'll ask again: how is this site compensated?

 

Does it generate revenue from situations where consumers send debt validation letters on valid debts or cease and desist letters? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're assuming that your  question makes any sense.  It doesn't.  They are not going to get "more documentation" when someone validates.  This doesn't happen.   The "documention" they need is usually what comes with the debt when they purchase it.  The standards for validation are so low that it doesn't take much to validate. 

 

You still didn't respond to @debtzapper's point - Midland sues whether or not you request debt validation.  

 

 

Admin, as I outlined in one of my first posts on this site, the JDB rarely gets any documentation when they buy the accounts.

 

In most circumstances, the information they receive is via an Excel spreadsheet and it's data only. In most circumstances (probably 95% of the time), statements, affidavits, and original credit apps must be ordered by the JDB.

 

I'll be back in couple days to respond to the rest...

Link to post
Share on other sites

@jared_strauss - I see you're following your penchant for brevity.  It really does make your post hard to read because they're so long. 

 

 

Admin, as I outlined in one of my first posts on this site, the JDB rarely gets any documentation when they buy the accounts.

 

In most circumstances, the information they receive is via an Excel spreadsheet and it's data only. In most circumstances (probably 95% of the time), statements, affidavits, and original credit apps must be ordered by the JDB.

 

Right.  And they don't order more documentation when they get a DV request.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

BV, you clearly haven't been reading my comments correctly.

 

I most certainly have read them correctly.  I pointed out your contradictions, and you still have not addressed them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jared Strauss,

 

If this has been, as you said, "one big pissing match," it wasn't CIC doing the pissing.  You have treated by the Admin with extraordinary deference--a deference you will not find in any other board.

 

As to your tiresome comment about my post:  If you had just said in your original post that Midland will sue WHETHER OR NOT they can validate a debt, you would have been in safe waters.  But since that would have conflicted with your pet theory that debt validation is a "terrible idea" if you owe the debt, you asserted that MIdland will sue IF they can validate a debt.

 

The federal district court in "Samuels v. Midland Funding," (S.D. Ala. 2013), sunk you when it  proved you ignorant about Midland's business model.  And so did four other federal district courts:

 

1. "Wood v. Midland," (N.D.Ala. 2013)

2. Kamps v. Midland," (N.D. Ala. 2013)

3. Vinson v. Midland," (N.D. Ala. 2013)

4. Webb. v. Midland," (N.D. Ala. 2013)

 

You are at the bottom of the sea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it might be a good idea for some people here to get the perspective of someone who is, and has been in, the Collections industry for over 20 years.

 

To give you a little of my background, I started as a collector back in the early 90s.  I quickly worked my way into management and have since been an agency owner as well as VP of litigation for one of the largest debt buyers in the country, running a team of over 200 attorneys nationally to litigate on their debt.

 

Currently I run a collection law firm that collects and actively litigates on a daily basis.

 

I will also say that I am aware there are some very bad apples in my industry.  I am not happy about that, as they make it more and more difficult for those of us who actually do the job right to do our job at all.  But despite conventional wisdom, these bad players are in the vast minority in our industry.  they just get the most publicity.  You don't generally see one of the thousands of CA that do the job right on 20/20.

 

I will tell you all that the quickest way to get sued on a debt is to send in a cease and desist.  You have basically given the agency/law firm no other options to collect the debt outside of litigation at that point.  Communication is the the key to resolving the problem and if one party refuses to communicate, the debt may very well get handled involuntarily through the civil court system.

 

Now, I realize that a lot of you already probably hate me because of what I do for a living.  That's fine, I'm used to it.  It doesn't bother me one iota.  However, I actually try and ASSIST consumers in resolving their problems, not cause more problems for them.  But I also understand that as a debt collector, every time one of my employees picks up the phone, they are put in a naturally adversarial position.  We are never calling anyone with good news.  No one likes to hear that they owe a bill and haven't paid it and the balance is due today.   But the problem isn't going to go away by sticking your head in the sand and pretending that bill doesn't exist.  It also isn't going to go away by stalling or refusing to communicate.

 

Someone here said that requesting validation of the debt is their right.  That is 100% correct.  That doesn't mean it's always the best course of action, especially if you know you owe the bill and that the bill is valid.  Jared has a very valid point here.  Many times requesting validation of the debt is used as exactly that, a stall tactic, and the response to this stall tactic can very well be that after the debt is validated you will be told to pay the bill in full.  Once you default on a bill, you do NOT have the right to a settlement.  There are commercials out there that completely misrepresent this fact.  Your creditor is legally entitled to every penny you owe them.  Any offer of settlement on their part is a courtesy and should be viewed as such.  If the CA believes that you are stalling them, they will be much less likely to extend that courtesy to you.  The same goes for payment arrangements.  They are under no obligation whatsoever to extend that option either.  Once you are in default, in most cases, the contract you signed or terms and conditions you agreed to dictate that the balance needs to be paid in full upon default.  They wouldn't be calling you if you were not in default.

 

I understand this is a bit counter intuitive .......... if you couldn't keep up with your payments, how can you come up with the whole balance?  That is where negotiation comes into play and that is what a debt collector is there for.  If you escalate the level of adversity between you and the collector, they will give less and less.  If you make them "jump through hoops" for you, they will give less on their end when it comes to negotiation on your debt.

 

I think that is the point Jared was trying to make (although I could be wrong).

