What happens when CA doesn't acept cert. letter

I hope it was FOAD letter telling them to never contact you again. If it was, save the letter unopened for the Judge. teh next collection letter they send you better have a check for $1,000 in it. If not, FDCPA violation.

 

So that's the flayingifr method, eh? And while you are at it why not let us dummies in on the definition of FOAD? Probably lots of readers never heard of that one. I'm guessing it means Fall Over And Die but that's probably not the case.

Attorneys, debt collectors and creditors alike who refuse to accept certified mail run the risk that their refusal will not stand up in court if they are sued. It is called willful ignorance and that's not acceptable in a court of law.

In most cases, what you describe as a Fall Over And Die letter is better known as a full cease & desist letter.

Since full cease and desist severely limits their ability to lawfully communicate with the debtor except to inform what their intentions for future action might be they are little more than an open invitation to take legal action against the sender of the cease & desist. It would make little or no difference whether they refused to accept the letter or not unless they violated FDCPA by sending more demands for payment or the poster chooses to sue them for not
informing the poster of their intentions as required by FDCPA.

In the event the poster chooses to sue under FDCPA then willful ignorance would be unlikely to stand up as a defense. If the poster chooses not to file suit then little or nothing will be done about their violations.

Since at least one of their options is to file a motion for judgment let us assume that they follow that option. The poster would then have to be prepared to prepare a proper answer to the court, affirmative defenses and a motion to dismiss with prejudice. The poster will also have to prepare a notice of hearing and certificates of mailing as well as demand for the production of documents that may be needed to prove that the debt is beyond the statute of limitations.

There are only 5 ways to accomplish that.

1. Requests for Admissions - just what they sound like
2. Requests for Production - getting papers and things from the other side
3. Interrogatories - written questions that must be answered under oath
4. Depositions - spoken questions that must be answered under oath
5. Subpoenas and other court orders - that command others to respond

The tools and rules of the justice system give you power to get at the truth (both law and facts) and put that truth into the court's official record so you can win your lawsuit but only if you know how to use them effectively.

Attorneys are very good at trying to evade those demands and questions. They will use every trick they can think of to evade the poster's demands and may be totally successful unless the poster can prove the date of the last payment on the account.

The poster will want to cite authorities for the position taken, that the debt is outside of the statute of limitations. The poster must get the law and the facts into the record of the court.
There are only four kinds of authorities.

1. Constitutions - both state and federal
2. Statutes - legislative enactments in all their many forms
3. Rules - rules of procedure and rules of evidence
4. Case Law - written opinions of appellate courts

Since Constitutions have little to do with this type of situations the poster is effectively reduced to only 3. Using what Justice Hooter ruled in Harper Valley county court isn't going to cut any ice with any other judge not presiding in Harper Valley. It must be written opinions of appellate courts or courts of higher authority in the same jurisdiction as the present court.

Of course, all the poster has to do is run over to debtorboards where Dr. Katz and his flayingifr method of credit repair will teach all that as well as how to effectively get the job done and much, much more. Right?

He will also teach the poster how it is that the next letter they send better have a check for $1,000 in it or it becomes an FDCPA violation.

After all, that's the way the flayingifr method of aggressive credit repair works, isn't it?

 

Another method is to send it via FedEx, UPS or DHL. People generally do not "check" the sender, and blindly sign the electronic verification. You will have a record through the tracking number, and can print out who signed for the letter package.

Send it 2-3 day delivery to save some money, and they generally deliver next day anyway. Just another option before going to court.

 

Totally agree with using the third party carrier service.These are almost always accepted without picking thru everything.

 

I know I have been hit with the "gotcha" in business this way! I have been hit with "signatures" for items that I would have loved to have "never received", and that truly did not make it to my desk or attention! :-0

 

FOAD = F*** OFF AND DIE...

The explanation of the violation. They RECEIVED the notification to cease communications, they CHOSE to not ACCEPT that communication. They can't claim ignorance of the content of the communication, if they CHOSE to not accept that communication.

So any future communication is communication after a C&D.

 

However, if they did not open the letter, they may claim they did not know it was a C&D. Your receipt of refusal shows your "prudent" effort to contact them. I hope you had the CMRRR article number on the letter itself.

 

It does not matter what they know or think they know because it is irrelevant. Standard business practice requires them to accept their mail, and they can be held responsible for whatever mail they refused to accept as if they had accepted it. This is the Cheek[/s] Doctrine, from Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 at 201 (1991) wherein the US Supreme Court stated:

"Willfilness, as construed by our prior decisions in criminal tax cases (and by extension to other arenas) requires the Government to prove that the law imposed a duty on the defendant, that the defendant knew of this duty, and that he voluntarily and intentionally violated that duty."

Generally, willful blindness to a fact has seldom if ever been accepted as a defense by the Courts. The Ordinary Course of business doctrine requires a business owner to accept the mail sent to him. To refuse a particular item because it is suspected that the contents of that letter may be to the detriment of the recipient is Willful Blindness. (Unites tates v Hogan, 942 R2d 1241, 1249 (8th Cir. 1991), cert denied, 112 S. Ct. 1936 (1992); Inited States v Fingado, 934 F2d 1163, 1166-1167 (10th Cir), cert denied, 112 S. Ct. 320 (1991)