saytar Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 This is what's good about most poster's here....they give you another set or two of eyes and viewpoints....your not alone. @saytar They're not getting him to waive any right because a summons and complaint is not an initial communication that triggers the right to request validation. The FDCPA plainly says that. I've already included case law that shows that the Supreme Court recognizes that the FDCPA was amended to exclude legal pleadings from the definition of "initial communication". There's no right for him to waive. Here's something from the 11th Circuit: Caceres v. McCalla Raymer, LLC - Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit 2014In turn, the exception to the definition of "initial communication" clearly exempts "[a] communication in the form of a formal pleading.One can request validation at any time, but the FDCPA is specific on when a debt collector is required to respond to such a request. A CA only has to respond if the request is sent within 30 days of the initial communication and if the CA wants to continue to collect. BV80, reason I recommended that is that CACH in their "offerings" has pushed really hard at the fact that "defendant never disputed claims withing time, therefore....blah blah, their attempt to add to their "account stated" .....they were looking for more leverage to make the remainder of their assertions appear legitimate. In otherwords make a persuasive argument on the court.......But unlike OP I HAD DV'd with them over a year ago..........and I got the letters proving it.....One of my arguments against their MSJ is that they basically lied and tried to make it appear that I had failed to dispute the amount and accounting...one of the elements they need to win.I know it has really no real legal leg, but it is one way I kicked at that argument in their assertions.Their may be thinking of using that as more leverage in their MSJ. That's all, no not a critical element of his defense, but a cheap and easy way to head off further claims. I don't know how hard LB&N will push, they usually fold pretty quick here with any real resistance, or have in the past, but when CACH is pushing so hard over less than $800 bucks....you have to wonder if they are all getting desperate....and desperate JDB's will try about anything. Now if he's done it already back further in the Past then IF he kept a copy of the CMRRR, he's already covered that base....IFI may just be cautious........for some reason CACH is pushing overly hard, over such a small amount. And LB&N filing on a time barred debt......speaks desperation. If OP pushes on the SOL and they fold shop and go home Kool, true to form....if they don't OP needs to be working a strategy that if needed will slid into litigation if needed. Your input is always appreciated........a Yang to our YIng. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.