Sued in WI during debt validation period

[Percyb]

Hello, 

When it rains it pours I tell you.  Got a letter from a law firm.  Sent the debt validation request within the 30 days of receipt.  I have proof of delivery date of thier notice as I have the USPS service Informed Delivery.  I have a scan of the envelope in e-mail with the date of delivery.  I think they sat on the letter for a few days because I got it 7 days after it was mailed.  Either way, I was in the 30 day window to request validation.  M&K is the firm out of MN.  They sent no right to cure default.  They just sent a letter the the rights to dispute and then filed suit.  No other communication.  Haven't even been served yet.  Cap one which is no arbitration clause.  

From what I read, if they serve me during the debt validation period then it's a violation of FDCPA unless they clearly document that it does not interfere with the debt validation process.  Since they didn't even bother with the 15 days for the right to cure default notice can't believe they would go the extra step of documenting the summons that the debt validation process is not interfering.  Ugh.  Not even sure what to do at this point but wait to get served.  

[BackFromTheDebt]

Nobody does the right to cure anymore.  WI courts have basically re-written the laws to get rid of it.  I am serious.  
 

I am confused by your post.  
1. Did you send a DV before they sued? And if yes,

2. Did you send it CMRRR and you have a record of receiving it?   M&K are, in my opinion, the scummiest law firm in the upper Midwest.  So if you can’t prove you sent it you didn’t send it as far as they are concerned.  They will deny getting it.  

[Percyb]

1 hour ago, BackFromTheDebt said:

Nobody does the right to cure anymore.  WI courts have basically re-written the laws to get rid of it.  I am serious.  
 

I am confused by your post.  
1. Did you send a DV before they sued? And if yes,

2. Did you send it CMRRR and you have a record of receiving it?   M&K are, in my opinion, the scummiest law firm in the upper Midwest.  So if you can’t prove you sent it you didn’t send it as far as they are concerned.  They will deny getting it.  

 

@BackFromTheDebt  Yes the debt validation was sent with proof of delivery and they sued the same day the DV was sent.  They didn't even wait the 30 days to sue.  I haven't been served yet, It just shows that they filed the case online.  Last time I dealt with M&K they wouldn't even pick it up from there mailbox and it got returned.  I don't know about the re-writing the laws.  I found the following case.

Traci BAHENA, Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS, LLC, and Messerli & Kramer, P.A., Defendants.

The case is from January 2019, not terribly long ago.  In which they claimed they didn't have to send a Right to Cure Default.  Turns out they did on a Fingerhut account.  They also found that it was a FDCPA violation.  So they are well aware of what the have to do, it's just a matter of them trying to get get away with not doing.  I know the RTC for the most part is not a big deal, if it goes my way most likely a dismissal and then refile after the RTC.  Its the filing of a law suit before the 30 days was up that even pissed me off.  The original letter didn't say anything other than the junk debt buyer is the new owner of the account, sincerely and the mini miranda at the bottom.  

[BV80]

4 hours ago, Percyb said:

Hello, 

When it rains it pours I tell you.  Got a letter from a law firm.  Sent the debt validation request within the 30 days of receipt.  I have proof of delivery date of thier notice as I have the USPS service Informed Delivery.  I have a scan of the envelope in e-mail with the date of delivery.  I think they sat on the letter for a few days because I got it 7 days after it was mailed.  Either way, I was in the 30 day window to request validation.  M&K is the firm out of MN.  They sent no right to cure default.  They just sent a letter the the rights to dispute and then filed suit.  No other communication.  Haven't even been served yet.  Cap one which is no arbitration clause.  

From what I read, if they serve me during the debt validation period then it's a violation of FDCPA unless they clearly document that it does not interfere with the debt validation process.  Since they didn't even bother with the 15 days for the right to cure default notice can't believe they would go the extra step of documenting the summons that the debt validation process is not interfering.  Ugh.  Not even sure what to do at this point but wait to get served.  

