Cach debt collection

[kim662]

I received a letter from a law group for collections $1059 stating Cach is current creditor, Metris is original creditor and charge off date is 10/31/2010!  This is past the 6 year SOL obviously, can I just respond with request for cease and desist using that reason? Or do I have to request debt validation? Or can I just ignore because they can't sue me this long after the fact, right? Thank you for any info. I have no idea if this is a valid debt or not, I've never heard of Metris companies, but I was in a financially difficult way at that time so you never know.

[BV80]

Just now, kim662 said:

I received a letter from a law group for collections $1059 stating Cach is current creditor, Metris is original creditor and charge off date is 10/31/2010!  This is past the 6 year SOL obviously, can I just respond with request for cease and desist using that reason? Or do I have to request debt validation? Or can I just ignore because they can't sue me this long after the fact, right? Thank you for any info. I have no idea if this is a valid debt or not, I've never heard of Metris companies, but I was in a financially difficult way at that time so you never know.

Did you make any payments after 2010?

Does the letter include a notice that they cannot sue due to the age of the debt?

[kim662]

I have not made any payments and no the letter does not say anything about the age of the debt.

[kim662]

[BV80]

 

@kim662

Thank for including the copy of the letter.

In Buchanan v. Northland, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a settlement offer on a time-barred debt could be misleading unless it includes language that indicates the debt collector will not sue or a warning that a payment could revive the debt.

Mandarich didn’t make a settlement offer, but it does mention to call if you would like to make payment arrangements.

I would contact some consumer attorneys and get their opinions  

 

[kim662]

You don't think it would be wise to send them a letter stating I dispute the validity of the debt and also ask for cease and desist due to SOL, in hopes they would just give up?

[BV80]

3 minutes ago, kim662 said:

You don't think it would be wise to send them a letter stating I dispute the validity of the debt and also ask for cease and desist due to SOL, in hopes they would just give up?

You could do that.  

[kim662]

Is this ok? 

 

Re: Your file #22809

 

To Whom It May Concern:

 

In regards to the letter I received 12-10-18, I dispute the validity of this debt in its entirety.

 

Furthermore, according to the charge off date of 10/31/2010, included in your letter, the communication is beyond the statute of limitations and would not be pursuable. Any further action will be a violation of debt collection practices and will be handled with all remedies available to me in regards to current consumer protection laws.

 

Sincerely,

[BV80]

11 minutes ago, kim662 said:

Is this ok? 

 

 

Re: Your file #22809

 

To Whom It May Concern:

 

In regards to the letter I received 12-10-18, I dispute the validity of this debt in its entirety.

 

Furthermore, according to the charge off date of 10/31/2010, included in your letter, the communication is beyond the statute of limitations and would not be pursuable. Any further action will be a violation of debt collection practices and will be handled with all remedies available to me in regards to current consumer protection laws.

 

Sincerely,

You know, since you said that you have idea as to the identity of Metris, if it were me, I’d be curious to find about it which could be possible via DV.  But that’s up to you.

If you want to send the C&D, personally, I wouldn’t include anything about the charge-off date, the fact that the debt is time-barred, or the FDCPA. 

It’s not your job to inform them of the law.

[kim662]

So, I could just add at the end of the first line "and request validation of this debt", and then instead of the second paragraph just include the last line maybe?

[BV80]

1 minute ago, kim662 said:

So, I could just add at the end of the first line "and request validation of this debt", and then instead of the second paragraph just include the last line maybe?

The last line about “any further action”?

[kim662]

1 minute ago, BV80 said:

The last line about “any further action”?

Yes, should I include that? Or just cut that whole second paragraph?

[BV80]

17 minutes ago, kim662 said:

Yes, should I include that? Or just cut that whole second paragraph?

Right.  Telling them not to take any further action contradicts your request that they validate the debt.  I’d omit the last paragraph.

[kim662]

Thank you. I'll just ask for validation first and see what they send. I'm sure I'll be back on here after I hear back from them. 

[fisthardcheese]

My letter would say "I dispute this alleged debt and request verification".  That's all. One line and nothing more.

