No NJ Collection Bond

[Kazzanova]

 In New Jersey collections agencies have to be bonded under Rule 45:18-1 which states:

No person shall conduct a collection agency, collection bureau or collection office in this state, or engage therein in the business of collecting or receiving payment for others of any account, bill or other indebtedness, or engage therein in the business of soliciting the right to collect or receive payment for another of any account, bill or other indebtedness, or advertise for or solicit in print the right to collect or receive payment for another of any account, bill or other indebtedness, unless such person, or the person for whom he may be acting as agent has on file with the secretary of state sufficient bond as hereinafter specified.

 

Terms Used In New Jersey Statutes 45:18-1

• person: includes corporations, companies, associations, societies, firms, partnerships and joint stock companies as well as individuals, unless restricted by the context to an individual as distinguished from a corporate entity or specifically restricted to one or some of the above enumerated synonyms and, when used to designate the owner of property which may be the subject of an offense, includes this State, the United States, any other State of the United States as defined infra and any foreign country or government lawfully owning or possessing property within this State. See New Jersey Statutes 1:1-2
• State: extends to and includes any State, territory or possession of the United

 

Can I file for dismissal because Cavalry & Apothaker aren’t bonded in NJ

[Harry Seaward]

How do you know they don't have a bond on file? 

[BV80]

@Kazzanova

I'm also curious as to how you know Cavalry is not bonded.  In regard to Apothaker,

45 :18-6.  Exemptions
    This chapter shall not apply to an attorney at law duly authorized to practice in this state, a national bank, or any bank or trust company duly incorporated under the laws of this state.

[Kazzanova]

8 hours ago, Harry Seaward said:

How do you know they don't have a bond on file? 

I wrote to the NJ Division of Revenue and asked if Cavalry SPV I, LLC possess the required statuary bond as per Rule 45:18-1 along with a self addressed stamped envelope and they responded with a status of “no record found” for the bond as required.

[Kazzanova]

7 hours ago, BV80 said:

@Kazzanova

I'm also curious as to how you know Cavalry is not bonded.  In regard to Apothaker,

45 :18-6.  Exemptions
    This chapter shall not apply to an attorney at law duly authorized to practice in this state, a national bank, or any bank or trust company duly incorporated under the laws of this state.

Yes I have read the exception rule with Attorny’s but according to their own web site and letter head it states they are a debt collector and any information will be used for that purpose. Technically that can’t that be also on the verge of deception? 

[Harry Seaward]

1 hour ago, Kazzanova said:

I wrote to the NJ Division of Revenue and asked if Cavalry SPV I, LLC possess the required statuary bond as per Rule 45:18-1 along with a self addressed stamped envelope and they responded with a status of “no record found” for the bond as required.

Perhaps the bond is in the name of their parent company, Cavalry Portfolio Services.  Also, don't forget you're dealing with a government agency, so you should have low expectations of a passion to provide accurate information.  I certainly wouldn't file a lawsuit based solely off something I was told by a government entity.

51 minutes ago, Kazzanova said:

Yes I have read the exception rule with Attorny’s but according to their own web site and letter head it states they are a debt collector and any information will be used for that purpose. Technically that can’t that be also on the verge of deception? 

Deceptive how?  They can be both at the same time, and in fact, disclosing this fact to you is the opposite of deceptive.  And it's also a violation of the FDCPA for them to not tell you both of these 'hats' they wear.

[Kazzanova]

1 hour ago, Harry Seaward said:

Perhaps the bond is in the name of their parent company, Cavalry Portfolio Services.  Also, don't forget you're dealing with a government agency, so you should have low expectations of a passion to provide accurate information.  I certainly wouldn't file a lawsuit based solely off something I was told by a government entity.

Deceptive how?  They can be both at the same time, and in fact, disclosing this fact to you is the opposite of deceptive.  And it's also a violation of the FDCPA for them to not tell you both of these 'hats' they wear.

According to NJ every name they use has to be bonded so if it’s Calvary Portfolio that has to be bonded, if it’s Calvary SPV I, LLC that has to be bonded. You can’t just bond the parent name and use different names as you see fit.

They are suing me. What I was asking if they weren’t correctly bonded by NJ Rule 45:18-1 which states they have to be to perform collection activities is that a grounds for dismissal 

[Harry Seaward]

19 minutes ago, Kazzanova said:

What I was asking if they weren’t correctly bonded by NJ Rule 45:18-1 which states they have to be to perform collection activities is that a grounds for dismissal

You can try a lack of standing argument but what you're talking about with the bond is an administrative issue, and those matters are usually handled by the local Department of financial institutions by way of fines and such. The other thing is, if they're actually not properly bonded, all they would have to do is file the bond the minute they get your motion to dismiss and then they would be in compliance.

