If you remember, I received a summons about a month ago. It included a page that stated "This is an attempt........" and "If you dispute you have 30 days...." Well I sent the answer to the clerk of court and to the attorneys as directed. I also sent a validation request to them (attorney) as stated in the letter inclosed with the summons. I get back the following letter today. Pursuant to your request for verification on the debt owed on the above referenced account, enclosed please find a copy of the verified statement of account for your records. Please contact my office at xxx-xxx-xxxx if you have any questions regarding this matter. Then attached to the letter is same notarized "Verified Statement of Account"(which was attached to the summons) which basically states that CACH is assignee and purchaser of HOUSEHOLD and has access to records pertaining the the account. and has the amount. I know this is not Validation, so do I fire off another letter to the attorneys? What else do I need to do? Thanks
So, while in court you do discovery to have them validate the debt... what happens after they validate the debt? are there any other options to stay the judgement? is a judgement entered against you, and then the CA's start the garnishment and bank liens?
Just to clarify, did the response letter include the name of the Original Creditor, and the amount claimed owed? Or did the letter merely reference that the information was available? There is a huge difference here, if the provided the name of OC, and amount alleged owed, then they have provided full validation. If not provided, then request (again) full and proper validation. Be careful here, you may be better off trying to settle this before going to court. Something to think about...
I don't see any meaning to "validation" in a lawsuit unless you are counterclaiming for an FDCPA violation. Of course I'm just Dumb Bob, but if you think about it, logically if they have proof but didn't give it to you before but can now in court, you've got a problem. Or he might not be. I'm going to make a bold statement unwarranted by the facts, as usual: If you have money, try to settle before the trial/judgment. If you are poor and have nothing, settle after you lose. The argument for this is that the CA or JDB will finally know what your real state is only after the judgment. Of course if you want to end it, end it when you see fit, if that's an option.
