Recommended Posts

My friend has a collection showing on all 3 credit bureaus from LVNV who is a JDB, who allegedly purchased an old Citi CC with a balance of $13,000.00, so it wouldn't qualify for small claims in Iowa and therefore arbitration by either party is allowed.  The SOL is not up for another 1 and 1/2 years but there is no TL on credit bureaus from the OC Citi regarding this account as it must have been removed sometime after LVNV allegedly purchased this account from Citi.  Anyway, every once in awhile for the 3 years LVNV has had this account they send a dunning letter from one of their many companies for this alleged account,  Since they update this alleged debt monthly on Equifax and Experian, but not TU even they show LVNV on their report, we decided to dispute the debt on TU first just to see if it would be investigated and see LVNV would respond to the dispute.  We disputed on 11/5/2018.  Meanwhile, he received another dunning letter from yet another one of their collection agencies they own a couple days later. 
     What we would like to do is get rid of this alleged account now and we want to wait and see if they verify the dispute as valid on TU.  Then, on the same day and timely under the 30 days for a validation request from their last dunning letter to my friend, we want to send by CMRR of the collector a demand for validation of the alleged debt, also writing election of private contractual arbitration from AAA which is who CITI states we would need to use per their cardholder agreement for the date the alleged debt delinquency purportedly occurred, a copy of the AAA filled out form with Arbitration account reference # provided and a request that all future communication be done so in writing.  The AAA form would show that there was no proof of chain of custody, no custodian of record affidavit from Citi Bank proving account was valid, no contract or balance from cc statements showing accumulation of debt or any proof of assignment from OC to JDB.   It would be nice to send the above to LVNV's law firm but we don't know who that is. 

   This would hold off any lawsuit since we elected and will eventually initiate arbitration while also stopping their collection efforts until we get a response to our request.  LVNV believes he has no W2 employment income that they can garnish (which he doesn't) and no property or bank account to attach a lien to down the road (which he does).  

   I've seen on different forums that we should wait until a lawsuit is started and the do a motion to compel arbitration as a affirmative defense, but since this is a JDB we like our chances electing and initiating arbitration as outlined above, letting LVNV know my friend's plan of defense in hopes of a settlement offer to get rid of this alleged debt.  

   What do you think of these additions to the demand for validation letter in achieving a settlement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With LVNV never send your DV or correspondence to their outsourced collection firms. They Love playing whack the mole. Send it CMRR directly to LVNV.

 

200 Meeting Street, Ste #206
City Charleston
State South Carolina
Zip Code 29401-3187

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Credithis said:

With LVNV never send your DV or correspondence to their outsourced collection firms. They Love playing whack the mole. Send it CMRR directly to LVNV.

 

200 Meeting Street, Ste #206
City Charleston
State South Carolina
Zip Code 29401-3187

According to the FDCPA , the DV should be sent to the debt collector who sent the initial communication.  It does not say to send the letter to the entity for which the debt collector is collecting.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dr Crandall said:

This would hold off any lawsuit since we elected and will eventually initiate arbitration while also stopping their collection efforts until we get a response to our request.

There is no court ruling to support that the election of arbitration in a DV letter holds off a lawsuit.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, BV80 said:

There is no court ruling to support that the election of arbitration in a DV letter holds off a lawsuit.  

What about not electing but initiating the arbitration and providing that proof along with the DV letter.  That should be kosher, shouldn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Dr Crandall said:

What about not electing but initiating the arbitration and providing that proof along with the DV letter.  That should be kosher, shouldn't it?

Yes, but they can and will ignore everything about arbitration until AAA closes the file for non payment and no response.  You would then have to file a PTC in federal court at the $400+ filing fee to get them to respond to the arbitration case.  This is why it is suggested to wait until (or if) they file a lawsuit first.  Let THEM pay the filing fee to have your MTC heard.

