cjtx2

Deceased

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, cjtx2 said:

Actually, a large portion of FDCPA is about deceitful statements and misrepresentations.

I know that.

3 minutes ago, cjtx2 said:

consumer is obligated to pay" or something to that effect.

When they demand payment, that is when they are alleging the person has an obligation to pay.  

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

When they demand payment, that is when they are alleging the person has an obligation to pay.  

First off, I am sorry if my questions come across the wrong way. I am just trying to understand the nuances.

A demand for payment is usually an implicit statement. "Send payment to"..." or something similar. No explicit mention of an obligation to pay.

But if they sent dunning letters discussing debts, they could avoid FDCPA altogether as long as they do not request a payment. They could contact all third parties, co-workers/boss, relatives, neighbors, etc. What I am trying to say is that there is no requirement to demand a payment. As long as they disclose there is a debt or an unpaid bill, there is a strong suggestion that the debtor (or his/her executor) has an obligation to pay.

When a CA contacts a third party, they do not demand payment just location information. They cannot tell a third party about the debtor's private business. If they disclose they are trying to contact him/her because the debtor has an unpaid bill (debt) or that they are a CA (if not asked directly  about the name of the business), it is clearly a FDCPA violation.

So maybe my mistake was calling it a dunning letter. It is just a communication with a third party regarding an alleged debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, cjtx2 said:

A demand for payment is usually an implicit statement. "Send payment to"..." or something similar. No explicit mention of an obligation to pay.

What do you think “send payment to” means?  Do you think they would make that statement to someone other than the person they believe is obligated to pay?

45 minutes ago, cjtx2 said:

But if they sent dunning letters discussing debts, they could avoid FDCPA altogether as long as they do not request a payment.

And that would be ridiculous.  The very reason for their existence is to get paid.  

44 minutes ago, cjtx2 said:

What I am trying to say is that there is no requirement to demand a payment. As long as they disclose there is a debt or an unpaid bill, there is a strong suggestion that the debtor (or his/her executor) has an obligation to pay.

Again, “send payment to” is a demand to pay.  

 

 

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

Again, “send payment to” is a demand to pay.  

Ok, so is there a demand for payment when contacting third parties to acquire location information? That does not make any sense. Even though the very reason for CAs existence is to collect money, there are many instances when they initiate communications that do not have an expectation of demanding money from the person contacted but could lead to the debtor.

I know there is plenty of case law where CA's contacted third parties to acquire location information and disclosed it was a collection agency or their caller id had an explicit reference to collections and they were found to be in violation of FDCPA. Did they make a demand for payment or just location info?  Why would a neighbor or co-worker pay your debts?

CAs have guidelines to disclose only that they are calling "about a private business matter" and they can only disclose the name of the CA if asked for it, in which case they have no choice but to identify themselves. So they cannot tell third parties that there is a debt involved because that is also an FDCPA violation. Again, in those cases did they make a demand for payment or just location info?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cjtx2 said:

Ok, so is there a demand for payment when contacting third parties to acquire location information?

No.

1 hour ago, cjtx2 said:

Even though the very reason for CAs existence is to collect money, there are many instances when they initiate communications that do not have an expectation of demanding money from the person contacted but could lead to the debtor.

That’s true, but I don’t understand your point.  When a CA contacts a 3rd party for location information, it does not demand money at that time because the 3rd party is not the consumer debtor.

1 hour ago, cjtx2 said:

CAs have guidelines to disclose only that they are calling "about a private business matter" and they can only disclose the name of the CA if asked for it, in which case they have no choice but to identify themselves. So they cannot tell third parties that there is a debt involved because that is also an FDCPA violation. Again, in those cases did they make a demand for payment or just location info?

They merely asked for location information.  Revealing their name, when asked, is not demanding money from the consumer.  

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

That’s true, but I don’t understand your point.  When a CA contacts a 3rd party for location information, it does not demand money at that time because the 3rd party is not the consumer debtor.

My point is that FDCPA is applicable to acquisition of location info when there are violations like disclosing there is a debt, calling a debtor a deadbeat (or worse), using foul language, disclosing that a CA is calling if it was not specifically prompted to do so, etc., even though there is no demand for money. 