 

Also, when it comes to suing someone, full documentation is not necessary in many jurisdictions.  There are some rulings that are coming down regarding rubber stamping affidavits of indebtedness that will make plaintiffs include better validation in discovery when they file a suit.  That's okay with me.  We include it anyway as there are many courts that require it even to enter a default judgment.

 

Having said that, if someone requests validation of the debt, we will send it to them (we can actually get it the VAST majority of the time) and then try to contact them to resolve the debt.  If they are unwilling to resolve the debt or unwilling to communicate with us, they will get sued.  and over 90% of these suits result in default judgments.  This does NOT in any way help the consumer as their bill just got bigger and now I have the option (again, depending on jurisdiction) to garnishee their wages, levy their bank accounts, lien their property, and even attach personal assets.  There are exemptions of course that also vary by jurisdiction.

 

Now this person who owed $2500 and very well may have negotiated this down to 50% of that amount has a bill well over $3000 and bearing interest.  This person generally is struggling financially as well.  So how is losing 25% of their wages going to help their situation?  If they were struggling to get by before, how is taking a 25% reduction in income going to help their situation?  It's not.  But hey, you got your validation.....it's just in the form of discovery and it cost you a lot of expense and heartache.

 

That is why when I see people advise consumers to not speak with a CA I just kind of shake my head.  It's bad advice plain and simple.

 

Yes, you have the right to obtain validation of the debt.  You have the right to tell a CA to cease communication with you.  And they have the right to sue you for your unpaid debt.  They have the right to demand every penny be paid back with interest (all of which you agreed to when you borrowed the money in the first place incidentally)  And FWIW, most agencies have a blanket suit authorization or they don't.  They generally don't have to get permission from their clients on a case by case basis.

 

Collections doesn't NEED to be so adversarial.  And I say that from both sides.  CA's need to be more respectful to consumers, but consumers also need to address the issue at hand as well and also be respectful.

 

Again, I have been doing this for over 2 decades, and in that time I have never been sued by a consumer, had an AG complaint filed against me for any wrongdoing etc.  There is a right and wrong way to do this job.  There is also a right and wrong way to act when you owe someone money.  Trying to find loopholes to get out of paying what you legally owe or employing stall tactics simply because you can is the wrong way. And it will have repercussions as well.

 

Again, I'm sure some of you will care to throw insults at the "evil bill collector", but if any of you want some insight or advice from the perspective of someone who has been on the inside of the collections industry and forced to sue tens of thousands of consumers, I would be happy to give you whatever information I am able to provide.  Some times I am in agreement with statements made on this board (and many other like it). Other times I can provide a counterpoint to the advice some people here are giving you and the reasoning behind it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Professional Collector  Your insite is welcome...but...I advise people to ALWAYS DV, whether they think the debt is legitmate or not.  That's not the question.  The real question is...is the person or company trying to get money out of you legitmately entitled to do so?  In other words, is this particular collector part of the 99% of the business (unlike your caring organization) that doesn't concern themselves with details...like, do they have the right person, the right account, the right amount, and the right to operate in your state.

 

Yes, it is possible that a DV will get you sued...its more likely that the CA will simply hand the debt back to the OC and move on to more gullible prey.  And, if they do happen to respond with the correct information, a C&D might also get you sued...but, its more likely that they will have violated some portion of the FDCPA during their attempt to get you to pay...and you will therefore have grounds for a counter suit and leverage for negotiating a settlement.

 

After all, 99.9% of the staff at CAs don't really want to be there...they are more likely to have 20 days experience rather than 20 years.  Most are poorly trained, uninformed, and encouraged to be belligerent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.  You seriously could not be more wrong about the collections industry or the people that work in it.  Where do you get your 99% figures other than out of thin air?  Do you have personal experience working in the industry?  Do you have statistics from ARM or the ACA that support any of your assumptions?

 

If this is indicative of the type of information you give people here, then they are getting a ton of misinformation.  What you posted is a flat misrepresentation and demostrably false.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jared couldn't handle this on his own, so he had to create an alterego or send in a buddy?

 

 

 

I will also say that I am aware there are some very bad apples in my industry.  I am not happy about that, as they make it more and more difficult for those of us who actually do the job right to do our job at all. 

 

 

There are some bad apples in your industry?  You're kidding!  Who'd a thunk it!

 

 

I will tell you all that the quickest way to get sued on a debt is to send in a cease and desist.  You have basically given the agency/law firm no other options to collect the debt outside of litigation at that point.

 

 

We have never told anyone to send a cease and desist if a debt is still within the SOL.

 

 

Your creditor is legally entitled to every penny you owe them.

 

 

Most of us don't have a problem with settling with creditors.  However, considering the fact that some banks such as BofA, Chase, and Citigroup are under investigation by a number of states for their foreclosure practices including the robosigning of affidavits, it makes one unwilling to settle with them.

 

It's the JDBs with whom we have the real problems.   You know the players.  Midland, Asset Acceptance, NCO Group to name a few.  We're supposed to play nice with JDBs who have been the subject of investigations and fined for their debt collection pracitces?   We're supposed to simply trust them?

 

 

 If they are unwilling to resolve the debt or unwilling to communicate with us, they will get sued.  and over 90% of these suits result in default judgments.

 

 

I guarantee you that very few of the consumers in that 90% requested validation.  A consumer who requests validation realizes to some extent that he has rights.  As a result, he would be less likely to ignore a lawsuit.

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