Hey guys. I received a collection letter from Alegis, who is servicing for Sherman, in January 05. It said that the previous creditor was Triad (Triad is another collection co) I am not sure who the original creditor is, but I do know if it is who I am thinking, it is WAY past the SOL for a lawsuit. I asked for debt validation, even though the original collection letter from January said noting about the 30 day thingy. Anyway: They respond The first page cites Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, which I know Chaudhry v. Gallerizo suit had NOTHING to do with debt validation. It was an argument over attorney fees. The second page-an Affidavit of debt (Buyer) where they affirm that I owe a certain amount, that the debt was bought by Sherman from Triad in 2001, and that this person is qualified to testify and that the records of the account are maintained under her supervision, and the amount is true to her personal knowledge, signed idiot collector, attorney in fact. And notarized. What in the heck does all of this mean AND how should I respond?
AND Doesn't attorney in fact mean that they are authorized to sign the letter for the collector? 1. A person who, acting as agent, is given written authorization by another person to transact business for him out of court; to be distinguished from attorney at law. 2. The grant of power to sign documents on another's behalf.
Hi cheleeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Ok, it sounds like you sent them a validation letter and they didn't properly validate. I'd send them a second letter telling them that isn't proper validation and they now have 15 days to do so.
Hello Ericccccccccccccccccaaaaaaaaaaaa He he... LOL. I have composed a nasty, nasty letter back to them, I just don't want to post it here, for obvious reasons.
You should ignore it. Here's why: 1. The Chaudhry case does NOT define what proper Validation is - it merely stated that certain items (in the Chaudhry case they were attorney workpapers, privileged communications and invoices for expenses that had not yet been incurred) are NOT validation. While Congress never spelled out what "Validation" really is, a self-serving "affidavit" that merely says "Yep, you owe it" does not validate ANYTHING. I know for a fact that Sherman has these affidavits by the ream and they just fill in the blanks when needed. Consider this a collection letter and a possible FDCPA violation (continued collection efforts after a timely VOD demand). 2. Since Triad is not the OC, the "affiant" of the "Affidavit of Debt" has no first-hand knowledge of the alleged debt to begin with - that person never handled any of the original records for the debt and acquired it merely on teh say-so of either the OC ora previous buyer. What is that affidavit worth in Court? Can you spell "HEARSAY EVIDENCE"? In order to provide valid testimony in Court, Sherman will have to produce, in Court, for you to cross-examine, not only the original creditor's records, but also an employee of the OC who handled those records at the time. Anything else is pure hear-say. The affiant says the account is true "to her personal knowledge"? How can she possibly have any personal knowledge of anything that she personally did not witness because she was not an employee of the company where it happened when it happened? Because someone else told her it was true. That, my friend, is the very definition of Hear-say evidence.
So, you're saying don't send my beautifully constructed letter telling them to eat poopie....in a nice way of course... LOL
Wanna know something funny? Another "servicing company" like alegis had this from sherman back in 2004. I sent that servicing agent a validation letter and they hauled butt. I KNOW they don't have a lick of proof.
Re: Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo Alegis/S Probably. I don't know what email I used to sign up here. Let me check
Re: Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo Alegis/S LOL, Got the IM, but baking a pie and some stuffing....yummy. Mini Thanksgiving dinner today.
Re: Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo Alegis/S For some reason, I only got the e-mail today... ;-) The letter looks good, I know that this response from your friends has been getting a whole lot of mentioning on other forums... ;-)
Re: Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo Alegis/S I am a new member and ended up here due to researching the exact same response from Alegis to a DV that I sent. Would you share with me what your response to them was? I would really appreciate it! Thanks, tassy
Re: Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo Alegis/S Hey Jam, So, should I send it, or do you think that it will overload their simplistic little minds?
Re: Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo Alegis/S tassy, I am afraid to post or share the letter and here is why: I took the advice of Jam a long time ago w/ regard to the templated letters collection agencies receive. I don't ever post the ones I actually send. I put this letter in my own words (with a little help from flyingifr's overview of what the Chaudry case actually was based upon), thank you flying, as well as directly applied it to my situation in my own words, as Jam will faithfully suggest. I shared the letter w/ Jam becasue he has critiqued mine in the past and he is the crusader for "putting letters in your own words" LOL Here is my suggestion. Search this board for what the Chaudry case is actually about and then see if the letter you received from them leads you to believe that they actually have a leg to stand on. Realisticly, they don't have even half a leg to stand on because if they did, they would have just validated the darn tradeline. I am sorry that I couldn't be of more help, but there is so much information about this case on this board. Taking the information and applying it to your specific situation will have more of an impact than a letter that they have seen once already, because mine is a doozie. LOL