I need to review some caselaw to see who has a right to sue. I think a 3rd party can sue if, for example CAs keep harassing them about someone else's debt after they asked not to be contacted again. I need to make sure whether a debtor can sue for the equivalent of invasion of privacy, disclosing private business to 3rd parties.

On the other hand, if FDCPA does not apply as you suggest, then common law causes of action would (like invasion of privacy) and defamation (telling others I am dead).

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cjtx2 said:

So maybe my mistake was calling it a dunning letter. It is just a communication with a third party regarding an alleged debt.

They are "skip tracing" and nothing more.  The difference here is the debtor hasn't "skipped" out and is in an unknown location.  They passed away.  Asking for the identity of the executor of the estate is seeking the identity of the proper person who is responsible for legally handling the debts of the estate of the departed.  While it may be morally questionable it isn't illegal.

6 hours ago, cjtx2 said:

So they are not implying that the executor is obligated to pay the debt?

That is EXACTLY what an executor is supposed to do.  "An executor typically offers the will for probate, takes action to protect the assets of the estate, makes distributions of property to beneficiaries and pays the debts and taxes of the estate. ."

The creditor has a legal right to notify the executor that a debt exists that the estate is responsible for.  Prior to distributing certain assets and funds to beneficiaries all debts must be paid that are legally disclosed to the executor.

1 hour ago, cjtx2 said:

On the other hand, if FDCPA does not apply as you suggest, then common law causes of action would (like invasion of privacy) and defamation (telling others I am dead).

In order to prevail on defamation you would have to have actual damages.  You have none.  There is also no invasion of privacy either.

You are inserting WAY WAY too many "what if" scenarios into this.  Leave imagination out of it.  ALL that matters is what is actually in the four corners of that letter they sent.  As has already been said:  take the letter to a consumer attorney. If there is even a shred of a case they will tell you.  

From the Federal Trade Commission:

Does a debt go away when the debtor dies?

No. The estate of the deceased person owes the debt. If there isn't enough money in the estate to cover the debt, it typically goes unpaid. But there are exceptions to this rule. You may be responsible for the debt if you:

  • co-signed the obligation;
  • live in a community property state, such as California;
  • are the deceased person's spouse and state law requires you to pay a particular type of debt, like some health care expenses; or
  • were legally responsible for resolving the estate and didn't comply with certain state probate laws.

If you have questions about whether you are legally obligated to pay a deceased person's debts from your own assets, talk to a lawyer

Who has the authority to pay the deceased person's debt out of his or her assets? 

The person named in a will who is responsible for settling a deceased person's affairs is called the executor. If there is no will, the court may appoint an administrator, personal representative, or universal successor, and give them the authority to settle the affairs. In some states, others (or other people) may have that authority, even if they haven't been formally appointed by the court.

 

Whom may a debt collector talk to about a deceased person's debt? 

Under the FDCPA, collectors can contact and discuss the deceased person's debts with that person's spouse, parent(s) (if the deceased was a minor child), guardian, executor, or administrator. Also, the FTC permits collectors to contact any other person authorized to pay debts with assets from the deceased person's estate. Debt collectors may not discuss the debts of deceased persons with anyone else.

 

If a debt collector contacts a deceased person's relative, what can they talk about? 

Collectors are allowed to contact third parties (such as a relative) to get the name, address, and telephone number of the deceased person's spouse, executor, administrator, or other person authorized to pay the deceased's debts. Collectors usually are permitted to contact such third parties only once to get this information. The main exception is if a collector reasonably believes that the information provided initially was inaccurate or incomplete, and that the third party now has more accurate or complete information. But, collectors cannot say anything about the debt to the third party.

 

Even if I am authorized to pay a deceased person's debt, can I stop a debt collector from contacting me about the debt? 