You haven’t yet been served, so the time period for you to answer a complaint has not yet begun.  If they do not serve you before providing validation, the law firm hasn’t violated the Act. If you are served before validation is provided, you have a claim against the law firm..

Is Cap1 the plaintiff?

[Percyb]

@BV80, yes, thank you.  They have not served me yet so the clock isn't ticking yet to answer the suit.  I am confused though because there is a court date already online.  I guess they could request that it be stopped to allow the validation.  I just don't think M&K has it in them to do that.  I have put an inquiry into a local law firm that offers a free consultation. Hoping to hear back soon.  Just looking to see what they say.  They have been wiping the floor with M&K in the cases I have looked up.  If the cost is reasonable I might go that route since cap one has zero arbitration clause.  In my last dealing with M&K they went all the way up to the hearing and then canceled at the last minute and withdrew the suit.  It really is dependent on the fees they charge.  I am still finalizing my final brief for the Arbitration judge.  Like I said when it rains it pours.  I only looked up the ccap to find a date of something and bam saw the law suit they filed. 

[BV80]

15 minutes ago, Percyb said:

@BV80, yes, thank you.  They have not served me yet so the clock isn't ticking yet to answer the suit.  I am confused though because there is a court date already online.  I guess they could request that it be stopped to allow the validation.  I just don't think M&K has it in them to do that.  I have put an inquiry into a local law firm that offers a free consultation. Hoping to hear back soon.  Just looking to see what they say.  They have been wiping the floor with M&K in the cases I have looked up.  If the cost is reasonable I might go that route since cap one has zero arbitration clause.  In my last dealing with M&K they went all the way up to the hearing and then canceled at the last minute and withdrew the suit.  It really is dependent on the fees they charge.  I am still finalizing my final brief for the Arbitration judge.  Like I said when it rains it pours.  I only looked up the ccap to find a date of something and bam saw the law suit they filed. 

If M&K serves you before validating, you could have a claim against the law firm.  However, if Cap1 is the plaintiff, an FDCPA violation by the law firm has no effect on the lawsuit because the Act does not apply to original creditors.  

[Percyb]

14 minutes ago, BV80 said:

If M&K serves you before validating, you could have a claim against the law firm.  However, if Cap1 is the plaintiff, an FDCPA violation by the law firm has no effect on the lawsuit because the Act does not apply to original creditors.  

@BV80Sorry for the confusion.  It is a debt buyer that M&K represents.  Not the OC. Some company names PCA Acquisitions V, LLC

[BV80]

29 minutes ago, Percyb said:

@BV80Sorry for the confusion.  It is a debt buyer that M&K represents.  Not the OC. Some company names PCA Acquisitions V, LLC

In the event M&K screws up, here is what the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled on the issue of a debt collector (PCA Acquisitions) being held vicariously liable for the actions of its agent.

“We believe this is a fair result because an entity that is itself a `debt collector' — and hence subject to the FDCPA — should bear the burden of monitoring the activities of those it enlists to collect debts on its behalf." Janetos v. Fulton Friedman & Gullace, LLP, 825 F.3d 317, 325 (7th Cir. 2016)(quoting Pollice v. Nat'l Tax Funding, L.P., 225 F.3d 379, 405 (3d Cir. 2000).  ”Like the Third Circuit, we think it is fair and consistent with the Act to require a debt collector who is independently obliged to comply with the Act to monitor the actions of those it enlists to collect debts on its behalf.” Id.

[BackFromTheDebt]

2 hours ago, Percyb said:

@BV80Sorry for the confusion.  It is a debt buyer that M&K represents.  Not the OC. Some company names PCA Acquisitions V, LLC

In any case, the Wisconsin Consumer Act applies to OCs as well as JDB 

 

if there is already a court date, does that mean this is small claims?   
 

If this is small claims, they will need to serve you a certain amount of time before the hearing.  I forget how much time they need to allow.  
 

It would be interesting to see if they can validate in time to serve you properly. 
 

Check ccap regularly.  I doubt they would do a sewer service, but M&K are not the most honest and ethical people.