But you can certainly file the AAA case now if you wish.  I like to file them with at least a decent enough violation on FDCPA or FCRA that I can negotiate a settlement and show their attorney that I will not be an easy go-away and intend to follow through with a full AAA hearing on my claims.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, fisthardcheese said:

Yes, but they can and will ignore everything about arbitration until AAA closes the file for non payment and no response.  You would then have to file a PTC in federal court at the $400+ filing fee to get them to respond to the arbitration case.  This is why it is suggested to wait until (or if) they file a lawsuit first.  Let THEM pay the filing fee to have your MTC heard.

But you can certainly file the AAA case now if you wish.  I like to file them with at least a decent enough violation on FDCPA or FCRA that I can negotiate a settlement and show their attorney that I will not be an easy go-away and intend to follow through with a full AAA hearing on my claims.

I see.  Good information.  Thank  you.  If he were to send the DV with arbitration initiation paperwork it would prevent a suit until LVNV responds to arbitration, but then if they can just let it lapse like you stated would that allow them again to be able to sue?  I was thinking once arbitration was initiated that stops them until a decision was made, but I never thought of what would happen if they didn't respond and the arbitration was withdrawn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Dr Crandall said:

I see.  Good information.  Thank  you.  If he were to send the DV with arbitration initiation paperwork it would prevent a suit until LVNV responds to arbitration, but then if they can just let it lapse like you stated would that allow them again to be able to sue?  I was thinking once arbitration was initiated that stops them until a decision was made, but I never thought of what would happen if they didn't respond and the arbitration was withdrawn.

By waiting to be sued, you can MTC arbitration which courts usually grant.  You could then initiate (unless the court orders them to initiate), and if they fail to follow through, you could then file a motion to dismiss with the court for their failure to obey a court order.  One of the sanctions for failure to obey a court order is a dismissal with prejudice  

@fisthardcheese is that correct?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BV80 said:

By waiting to be sued, you can MTC arbitration which courts usually grant.  You could then initiate (unless the court orders them to initiate), and if they fail to follow through, you could then file a motion to dismiss with the court for their failure to obey a court order.  One of the sanctions for failure to obey a court order is a dismissal with prejudice  

@fisthardcheese is that correct?

Essentially yes.  Sanctions are solely up to the court, but if you suggest a dismissal as a sanction for not following the court order to arbitrate, I would believe most judges would agree to that - although I don't know if we've ever actually seen that ruled on yet. Most of the threats or motions for sanctions have been met with a settlement to dismiss before it got to the judge.

2 hours ago, Dr Crandall said:

I was thinking once arbitration was initiated that stops them until a decision was made, but I never thought of what would happen if they didn't respond and the arbitration was withdrawn.

Nothing technically would stop the filing if they wanted to.  But if you FILED and had proof of serving them with the arbitration filing, and then they sued in court, it COULD be considered an intentional filing in the wrong venue.  This argument has not been proven and there is no case law on it, but I would certainly add this claim to my arbitration case against them (thus, making it more expensive for them to settle with me), but it would still require an MTC in court and having the court grant your MTC to continue the case in arbitration.  It's not like it will automatically be kicked out of court if you file in arbitration first, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LVNV is Both a collector and owner of debts..... DV them directly.... BV80 & I went through this before in years past.   Trust me. They HATE a CMRR letter addressed to corporate legal ending up at their address. They try hard to maintain a low profile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Credithis said:

LVNV is Both a collector and owner of debts..... DV them directly.... BV80 & I went through this before in years past.   Trust me. They HATE a CMRR letter addressed to corporate legal ending up at their address. They try hard to maintain a low profile.

We have also had a more recent discussion regarding which entity to send a DV.   You still provide no case law to support your claim  

While LVNV is both the owner and a debt collector, it is not the debt collector that sent the initial communication.  Therefore, it would not be obligated to respond to the DV request.

Are you saying that every time a different collection agency sends an initial communication for that same debt and lists LVNV as the current creditor, each DV request should be sent to LVNV?  If so, you’re claiming that LVNV would be required to validate the debt multiple times.