Yes. To exercise this right, you must send a letter to the collector stating that you do not want the collector to contact you again. A telephone call is not enough. Make a copy of your letter for your files, send the original by certified mail, and pay for a "return receipt" so you can document what the collector received and when. Once the collector gets your letter, he cannot contact you again except to confirm that there will be no further contact or that he or the creditor plans to take a specific action, like filing a lawsuit to collect the debt. Keep in mind that even if you stop collectors from communicating with you, you are still responsible for the debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that this case is on the line of whether the JDB performed a permissible act or not. Since most of us are not attorneys here, our opinion is worth exactly what you are paying for it and since this is a gray line case, talking to an attorney would be a good idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, cjtx2 said:

My point is that FDCPA is applicable to acquisition of location info when there are violations like disclosing there is a debt, calling a debtor a deadbeat (or worse), using foul language, disclosing that a CA is calling if it was not specifically prompted to do so, etc., even though there is no demand for money. 

I need to review some caselaw to see who has a right to sue. I think a 3rd party can sue if, for example CAs keep harassing them about someone else's debt after they asked not to be contacted again. I need to make sure whether a debtor can sue for the equivalent of invasion of privacy, disclosing private business to 3rd parties.

On the other hand, if FDCPA does not apply as you suggest, then common law causes of action would (like invasion of privacy) and defamation (telling others I am dead).

I found 2 references to “outstanding bills” of a decedent and the FDCPA.  The first is the only court ruling I was able to locate on the issue.

Ismail v  Ascensionpoint Recovery Services (ND Alabama, 2019)

Additionally, APRS relies on the Federal Trade Commission's Statement of Policy Regarding Communications in Connection With the Collection of Decedents' Debts, 76 FR 44915-01, 2011 WL 309977. That policy states that, because "letters addressed to the estate or an unnamed administrator or executor (legal terms with which many consumers are unfamiliar) often are opened by individuals who do so in an effort to help out, but who lack the authority to pay the decedent's debts from the estate's assets[,] a communication addressed to the decedent's estate, or an unnamed executor or administrator, is a location communication" subject to all the requirements of § 1692b. Although the FTC's opinion is nonbinding, the Supreme Court has stated its "judgment is to be given great weight by reviewing courts." F.T.C. v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 380 U.S. 374, 385 (1965).

Consistent with APRS's contention, the Letter conforms to the § 1692b location communication requirements. First, the Letter is intended for someone other than the consumer, Fekry Ismail: specifically, the Estate. It identifies APRS and states that its purpose is to collect location information about "the person responsible for paying the outstanding bills from the decedent's estate."[8] (Doc. 6-1). It does not state Fekry Ismail owes any debts. There is no indication the letter runs afoul of the prohibitions in § 1692b(3)-(6).

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15077081535787918426&q=“Ismail+v.+ascensionpoint”&hl=en&as_sdt=6,41
 

The above-mentioned FTC policy:

Based on the comments received and on its law enforcement experience, the Commission will forebear from taking enforcement action for violating Section 804(2) of the FDCPA against a debt collector who includes in location communications a general reference to paying the ‘‘outstanding bills’’ of the decedent out of the estate’s assets. Such a reference balances the legitimate needs of the collector with the privacy interests of the decedent. 

Page 44921

https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/federal_register_notices/statement-policy-regarding-communications-connection-collection-decedents-debts-policy-statement/110720fdcpa.pdf

 

 

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

In order to prevail on defamation you would have to have actual damages.  You have none.  There is also no invasion of privacy either.

Thank you.

There is invasion of privacy because there are communications with third parties asking about my private business. Someone else saw the letters. The CA could probably get away with it if I were dead, but because I am not, they cannot disclose that there are any debts. The embarassment of having my private business disclosed to third parties does not require further proof.

As far as the related defamation claim, they are spreading false and misleading information to third parties, including the OC, which has resulted in my credit file being blocked, unable to get FICO scores, so credit applications have been denied.

Are these the kind of actual damages you are refering to?

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

I found 2 references to “outstanding bills” of a decedent and the FDCPA.  The first is the only court ruling I was able to locate on the issue.

Ismail v  Ascensionpoint Recovery Services (ND Alabama, 2019)

Additionally, APRS relies on the Federal Trade Commission's Statement of Policy Regarding Communications in Connection With the Collection of Decedents' Debts, 76 FR 44915-01, 2011 WL 309977. That policy states that, because "letters addressed to the estate or an unnamed administrator or executor (legal terms with which many consumers are unfamiliar) often are opened by individuals who do so in an effort to help out, but who lack the authority to pay the decedent's debts from the estate's assets[,] a communication addressed to the decedent's estate, or an unnamed executor or administrator, is a location communication" subject to all the requirements of § 1692b. Although the FTC's opinion is nonbinding, the Supreme Court has stated its "judgment is to be given great weight by reviewing courts." F.T.C. v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 380 U.S. 374, 385 (1965).

