Jump to content

JDB acquired debt with 60 days left on SOL and just first contacted me -should I DV?


qbert
 Share

Recommended Posts

our favorite dirtbags from San Diego. should i DV them and alert them to the fact that i will be fighting or just let it slide and get lost in the shuffle so SOL expires?

 

Does DVing actually slow them down and prevent them from filing a lawsuit right away? Are they legally required in CA to provide an Intent to Sue letter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A DV letter won't slow down or prevent them from suing you. I doubt they'll forget about you if you lay low. My guess is they will be preparing to sue you, in the meantime might as well send you a letter because maybe you will settle and they won't have to go to the trouble and expense of a lawsuit.

 

If they do sue you, one of the things they will contend is that they tried to contact you with no response, or that they sent you their account statement saying you owed them money and you never disputed the debt > therefore you indirectly admitted to the debt. You know that language, more or less, "if you do not dispute this debt we will assume it is valid." On the CIC I'd say we've been pretty successful defending this, arguing that a lack of denial does not constitute an admission of debt - but my thought is why not knock that out before they can even use it?

 

The more recent suits I see here are almost always for Account Stated. I don't see, in these recent threads, the charges that seemed to be common in the older threads like Breach of Contract, Open Book, etc. My thought is the JDBs find the Account Stated easier for them. Maybe there is less paperwork needed to substantiate (feel free to laugh) their claims. They also don't have to deal with BOPs with Account Stated lawsuits > I think they really dislike BOPs, they put pressure on the JDB early-on and failure to properly respond to a BOP runs the risk of having some of their '"evidence" precluded from trial well before even getting to trial. There are a few elements to Account Stated, one of which goes back to a consumer never having denied a debt when sent a statement or invoice from the JDB. So my thought is a DV letter weakens the Account Stated lawsuit before it even happens.

 

Anyhow, I guess I'm saying if it were me, I'd send them a DV letter.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess qbert's pretty experienced and I prob didn't need to write that whole spiel for him/her, lol - but maybe it'll help someone else who reads this.

 

I had a lawsuit with our fav San Diego dirtbags over the summer/fall. They sent me a dunning letter for a different acct in the middle of it, so I sent out a DV on that one and they sent back a letter saying "okay, our mistake, we'll close this acct and delete the trade line."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just be warned, they can still sue you before responding to your DV. Failure to respond is a violation but it won't slow them down. I'm in the same boat you are with limit time till SOL is up. I DV'd with a C&D right at the 30-day response deadline. The C&D worked nicely at least. I'm hoping that they will be too slow to file the suit.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@gwheelock915

 

The courts don't differentiate between an attorney and the debt collection agency. 

 

The debt collector is perfectly free to sue within thirty days; he just must cease his efforts at collection during the interval between being asked for verification of the debt and mailing the verification to the debtor"   Bartlett v. Heibl, 128 F.3d 497, 501 (7th Cir. 1997).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@gwheelock915

 

The courts don't differentiate between an attorney and the debt collection agency. 

 

The debt collector is perfectly free to sue within thirty days; he just must cease his efforts at collection during the interval between being asked for verification of the debt and mailing the verification to the debtor"   Bartlett v. Heibl, 128 F.3d 497, 501 (7th Cir. 1997).

But litigation is considered collection activity (right?) so if they sue before responding to a DV they are in violation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

One thing I learned yesterday that's worth passing along, if the dunning letter has the statutory required validation information on it, they do not have to respond if you request validation.

What is the "statutory required validation information"? I always understood there wasn't a specific thing (or group of things) that are specifically identified as validation compliance and it has pretty much been left up to the courts discretion as to whether or not the CA provided proper validation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Per 15 USC 1692g:

 

 

 

If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Per 15 USC 1692g:

 

 

If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.

 

@Spikey

Hypothetically, speaking, if they send a dunning letter with the name and address of the OC, some sort of validation and possibly a copy of a judgment, and the consumer subsequently sends a DV because he/she doesn't accept the validation provided, and the CA ignores the DV, it would then be up to a court to decide if the CA provided adequate validation, and if not, then they violated by continuing collection activity.  Is that basically how it shakes out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...