[BV80]

5 hours ago, Kazzanova said:

Yes I have read the exception rule with Attorny’s but according to their own web site and letter head it states they are a debt collector and any information will be used for that purpose. Technically that can’t that be also on the verge of deception? 

 No, it’s not deceptive.  The FDCPA requires debt collection attorneys to include that statement.  

Have you already answered the complaint?

[Clydesmom]

4 hours ago, Kazzanova said:

They are suing me. What I was asking if they weren’t correctly bonded by NJ Rule 45:18-1 which states they have to be to perform collection activities is that a grounds for dismissal 

Here is my view on this:  they are not a debt collector in this situation if they purchased your account.  If they did actually buy the account then by assignment they ARE the creditor and therefore can sue you and are not required to be bonded.  If they are hired by the actual creditor and are suing on their behalf then they would have to be bonded as a debt collector to collect on this debt.  The second problem you have is that I do not believe that the bond is required to merely avail themselves of their legal options within the courts to collect.  My opinion is you have no grounds for dismissal on this issue.

[Harry Seaward]

20 minutes ago, Clydesmom said:

they are not a debt collector in this situation if they purchased your account.

@Kazzanova this is an excellent point. If you read the statute that you posted, it is pretty clear that it's talking about collecting debts for someone else; not collecting their own debts. 

[Kazzanova]

6 hours ago, BV80 said:

 No, it’s not deceptive.  The FDCPA requires debt collection attorneys to include that statement.  

Have you already answered the complaint?

Yes answer the complaint, put that in there and asked for mtc

[Kazzanova]

4 hours ago, Harry Seaward said:

@Kazzanova this is an excellent point. If you read the statute that you posted, it is pretty clear that it's talking about collecting debts for someone else; not collecting their own debts. 

They said they bought the account but in the complaint they are the assignees of Citibank. It’s oretty much one or the other I thought

[Kazzanova]

4 hours ago, Harry Seaward said:

@Kazzanova this is an excellent point. If you read the statute that you posted, it is pretty clear that it's talking about collecting debts for someone else; not collecting their own debts. 

Rather, Defendants claim that the Purchaser Defendants are not debt collectors, as defined by the FDCPA, because they did not directly communicate with Plaintiff and, instead, had the Law Firm Defendants communicate with Plaintiff, through the collection complaint, on their behalf.3 (Id. at 8.) However, a defendant need not communicate directly with a consumer in order to be considered a debt collector for purposes of the FDCPA: section 1692a(6) includes “any person . . . who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) (emphasis added).

[Clydesmom]

1 hour ago, Kazzanova said:

They said they bought the account but in the complaint they are the assignees of Citibank. It’s oretty much one or the other I thought

Your line of thinking is skewed.  When a contract is sold the party selling their part in this case the creditor is the assignor.  The party purchasing their interest, in this case the JDB/Cavalry is the assignee.  Since they state they did purchase your account and they are the legal assignee they would not be a debt collector under that NJ statute.  They are the creditor now and do not need to be bonded.

1 hour ago, Kazzanova said:

Rather, Defendants claim that the Purchaser Defendants are not debt collectors, as defined by the FDCPA, because they did not directly communicate with Plaintiff and, instead, had the Law Firm Defendants communicate with Plaintiff, through the collection complaint, on their behalf.3 (Id. at 8.) However, a defendant need not communicate directly with a consumer in order to be considered a debt collector for purposes of the FDCPA: section 1692a(6) includes “any person . . . who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) (emphasis added).

Unfortunately you have only quoted one part of the ruling and without seeing what the court was ruling on and the entire ruling it is impossible to say if you are interpreting this to say what you want.  You don't even say what court issued this ruling.  It is entirely possible it isn't even binding on your court. The other issue raised is you are wanting a dismissal based on NJ law of what a debt collector is and that Cavalry has not posted a bond yet this snippet quotes a FDCPA case which is based on Federal law which would not be binding in your state case.

[Clydesmom]

1 hour ago, Kazzanova said:

Yes answer the complaint, put that in there and asked for mtc

This is another major problem because if they sued you in NJ small claims court CITI has a carve out for arbitration on small claims cases.  The MTC should be denied.

[Kazzanova]

2 hours ago, Clydesmom said:

This is another major problem because if they sued you in NJ small claims court CITI has a carve out for arbitration on small claims cases.  The MTC should be denied.