Consistent with APRS's contention, the Letter conforms to the § 1692b location communication requirements. First, the Letter is intended for someone other than the consumer, Fekry Ismail: specifically, the Estate. It identifies APRS and states that its purpose is to collect location information about "the person responsible for paying the outstanding bills from the decedent's estate."[8] (Doc. 6-1). It does not state Fekry Ismail owes any debts. There is no indication the letter runs afoul of the prohibitions in § 1692b(3)-(6).

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15077081535787918426&q=“Ismail+v.+ascensionpoint”&hl=en&as_sdt=6,41
 

The above-mentioned FTC policy:

Based on the comments received and on its law enforcement experience, the Commission will forebear from taking enforcement action for violating Section 804(2) of the FDCPA against a debt collector who includes in location communications a general reference to paying the ‘‘outstanding bills’’ of the decedent out of the estate’s assets. Such a reference balances the legitimate needs of the collector with the privacy interests of the decedent. 

Page 44921

https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/federal_register_notices/statement-policy-regarding-communications-connection-collection-decedents-debts-policy-statement/110720fdcpa.pdf

 

 

Thank you!!! Right on point.

The court's and FTC's conclusion relies on a dunning letter related to an actually deceased person.

Do I have more privacy rights than my deceased self? Does the phrase "outstanding bills" refer to "debt" for a living person?

For someone deceased it could be seen as unfinished business and not necessarily debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, cjtx2 said:

Thank you!!! Right on point.

The court's and FTC's conclusion relies on a dunning letter related to an actually deceased person.

Do I have more privacy rights than my deceased self? Does the phrase "outstanding bills" refer to "debt" for a living person?

For someone deceased it could be seen as unfinished business and not necessarily debt.

Both the AL court and the FTC stated that “outstanding bills” does violate the FDCPA.  It is not unusual for people to have unpaid bills when they die.  You cannot seem to focus on the fact that the CA is basing its actions on information from a creditor, yet you keep wanting to blame the CA   

Regarding defamation,  under what law(s) would you sue for defamation?

 

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

Both the AL court and the FTC stated that “outstanding bills” does violate the FDCPA.  It is not unusual for people to have unpaid bills when they die.  You cannot seem to focus on the fact that the CA is basing its actions on information from a creditor, yet you keep wanting to blame the CA   

Assuming it is any other false information provided by the OC, you have a right to dispute it, have them validate the debt, and if they keep insisting on falsehoods after a bogus validation, they are liable for making false statements / not conducting a real investigation. In this case, they robbed me of my right to request validation.

20 minutes ago, BV80 said:

Regarding defamation,  what law(s) would you sue for defamation?

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 73.001

A statement is considered libel per se if it was so obviously hurtful to the plaintiff that no proof of the statement's injurious character is required to make it actionable. Meisel v. US Bank, 396 S.W.3d 680 (Tex. App. -- Dallas 2013, no pet.).

A statement is considered libel per se if it falls under either (1) the statutory definition of libel or (2) one of the four categories of per se defamatory speech.

Gartman v. Hedgpeth, 157 S.W.2d 139, 140-141 (Tex. 1941)

Renfro Drug Co. v. Lawson, 160 S.W.2d 246,250 (Tex. 1942) (if statement is defamatory as defined by statute, injury to reputation is presumed).

To fall within the statutory definition of libel, a statement must:

(1) injure a living person's reputation and thus expose the person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or financial injury,

(2) impeach a person's honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation, or

(3) publish a person's natural defects and thus expose the person to public hatred, ridicule or financial injury.

