Jump to content

Capoli, Capoli & Associates Violations

Sister Outsider

Recommended Posts

A couple weeks ago, my sister (who I have no contact with for the past 2 years) emailed me.


She said CC&A contacted her re a "pending legal matter" and left their info just in case she heard from me.


I called the number (I was scared about being sued)!


I gave them my address (they had two, I confirmed the correct address).



I got a letter in the mail-


Sister Outsider,


Re Chevron account


Please accept our settlement offer.




No mini-miranda, the debt was charged off 5/2009 (the SOL is 4 years) and these scum aren't licensed to collect in my state.


I would like to sue.  Pretty much because I'm tired of being pushed around and want to get these guys.


So, this is what I think I have:


Collecting a debt that's outside of SOL

Collecting with no license in my state

Contacting a 3rd party (I'm so embarassed- isn't that defamation??)

Threatening to take an action they are not legally allowed to take (Pending legal matter??)


I don't have any proof except the letters, my credit reports saying that the debt was CO in 5/09 and a printed email from my sister.

They have not placed this on my CR, and I sent them a letter asking them to prove, etc, so I don't think they will report.


But I'm angry and I'd like to get them for violations.


Any suggestions?? What evidence do I need and what laws could I get them on??



Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've sent them a DV...that's pretty much all you can do at this point.


Collecting a debt that's outside of SOL

Collecting with no license in my state

Contacting a 3rd party (I'm so embarassed- isn't that defamation??)

Threatening to take an action they are not legally allowed to take (Pending legal matter??)



Trying to collect a debt outside your state's SOL is not illegal.


Your state MAY require  a license, but I think your states AG would have to go after them.


Contacting your sister only violates the FDCPA if tehy told her they were attempting to collect a debt.


Threatening an action is questionable.  They could sue, and if you don't show up and raise the SOL as an affirmative defense, or the judge doesn't agree, they could get a judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has long been a requirement that a collection letter have the mini miranda:


70 F.2d 805 (1989) Samuel L. EMANUEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee,
AMERICAN CREDIT EXCHANGE, Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant. Nos. 534, 666, Dockets 88-7717, 88-7757.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued January 12, 1989. Decided March 16, 1989.

806*806 Clifford Forstadt, UAW-Chrysler Legal Services Plan, Syracuse, N.Y. (O. Randolph Bragg, UAW-GM Legal Services Plan, Newark, DE, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant, cross-appellee.

Sidney P. Cominsky, Syracuse, N.Y. (Joel N. Melnicoff, Syracuse, N.Y., of counsel), for defendant-appellee, cross-appellant.

Before KAUFMAN, VAN GRAAFEILAND and MINER, Circuit Judges.

MINER, Circuit Judge:

This is an appeal from a summary judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Cholakis, J.) dismissing the claim asserted by plaintiff-appellant Samuel L. Emanuel under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA" or the "Act"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692o (1982 & Supp. IV 1986), and the counterclaims of defendant-appellee American Credit Exchange ("American Credit") for malicious prosecution. Emanuel claimed that a letter he received from American Credit in connection with a debt he allegedly owed his landlord violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11) because it failed to disclose that it was a communication made to collect a debt and that any information obtained would be used for that purpose.

The district court held that the letter indicated clearly that it was intended to collect a debt, and that because no information was requested, the letter did not have 807*807 to advise Emanuel that any information obtained would be used. It seems clear to us, however, that the language of section 1692e(11) requires that a debt collection letter disclose that any information provided by the letter's recipient will be used to collect the debt, even when no specific information is requested. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment dismissing Emanuel's claim and remand the matter to the district court to calculate costs and attorney's fees, to which Emanuel is entitled under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3). We affirm the dismissal of the counterclaims as well as the denial of the Rule 11 sanctions sought by American Credit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just guessing, but unless the letter was from Uncle Joe's Car Wash and Junk Debt Buying, I would bet there is a mini-miranda on the letter somewhere...maybe in faint print on the back?   All legitimate CAs (there's an oxymoron) know the rules.


But even, today some still violate:  "Hagy v. Demers & Adams," (S.D. 2013)







"Because this Court finds that the Law Firm Defendants are debt collectors and that the June 30 communication was made in connection with a debt, the Law Firm Defendants violated the FDCPA by failing to include in the letter that the communication was from a debt collector. Thus, the Hagys' motion for summary judgment is granted on the claims related to §1692e(11)."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.