It’s not small claims because it is for about $8000. They are trying to argue that the Arbitration isn’t valid because I didn’t pay the $250 but under the JAMS it also states with a MTV from the court 

[Kazzanova]

In either case, if the debt was delinquent when they were assigned it/purchased it, they are bound by the FDCPA.

Assignment is where the OC "hires" the CA to collect the debt, usually for a commission or percentage of the debt owed. Still bound by the FDCPA. Whoever told you that assignees were not bound by the FDCPA was wrong.

When a CA purchases it, usually for pennies on the dollar or fractions of pennies on the dollar, they are now the legal owners of the debt, but are still bound by the FDCPA.

is this true?

From my reading on FDCPA in regards to what a debt collector is I get this:

15 U.S. Code § 1692a - Definitions

(6)The term “debt collector” means any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another. Notwithstanding the exclusion provided by clause (F) of the last sentence of this paragraph, the term includes any creditor who, in the process of collecting his own debts, uses any name other than his own which would indicate that a third person is collecting or attempting to collect such debts. For the purpose of section 1692f(6) of this title, such term also includes any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the enforcement of security interests. The term does not include—

(F) (iii) concerns a debt which was not in default at the time it was obtained by such person

 

Debt was in default when they bought it so they cannot be excluded from the debt collector term

 

Also the rule in NJ is 

No person shall conduct a collection agency, collection bureau or collection office in this state, or engage therein in the business of collecting or receiving payment for others of any account, bill or other indebtedness, or engage therein in the business of soliciting the right to collect or receive payment for another of any account, bill or other indebtedness, or advertise for or solicit in print the right to collect or receive payment for another of any account, bill or other indebtedness, unless such person, or the person

for whom he may be acting as agent has on file with the secretary of state sufficient bond as hereinafter specified. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 45:18-1 which clearly they are doing

 

[BV80]

1 hour ago, Kazzanova said:

In either case, if the debt was delinquent when they were assigned it/purchased it, they are bound by the FDCPA.

Assignment is where the OC "hires" the CA to collect the debt, usually for a commission or percentage of the debt owed. Still bound by the FDCPA. Whoever told you that assignees were not bound by the FDCPA was wrong.

When a CA purchases it, usually for pennies on the dollar or fractions of pennies on the dollar, they are now the legal owners of the debt, but are still bound by the FDCPA.

is this true?

From my reading on FDCPA in regards to what a debt collector is I get this:

15 U.S. Code § 1692a - Definitions

(6)The term “debt collector” means any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another. Notwithstanding the exclusion provided by clause (F) of the last sentence of this paragraph, the term includes any creditor who, in the process of collecting his own debts, uses any name other than his own which would indicate that a third person is collecting or attempting to collect such debts. For the purpose of section 1692f(6) of this title, such term also includes any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the enforcement of security interests. The term does not include—

(F) (iii) concerns a debt which was not in default at the time it was obtained by such person

 

Debt was in default when they bought it so they cannot be excluded from the debt collector term

 

Also the rule in NJ is 

No person shall conduct a collection agency, collection bureau or collection office in this state, or engage therein in the business of collecting or receiving payment for others of any account, bill or other indebtedness, or engage therein in the business of soliciting the right to collect or receive payment for another of any account, bill or other indebtedness, or advertise for or solicit in print the right to collect or receive payment for another of any account, bill or other indebtedness, unless such person, or the person

for whom he may be acting as agent has on file with the secretary of state sufficient bond as hereinafter specified. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 45:18-1 which clearly they are doing

 

 Do you think they violated the FDCPA?  If so, how?

[Kazzanova]

I’m trying to figure it out honestly I want to say yes but still reading and researching.

Also I still haven’t received an answer to my MTC and my court date is the 21st. The only thing they filed with the court was the complaint. No supporting documentation was attached with it. I was never sent any interrogatories or anything else by them which seems strange.

[Clydesmom]

19 hours ago, Kazzanova said:

Assignment is where the OC "hires" the CA to collect the debt, usually for a commission or percentage of the debt owed. Still bound by the FDCPA. Whoever told you that assignees were not bound by the FDCPA was wrong.

Boy you REALLY do not understand what "assignment" means LEGALLY.  Assignment can have two forms in legal terms.  A collection agency hired to collect on a debt by a creditor TEMPORARILY has assignment to collect on that debt.  Under this assignment a CA would have to be bonded in NJ to collect on the debt.  The second way assignment of a debt occurs is when a junk debt buyer PURCHASES the debt which creates a PERMANENT assignment of the debt.  Under this premise the JDB would not have to be bonded in NJ as they are not a CA they ARE the creditor.  They have all the rights and responsibilities as the OC did.