Show me a court which has ruled that one debt collector must validate a debt more than once.  

And what about the debt collector who sent the initial communication?   It’s off the hook?   By sending a DV to LVNV rather than the agency which sent the letter, that agency doesn’t have to validate and can continue collection efforts.   

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Credithis said:

LVNV is Both a collector and owner of debts..... DV them directly.... BV80 & I went through this before in years past.   Trust me. They HATE a CMRR letter addressed to corporate legal ending up at their address. They try hard to maintain a low profile.

The CMRR to corporate legal for LVNV got my attention in the above statement.  I mused earlier in this post how I wish I new who the law firm was for LVNV and if I'm reading your statement correctly their corporate legal might be the address below.  If I sent a CMRR to the address below to the Attn: of Legal Department they would maybe technically be the entity that accepted it if I referenced in the DV letter that this is in response to the dunning letter from the other company LVNV owns recently sent to my friend within the 30 days.  I was thinking their legal dept. would have been an outside firm or firms, but maybe it's all in house at the corporate headquarters address.  What does the forum think?  This would be the strategy if we went with the pre-suit scenario initiating arbitration in the DV letter.  That way whack the mole is no longer in play and legal is involved.  I don't know, how can I make this work?  Anyway, I would need to figure out legal dept. address.  The suite number below may also not be the suite the office legal is located.

LVNV

Attn:  Legal Department

200 Meeting Street, Ste. #206

Charleston, SC  29401-3187

 
   
                                         
   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dr Crandall said:

The CMRR to corporate legal for LVNV got my attention in the above statement.  I mused earlier in this post how I wish I new who the law firm was for LVNV and if I'm reading your statement correctly their corporate legal might be the address below.  If I sent a CMRR to the address below to the Attn: of Legal Department they would maybe technically be the entity that accepted it if I referenced in the DV letter that this is in response to the dunning letter from the other company LVNV owns recently sent to my friend within the 30 days.  I was thinking their legal dept. would have been an outside firm or firms, but maybe it's all in house at the corporate headquarters address.  What does the forum think?  This would be the strategy if we went with the pre-suit scenario initiating arbitration in the DV letter.  That way whack the mole is no longer in play and legal is involved.  I don't know, how can I make this work?  Anyway, I would need to figure out legal dept. address.  The suite number below may also not be the suite the office legal is located.

LVNV

Attn:  Legal Department

200 Meeting Street, Ste. #206

Charleston, SC  29401-3187

 
   
                                         
   

If you want to send a letter to LVNV electing arbitration, it would not include a validation request due to the fact that LVNV did not send the collection letter.  You would simply include that arbitration is being elected.   Again, it will not automatically prevent them from suing.  

The DV request is a separate letter that should be sent to the collection agency who sent the collection letter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, BV80 said:

If you want to send a letter to LVNV electing arbitration, it would not include a validation request due to the fact that LVNV did not send the collection letter.  You would simply include that arbitration is being elected.   Again, it will not automatically prevent them from suing.  

The DV request is a separate letter that should be sent to the collection agency who sent the collection letter. 

I will have to see his dunning letter again but it did mention LVNV was the owner of the alleged account.  I think my big question for now would be to find out if the address above is where I send to LVNV legal dept. or do they have a myriad of legal eagles that they use as whack a moles too.  We'll keep the DV and arbitration request separate at this time, if he decides to initiate arbitration, knowing they may just ignore the request. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dr Crandall @Credithis

Letters are useless unless backed with law.  There is no law regarding an ELECTION of arbitration and there is no law regarding random DV letters to anyone other than the collection agency that sends an initial contact.  Any other letter is a waste of paper, ink and postage as it can and will be fully ignored legally.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dr Crandall said:

If I sent a CMRR to the address below to the Attn: of Legal Department they would maybe technically be the entity that accepted it if I referenced in the DV letter that this is in response to the dunning letter from the other company LVNV owns recently sent to my friend within the 30 days.  I was thinking their legal dept. would have been an outside firm or firms, but maybe it's all in house at the corporate headquarters address.  What does the forum think?  This would be the strategy if we went with the pre-suit scenario initiating arbitration in the DV letter.  That way whack the mole is no longer in play and legal is involved.  I don't know, how can I make this work? 

