Please Help

Well, yes, in reality it does happen, but legally it SHOULDN'T. Did they verify your address? They obviously have found you - so there would be no reason to think otherwise. Have they sent you anything in writing?

If its 8 years old it is too old to appear on your report. Its out of SOL (according to you - I'm not 100% positive offhand, but I don't know of more than one or two states that have super-lengthy SOLs). If they were to sue you, you would raise the SOL as an affirmative defense.

I would send them a letter and tell them to Cease and Desist all communication with you.

 

They have to sue you before they get a judgment, and now that they know where you are, they must properly serve you. When they do, you'll ask them to produce the proper proof that it is your debt and how the amounts were calculated.

Just because they say you owe it doesn't mean the only two options are pay or have a judgment.

 

Again, we may be getting far ahead of situation as it stands.

Have you received anything in writing from the CA? If yes, when?

Have you sent a written DV to them? Have you received any verification from them as a result?

 

And don't forget, within 5 days after their call (the first contact) you must receive a notice of your rights under the FDCPA. If not, then start collecting FDCPA violations for YOUR suit or countersuit. They must also do some other stuff so review the FDCPA to understand THEIR responsibilities as a debt collector. Don't try to educate them (that's a lost cause), just understand your rights, their responsibilities and start building your war chest.

Just a tip: Misrepresenting themselves and threatening legal action they can't or won't actually pursue constitute harassment so your file is already starting to build. My guess is you can have them in court defending against you sooner than they'll have you in court as a defendant.

Read the FDCPA...

 

When was the call? If it was more than 10 days ago and you haven't received anything in writing from them, they have violated all of the provisions of FDCPA §1692-g.

You would have a two basic options: Continue waiting or write a blind DV.

Your research has shown that the company is a CA, not a law firm. It is unlikely that they would go direct to a suit, but with the SoL definitely run, who cares? I'd sit and wait to see what they do. They have got to serve you first to join a suit, and you have a significant affirmative defense (SoL) The only question would be whether you have spent the requisite amount of time in GA for their SoL to apply. (I would guess that they have your current address, so getting a complaint served should not be a problem. Anything else would likely be an illegal sewer service.)

If they try to poison your CR with a TL, then you go after the TL as obsolete and go after them for reporting obsolete information incorrectly. But you're not there yet.

I would just sit and wait for the FDCPA-mandated 30-day validation notice to arrive.

If they do call again, however, I would be very firm (very politely, though) in telling them that the statutory notice of rights had not yet been received. Good time, too,to tell them it is inconvenient to take their call at any time or at any number. I'd also take copious notes and record the call if I could.

Then sit back and wait some more.

 

The CA does not have to send a letter within five days as long as the required disclosures were given during the initial call.

 

I doubt seriously that the OP received the full Miranda in the telephone call.

If you believe otherwise, I can recommend a good bridge sale in Brooklyn that you might want to check out.

Here is what IS required:

----------------
§ 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g]

(a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing --

(1) the amount of the debt;

(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;

(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice,
disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be
valid by the debt collector;

(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and

(5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.

-----------

Unless all of the above are satisfied in the initial telephone call, the statement in the post immediately above is inoperative. A CA threating a suit on an out-of-statute debt certainly has demonstrated a lack of understanding of the law and his prospects of collecting via suit, so why would we think that he followed the guidelines in the phone call?.

As for representation of status as an attorney? Well, we know all about that sort of thing, don't we?

I'd still sit and wait.

 

I personally know of several local collection attorneys that, when you call their number you get section 3-5 each and every time. And on the first call to them you get 1&2.

As for the threat of a suit, yes it is a violation if the CA fails to file.

Filing a suit on an OOS debt can be done in **most** states and it requires the defendant to raise SOL as an affirmative defense.

 

If the CA made threats, did the OP take notes or record the conversation, if a one party state?

If the OP took notes did the OP memorialize that conversation and send it to the CA with 72 hours?

 

Does this buy you anything?
Can this take the place of an audio recording as far as a record of the phone call goes?

If so, that would be good to know for when they surprise you and you don't happen to have your recorder ready.

 

A "collection agency" with a phone drone making dubious claims of being an attorney and making threats doesn't seem to me to be the type that would provide §1692-g-compliant statements in either the blind call telephone contacts or on their incoming answering machine.

I would also be willing to bet that CAs/attorneys that do make compliant statements follow up with the written confirmation of the conversations within the statutory time frame. Not technically required, but prudent.

What is your point, to debate me or to help the OP? I opt for the latter.

As to memorialization of a telephone call, it can become evidence if handled properly. A recording is substantially more effective as evidence, though.

The 72-hour time frame to send a copy to the other party is not an "absolute requirement". But doing so puts the other party on notice and raises substantially its value as evidence for future use.

All of the comments notwithstanding, I would wait for a while.

 

Assuming you live in a two party sate, recordings can be challenged for authenticity.

If you reduce the recording to a written record, mailed CMRRR to the CA, and include as a last paragraph:

If you believe that this letter is not an accurate record of our telephone conversation of today, please advise me in writing {via facsimile transmission} immediately, with specific attention to those facts and/or details that you believe I have misrepresented in this letter.

If they fail to respond, they cannt later claim that the conversation never too place.

 

My point is to help the OP. I was just merely pointing out an alternative view.

Yes, the 72 hour window is not set in stone. But the longer you wait, the less credible the letter is.

 

Distinctly remote and decidedly improbable, but an alternative view.

I see that you are agreeing with my statement.

 

Yes.

As an alternative, take the tape reporting to a certified court reporter and have it transcribed.

 

And another is to put it in the file and wait until a transcript is really required.

Your point?