A statement is considered libel per se, without regard to the statutory definition of libel, if, on its face, it falls within one of the following four categories:

(a) Injures occupation

(b) Imputes crime

(c) Imputes loathsome disease

(d) Imputes sexual misconduct

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, cjtx2 said:

Assuming it is any other false information provided by the OC, you have a right to dispute it, have them validate the debt, and if they keep insisting on falsehoods after a bogus validation, they are liable for making false statements / not conducting a real investigation. In this case, they robbed me of my right to request validation.

Considering they believe you are dead, they did not rob you of your right to request validation.  The FDCPA allows for bona fide errors that do not hold a CA liable.  
 

And it was not a dunning letter. It was seeking information.  
 

18 minutes ago, cjtx2 said:

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 73.001

A statement is considered libel per se if it was so obviously hurtful to the plaintiff that no proof of the statement's injurious character is required to make it actionable. Meisel v. US Bank, 396 S.W.3d 680 (Tex. App. -- Dallas 2013, no pet.).

A statement is considered libel per se if it falls under either (1) the statutory definition of libel or (2) one of the four categories of per se defamatory speech.

Gartman v. Hedgpeth, 157 S.W.2d 139, 140-141 (Tex. 1941)

Renfro Drug Co. v. Lawson, 160 S.W.2d 246,250 (Tex. 1942) (if statement is defamatory as defined by statute, injury to reputation is presumed).

To fall within the statutory definition of libel, a statement must:

(1) injure a living person's reputation and thus expose the person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or financial injury,

(2) impeach a person's honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation, or

(3) publish a person's natural defects and thus expose the person to public hatred, ridicule or financial injury.

A statement is considered libel per se, without regard to the statutory definition of libel, if, on its face, it falls within one of the following four categories:

(a) Injures occupation

(b) Imputes crime

(c) Imputes loathsome disease

(d) Imputes sexual misconduct

Which of the above would apply to you?

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

Considering they believe you are dead, they did not rob you of your right to request validation.  The FDCPA allows for bona fide errors that do not hold a CA liable.  

They also consider that any financial information provided by the OC is true and yet, it is subject to validation. There are no special provisions in the law for a CA to accept some info as true and not subject to challenge and yet allow a challenge for everything else.

The whole point of validation is to make sure the CA and the OC did not make a clerical mistake trying to collect from the wrong person or demanding the wrong amount. 

What they believed is irrelevant. It's what the law requires them to do.

7 minutes ago, BV80 said:

Which of the above would apply to you?

(1) injure a living person's reputation and thus expose the person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or financial injury,

(a) Injures occupation

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, cjtx2 said:

They also consider that any financial information provided by the OC is true and yet, it is subject to validation. There are no special provisions in the law for a CA to accept some info as true and not subject to challenge and yet allow a challenge for everything else.

The whole point of validation is to make sure the CA and the OC did not make a clerical mistake trying to collect from the wrong person or demanding the wrong amount. 

What they believed is irrelevant. It's what the law requires them to do.

I think you missed my edit.  It was not a dunning letter.  It was seeking information.   From the FTC:

Based on the comments received and on its law enforcement experience, the Commission will forebear from taking enforcement action for violating Section 804(2) of the FDCPA against a debt collector who includes in location information a general reference to paying the ‘‘outstanding bills’’ of the decedent out of the estate’s assets. 

In any case, considering the statements in the letter, for what would you request validation?  It did not state that you owed a debt nor did it reference a specific debt that you could dispute.  More proof that it’s a letter seeking information..

50 minutes ago, cjtx2 said:

1) injure a living person's reputation and thus expose the person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or financial injury,

(a) Injures occupation

What financial and occupational injuries did you suffer?

Have you been in contact with the OC? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cjtx2 said:

Is the executor/trustee of a living trust addressed by this letter (notwithstanding the contents)?

A.) An executor is not necessarily a trustee. 

B.) The letter (as you posted it) is not addressed to anyone specific. It's asking whoever opens it to let them know who is responsible for settling debts of the named dead person. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys this is pointless. It has been 4 pages of endless circular logic. Each time a rational answer based in fact is given another "what if" scenario is introduced each time hoping to hear what they want not the consistent answer(s) that have been given.

The bottom line is the best solution is to take the letter to a solid consumer attorney and see if they believe this rises to the level of a violation that would be sustainable in Federal Court.  Any other discussion is futile.  The end result will not be any different.