As for whether they are bound by the FDCPA or not depends on whether or not they purchased the debt or are merely collecting.  There is Federal Case law stating a debt purchaser (Santander) is not bound by the FDCPA.  

20 hours ago, Kazzanova said:

When a CA purchases it, usually for pennies on the dollar or fractions of pennies on the dollar, they are now the legal owners of the debt, but are still bound by the FDCPA.

is this true?

Depends on what district you are in.  As has been said already there is RECENT case law stating a debt purchaser is not bound by the FDCPA.

20 hours ago, Kazzanova said:

Also the rule in NJ is 

AGAIN, you cannot take Federal Standards and apply them to STATE law.  You are trying to bend two different laws to support your argument and the creditor friendly NJ courts are NOT going to buy it.

17 hours ago, Kazzanova said:

I’m trying to figure it out honestly I want to say yes but still reading and researching.

So you don't have proof there is even a violation only a suspicion?   You are in over your head.  Get a lawyer you are going to get steam rolled on this case.

 

[Kazzanova]

Quote

So you don't have proof there is even a violation only a suspicion?   You are in over your head.  Get a lawyer you are going to get steam rolled on this case.

Well the are reporting on the credit reports FP since 07/17 but state last payment was some time in 2013.

How can a dent collector be a creditor if they never extended my any credit?

And technically Calvary Portfoliomusing Cavalry SPV I, LLC is a perfect example of this - However, there is an exception to this rule. When collecting its own debts, a creditor will not be exempt from the FDCPA if it uses a different name that implies a third party is attempting to collect the debt.

The FDCPA defines a creditor as the person or entity that extended you the credit in the first place (in other words, your original lender). Since the FDCPA is designed to protect debtors against third party debt collectors, it does not apply to your original creditor or its employees.

Debts not in default when purchased. If the original creditor sold the debt to a third party when it was not yet in default, then the entity purchasing it is not subject to the FDCPA as a debt collector. 9debt was in Default)

Persons not regularly engaged in the business of collecting debts. If a person or entity does not regularly collect debts on behalf of others, it may not be considered a debt collector under the FDCPA. (Clearly Cavalry collects debts on the behalf of others as per their own letter head and website)

 

[Clydesmom]

32 minutes ago, Kazzanova said:

Well the are reporting on the credit reports FP since 07/17 but state last payment was some time in 2013.

They can only report as of the date they bought the account.  It does not affect the date of default.  That is not a violation.

33 minutes ago, Kazzanova said:

How can a dent collector be a creditor if they never extended my any credit?

AGAIN, you are really focusing on the wrong issues.  The use of the term creditor in your situation is not meant to define that Cavalry actually extended YOU credit.  For the purposes of the suit YOU are the debtor and because they bought the account they become the CREDITOR.  It is basic contract law.  When they purchase the account they get ALL the rights and responsibilities of CITI.  That means they are now the creditor even if they never lent you anything.  It would be no different if CITI sold your account in good standing to them.  They would still become the creditor even if they closed your account as they were not going to have active credit accounts.  You would still have to pay the balance.  Defaulting on the debt in no way changes that you owe a debt.

36 minutes ago, Kazzanova said:

And technically Calvary Portfoliomusing Cavalry SPV I, LLC is a perfect example of this - However, there is an exception to this rule. When collecting its own debts, a creditor will not be exempt from the FDCPA if it uses a different name that implies a third party is attempting to collect the debt.

Again, you have not provided on shred of evidence that the FDCPA was violated.  Instead of arguing whether the law applies why not put forth WHY you believe they are subject to it.

37 minutes ago, Kazzanova said:

The FDCPA defines a creditor as the person or entity that extended you the credit in the first place (in other words, your original lender). Since the FDCPA is designed to protect debtors against third party debt collectors, it does not apply to your original creditor or its employees.

Basic contract law.  Read what I posted again.

37 minutes ago, Kazzanova said:

Persons not regularly engaged in the business of collecting debts. If a person or entity does not regularly collect debts on behalf of others, it may not be considered a debt collector under the FDCPA. (Clearly Cavalry collects debts on the behalf of others as per their own letter head and website)

Even if they collect as a third party for other accounts it is NOT relevant.  They bought YOUR debt that they are suing on.  They are the Plaintiff and they are the creditor.  You an argue here all you want but the court is going to see it this way.  You really need a lawyer.  

[BV80]

@Kazzanova

 

How do you believe they violated the FDCPA? 

[Kazzanova]

Ok stupid question Jams accepted my case and gave me a case number but no decision on MTC from court what does that mean