I think this is a mistake.  First:  LVNV has NEVER dunned you directly you only found them on the credit reports.  Under the FDCPA they are only required to respond to a DV within the first 30 days after communication with the consumer.  Finding the trade line on a credit report is not communication with YOU.  As @BV80 said there is absolutely NO case law that demanding arbitration in correspondence is an FDCPA violation.  We have also seen plenty of evidence where disputing a debt within the SOL simply escalated their filing of a suit.

On 11/11/2018 at 5:29 AM, Dr Crandall said:

What we would like to do is get rid of this alleged account now and we want to wait and see if they verify the dispute as valid on TU.

With only a scant 18 months until the SOL expires I would have NEVER attempted this.  LVNV has become more active in the courts lately and attempting to dispute based on one bureau not updating was very HIGH risk for escalating the suit.  

 

On 11/11/2018 at 5:29 AM, Dr Crandall said:

Then, on the same day and timely under the 30 days for a validation request from their last dunning letter to my friend, we want to send by CMRR of the collector a demand for validation of the alleged debt, also writing election of private contractual arbitration from AAA which is who CITI states we would need to use per their cardholder agreement for the date the alleged debt delinquency purportedly occurred, a copy of the AAA filled out form with Arbitration account reference # provided and a request that all future communication be done so in writing.

Which they can and will ignore without violating.

On 11/11/2018 at 5:29 AM, Dr Crandall said:

This would hold off any lawsuit since we elected and will eventually initiate arbitration while also stopping their collection efforts until we get a response to our request. 

If they have decided to sue they will do it.  Your letters will not hold them off.  There is also NO guarantee the court will approve a motion to compel.  A debt worth $13k I would expect LVNV to hold out until the court approves one because if they don't they get to litigate.  If the MTC is not approved and yes it DOES happen then your recourse is to file an appeal on the judge's decision.  With the amount of the debt it would likely have to be in District/State court so there would likely be time to do it before trial.  However, the issue to understand is that it is not uncommon for the Judge to deny the motion and proceed right to trial.  Your friend would need to be prepared for that possibility because once they lose the suit their only recourse is to appeal the entire verdict and that could require and appeal bond in the amount awarded.

On 11/11/2018 at 5:29 AM, Dr Crandall said:

a request that all future communication be done so in writing.

This is also a bad idea.  There is no such thing as a partial cease and desist i.e. "all calls are inconvenient" and they are free to treat this as a full cease and desist, stop communication and just sue.  You said they are only sending the occasional letter.  If they are not calling what is the problem?

On 11/11/2018 at 5:29 AM, Dr Crandall said:

The AAA form would show that there was no proof of chain of custody, no custodian of record affidavit from Citi Bank proving account was valid, no contract or balance from cc statements showing accumulation of debt or any proof of assignment from OC to JDB.

How do you know there is none of this?  They are not required to provide ANY of that in DV.  If they sue or actually did arbitrate I guarantee you they will produce ALL of that except a "contract".  The courts all know there is no signed contract in a credit card debt case and will not require one.

2 hours ago, Dr Crandall said:

I think my big question for now would be to find out if the address above is where I send to LVNV legal dept. or do they have a myriad of legal eagles that they use as whack a moles too.  We'll keep the DV and arbitration request separate at this time, if he decides to initiate arbitration, knowing they may just ignore the request. 

I think before you send any more letters attempting to help your friend you should have him get a consult with a consumer attorney.  You clearly have misinterpreted a LOT of the FDCPA and are flying blind assuming what course of action is best.  You could very well lead him straight to court and if you are not a lawyer you cannot represent him.  You being here instead of him is not in his best interests.  He should be learning all of this.