After I see what they respond with, I would call a couple attorneys who do FDCPA work as @BV80 suggested.

You COULD just send a C&D after they respond (another simple, one-line letter), but a lawsuit filed against them can be turned into a nice combination of a C&D along with a bonus check in your pocket.

[kim662]

Thank you, I do have the letter down to one line and did include the word "alleged". I'll let you all know what happens! Thanks

[Harry Seaward]

1 hour ago, kim662 said:

You don't think it would be wise to send them a letter stating I dispute the validity of the debt and also ask for cease and desist due to SOL, in hopes they would just give up?

I think you misunderstood what BV80 was saying. She's suggesting that you can turn the tables and sue them for violating the FDCPA. A consumer attorney would have the best feel for if you have a case against them. Most will give you a free initial consultation and won't charge anything to take your case. They would get paid at the end out of any money you win from a lawsuit/settlement. 

[Guest usctrojanalum]

Just an FYI; that letter says another law firm commenced a litigation.

We need more information about that. If a case is already filed, the suit may have been timely filed.   

[sidthekid44]

On ‎12‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 1:54 PM, usctrojanalum said:

Just an FYI; that letter says another law firm commenced a litigation.

We need more information about that. If a case is already filed, the suit may have been timely filed.   

I have a thread in the forum that @usctrojanalum has been giving me assistance with.  I was served in April 2018 and last month I received virtually this exact same letter from Mandarich.  My case is still open, and nothing new has yet been filed, but my assumption (based on usc's help) is Cavalry has retained new lawyers.  I did send a DV letter, but have not heard back yet.

[kim662]

So, I received their verification, 1. a letter stating, "before we proceed with collection we would like to hear from you to resolve...", 2. an affadavit from someone at hsbc (which is BS, looks like dates were changed from 12-2-11 to 12-2-13), and 3. copies of some bills from an HSBC credit card from 2010. I do think this is a card I was sued on in 2011 and motioned to arbitration, which I do believe was dismissed. Without prejudice I think. I have to dig out my paperwork from a box in a closet somewhere to see for sure. What now? Wait for them to sue? I think they are out of line here but I know nothing. I could just offer them $100 or something to settle it?

[kim662]

I just noticed, the commission of the notary expires before the it was supposedly signed! Obviously this was tampered with!! Or is it supposed to be a 12 like it appears to be above? These people are shady as #%*+!

[fisthardcheese]

4 minutes ago, kim662 said:

I just noticed, the commission of the notary expires before the it was supposedly signed! Obviously this was tampered with!! Or is it supposed to be a 12 like it appears to be above? These people are shady as #%*+!

It looks like an "11" to me, but either way the affidavit is mostly irrelevant except for proving that this is beyond the 6 year SOL.

[kim662]

The fact that this was most likely a previously filed suit doesn't matter then? It was dismissed but without prejudice. I should add, I believe this was one that I requested arbitration and filed with JAMS.

[Harry Seaward]

1 hour ago, kim662 said:

The fact that this was most likely a previously filed suit doesn't matter then? It was dismissed but without prejudice.

Without prejudice means the case was *not* decided on the merits, meaning there was no ruling on the validity of the debt. There's nothing stopping them from continuing to send you ollection letters, for the next 70 years, if they want. They can't, however, sue you because the SOL seems to have passed and they can't make false/misleading statements in whatever letters they send. 

[fisthardcheese]

17 hours ago, kim662 said:

The fact that this was most likely a previously filed suit doesn't matter then? It was dismissed but without prejudice. I should add, I believe this was one that I requested arbitration and filed with JAMS.

Let's assume that the time the lawsuit was pending put a pause on the SOL, and I am also assuming you are correct that your state's SOL is 6 years (I'm apt to agree since that is one of the higher SOL's anyway).  Was the court case pending for more than 2 years?  If not, then it would still fall beyond the 6 year SOL even IF that lawsuit did extend that time somehow.

If this were me, I would send them a FOAD letter.

Actually, if it were me, I would send a hand-written note that says "I refuse to pay this debt".  But, that's just me.