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

In any case, considering the statements in the letter, for what would you request validation?  It did not state that you owed a debt nor did it reference a specific debt that you could dispute.  More proof that it’s a letter seeking information..

Agreed that this is a creepy request for location information. It contains false information about me being dead. 

At the beginning of this thread, I mentioned that they made a call to my number and left a voice message saying they wanted to speak with the executor of my estate. Again this is a creepy request for location. And there is no law authorizing them to lie about me and claim I am dead. Can you please reference any law that allows the CA to lie while requesting location information?

The morbid letters described above were sent to a 3rd party requesting location at my address. 

Obviously, whenever they call my number and write to my address, it is extremely likely that I will receive their communications.

There is no separate law indicating the procedure to collect from the deceased. So the CA was required to follow FDCPA as it pertains to living people. 

Under FDCPA, the only way they can legally assume that they reached the right person and are demanding the right amount is through a dunning letter and after there is no response to request validation. So there is no basis in law to assume any of the information supplied by the OC is valid (including their false claim that I am dead).

FDCPA assumes that the CA will also contact me directly, not just third parties. It had to offer me an opportunity to request validation. They obviously had my phone and address. There were multiple communications from them and none of them afforded me a dunning letter so I could dispute it.

The whole problem is with procedure. The CA chose how to proceed falsely assuming that the information from the OC is correct, which violates the spirit of FDCPA, where neither the identity of the debtor nor the amount can be assumed to be true without validation.

In addition to their morbid attempts at obtaining location info, they also notified other 3rd parties (the OC) and told them/confirmed I am dead and they were unable to obtain location info.

As you mentioned before, it is not unusual for people to have unpaid bills when they die.  A person may not have any pending collections when they die, so referencing outstanding bills does not necessarily mean bad debt subject to debt collection. But there is no other way to interpret outstanding bills for a living person than bad debt. The only way they got away with mentioning outstanding bills was to lie about me being deceased.

4 hours ago, BV80 said:

What financial and occupational injuries did you suffer?

Credit applications are denied because I do not have FICO scores due to an OC reporting me as deceased.

I cannot open business checking accounts, which I need for my job because of the deceased status and they cannot check my credit score. 

4 hours ago, BV80 said:

Have you been in contact with the OC? 

yes, in writing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, cjtx2 said:

At the beginning of this thread, I mentioned that they made a call to my number and left a voice message saying they wanted to speak with the executor of my estate. Again this is a creepy request for location. And there is no law authorizing them to lie about me and claim I am dead. Can you please reference any law that allows the CA to lie while requesting location information?

You have NO proof they are lying.  That implies intent.  Wrong does not automatically equate to lying.  Even a google search on this company does not indicate they have ever done anything like that despite their morally questionable collection focus.

I work in health care and you would be surprised how often two or more people have almost if not completely identical names including the middle one.  More than once we have had patients in bed space in ICU next to each other with such identical names, DOB and ID numbers that large caution signs about verifying which patient you had before engaging in any medical care were posted. 

My educated guess is a consumer with a similar if not identical name DID pass away.  Your credit file may even be mixed with this individual.  The FDCPA allows for bona fide error and so far you have proof of nothing only your far fetched suppositions.

AGAIN:  take the [expletive] letter to a consumer attorney.  You keep arguing here as if some how you are magically going to be told what you want to hear.  The reality is you lack the comprehension and organization to handle this in Federal Court and no one here is convinced you have a case.  If you can't sell us odds on you convincing a Federal Judge and jury are zero.  On the low chance there is violations you also have the problem of undoing the potential mess which will involve a good attorney.  

TALK TO A LAWYER.  You desperately need one.  

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

You have NO proof they are lying.  That implies intent.  Even a google search on this company does not indicate they have ever done anything like that despite their morally questionable collection focus.

I work in health care and you would be surprised how often two or more people have almost if not completely identical names including the middle one.  More than once we have had patients in bed space in ICU next to each other with such identical names, DOB and ID numbers that large caution signs about verifying which patient you had before engaging in any medical care were posted. 

My educated guess is a consumer with a similar if not identical name DID pass away.  Your credit file may even be mixed with this individual.  The FDCPA allows for bona fide error and so far you have proof of nothing only your far fetched suppositions.