On 11/11/2018 at 5:29 AM, Dr Crandall said:

What do you think of these additions to the demand for validation letter in achieving a settlement?

If he wants to settle then why not save up a lump sum and start with a low settlement offer and see if they take it.  Being unemployed he has a greater chance of convincing them a relative has loaned him a small sum to deal with it and have the take it.  Get all terms in writing before paying.  OR:  drop this plan and lay low until the SOL in Iowa expires and THEN try and get this removed when the risk of suit is off the table.  If he is unemployed with no assets getting it off the credit report is the least of his worries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find interesting in this, if reading correctly, that LVNV has claimed to hold this for almost 3 years.  If the claimed balance is in excess of $13K and they are not suing, what is stopping them?  That is a large balance.  Definitely a tasty bite to pursue. 

It makes sense to try and lay low as you get closer to SOL, but in my opinion since they are dunning you, your account is on the radar.  You just sent the dispute so no taking that back.   They will send you the standard verification and say "yes it stays".  They have 30 days to respond after receiving the dispute.  So you may be 5 weeks or so before hearing anything.  See what happens after that.   If they do not sue or take any action, my guess is for some reason they are having problems that only LVNV knows stopping them from coming after you. 

Remember, LVNV and a few others are under that consent agreement with CFPB.  Based ont he age of the alleged account, it looks like the may have possibly acquired it prior to the agreement being signed.  You may be in a position that if they come after your account and it violates that agreement, they could have an issue.  Of course that is only the case if you understand the agreement and can point out any issues. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, outtadebt said:

What I find interesting in this, if reading correctly, that LVNV has claimed to hold this for almost 3 years.  If the claimed balance is in excess of $13K and they are not suing, what is stopping them?

Both the JDB and their attorney are probably monitoring the credit report and with no new or current employer listed, no attempts at new credit made, and maybe a lot of other debts they would consider a suit throwing good money after bad if the consumer is not collectable even with a lawsuit.

Sometimes they also wait to almost the SOL running out to lull the consumer into a false sense of security it won't happen.   Another possibility is it simply fell through the cracks until now.  The bad part is a recent DV can indicate the consumer is trying to start credit repair and that can fire up the lawsuit furnace.

27 minutes ago, outtadebt said:

Remember, LVNV and a few others are under that consent agreement with CFPB.  Based ont he age of the alleged account, it looks like the may have possibly acquired it prior to the agreement being signed.  You may be in a position that if they come after your account and it violates that agreement, they could have an issue.  Of course that is only the case if you understand the agreement and can point out any issues. 

Consumers cannot enforce the agreement.  Only the CFPB can and it has shown to have no affect on suits in progress.  The CFPB won't get involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, outtadebt said:

Remember, LVNV and a few others are under that consent agreement with CFPB

There is no consent order between LVNV and the CFPB.   And as @Clydesmom pointed out, consumers have no private right of action to enforce CFPB orders. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Clydesmom said:

However, the issue to understand is that it is not uncommon for the Judge to deny the motion and proceed right to trial.

I suppose you could consider ~10% of the time "not uncommon", but it is rather misleading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, fisthardcheese said:

I suppose you could consider ~10% of the time "not uncommon", but it is rather misleading.

Only you would argue against being prepared for the possibility to the detriment of the OP using semantics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Clydesmom said:

Only you would argue against being prepared for the possibility to the detriment of the OP using semantics.

Only because you are the only one scaring people away from well established case law of arbitration with a JDB and suggest a settlement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, fisthardcheese said:

Only because you are the only one scaring people away from well established case law of arbitration with a JDB and suggest a settlement.

You really are reading comprehension impaired. Go back and read what I quoted it is the last line of the main post. The OP clearly ASKED about doing all.this to get a better SETTLEMENT. I am the only one who answered. Answering his direct question isnt steering him anywhere.

You would be so much more helpful if you did not have a room temperature IQ and pre-school reading ability.

Share this post


Link to post
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.