AGAIN:  take the [expletive] letter to a consumer attorney.  You keep arguing here as if some how you are magically going to be told what you want to hear.  The reality is you lack the comprehension and organization to handle this in Federal Court and no one here is convinced you have a case.  If you can't sell us odds on you convincing a Federal Judge and jury are zero.  On the low chance there is violations you also have the problem of undoing the potential mess which will involve a good attorney.  

TALK TO A LAWYER.  You desperately need one.  

Thank you. I appreciate your suggestions.

I did check public records and was unable to find anyone with a similar name dead recently. I just got a recent copy of my credit reports and my files are not merged with anyone else's.

The reason for my questions is that I am looking for arguments to make to the lawyer and this has helped me anticipate several possible counter arguments, many things I had not thought about in advance and other weaknesses of my claims.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If indeed you are having problems opening a bank account or doing other financial actions, then you have bigger issues because someone else is reporting you dead at this point. You are going to need an attorney for that because you might need to go to court and have a judge declare that you are still living to clear this up. You need to get that fixed ASAP and then worry about who made the mistake later because if you don't clear this up, things will get worse. As the news of your death spreads, more and more adverse actions are going to happen.

In any case, the issue is probably not with the CA but with the original creditor. The CA can only go on the information given to them and any other public information. If the OC tells the CA that you are deceased then they have to believe it in the absence of any other information to the contrary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2019 at 12:30 AM, cjtx2 said:

Can you please reference any law that allows the CA to lie while requesting location information?

That is a ridiculous question.  I’ll say it again.  The CA’s knowledge is based upon information from the OC. 

On 12/14/2019 at 12:30 AM, cjtx2 said:

The morbid letters described above were sent to a 3rd party requesting location at my address. 

Which they are allowed to do.

On 12/14/2019 at 12:30 AM, cjtx2 said:

Obviously, whenever they call my number and write to my address, it is extremely likely that I will receive their communications.

If they are under the impression that you are dead, that is another ridiculous statement.  Are you saying there’s no chance a deceased person could have lived with Someone else?  The deceased could not have a spouse, child, girlfriend or boyfriend who may live with him?

 

On 12/14/2019 at 12:30 AM, cjtx2 said:

Under FDCPA, the only way they can legally assume that they reached the right person and are demanding the right amount is through a dunning letter and after there is no response to request validation. So there is no basis in law to assume any of the information supplied by the OC is valid (including their false claim that I am dead).

And the only way that they can reach the right person is to find out the name and location of the right person to contact.  Therein lies the reason Congress included 1692b of the FDCPA. 

On 12/14/2019 at 12:30 AM, cjtx2 said:

As you mentioned before, it is not unusual for people to have unpaid bills when they die.  A person may not have any pending collections when they die, so referencing outstanding bills does not necessarily mean bad debt subject to debt collection. But there is no other way to interpret outstanding bills for a living person than bad debt. The only way they got away with mentioning outstanding bills was to lie about me being deceased.

If someone gives you wrong information, and you repeat that information, does it make you a liar?  Or does it simply mean you are misinformed? 

Let’s say your doctor tells you that a particular vitamin helps alleviate a certain condition.  You repeat that information to friends.  It is later proven that the vitamin is, in fact, a detriment to that condition.  Based on your contention in this thread, you lied to your friends.  

Is the CA lying?  When it comes to debt, courts have ruled that “verification only requires a debt collector to confirm with his client that a particular amount is actually being claimed, not to vouch for the validity of the underlying debt.”  It would be your burden to prove the CA must verify the OC’s claim that you are deceased.  

You are so focused on the CA that you cannot see the forest for the trees. Again (and please pay attention this time), your argument is with the OC.  You are creating problems and using bandaids rather than concentrating on the root of an issue.  In this instance, the OC is the root.  Fix it with the OC, and it will inform the CA of its mistake.  

My initial instinct was accurate.  You had your mind made up when you started this thread and are not interested in other opinions due to the fact that you find ways to make the same argument ad nauseam. 

Since you now have opinions and, I will assume, appropriate laws and case law to support your claims, contact an attorney.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.