I sent Palisades Collections a Request for validation of a supposed debt. In response, they sent me copies of monthly statements for the past 2 years, along with a computer printout that states the name of the original creditor (Bank X), the name of the previous creditor (Bank Y)), and the name of the current creditor (Palisades). The monthly statements are from the previous creditor (Bank Y). I had asked them for some documentation that stated that this debt is actually owed to them, but all I received was the statements. The "balance" on the last statement is not the same as the balance that they (Palisades) say is owed. Does this constitute validation since nothing is from the original creditor? What should my next step be?
Ok, I get that - so according to that, the statements would suffice. ALTHOUGH, I would argue that the amount on the last statement is not what Palisades claims is owed. So there is still a disputable amount in question. Also, so, how do I know that Palisades is legally authorized to collect this account? In other words, what if Collection Agency ABC also contacts me about this debt? How do I know who really owns this debt now without some sort of proof? If, for the sake of arguement, I really did owe Original Creditor, doesn't any subsequent person trying to collect this debt need to show proof that they now own the debt or are authorized to collect it on behalf of the original creditor?
However, the FDCPA (and the FTC) make it clear that the collector must obtain VERIFICATION from the OC, even if it's simply a written statement from the OC that they confirm that you owe $XXX. It doesn't mean the CA can verify by just repeating or restating their assertions to you. The oft-quoted Chaudhry case states that it is sufficient "confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed;" ? However, in a following paragraph, it says that, "The court ruled that "[v]erification only requires a debt collector to confirm with his client that a particular amount is actually being claimed, not to vouch for the validity of the underlying debt." " And how did the debt collector confirm with his client in the Chaudhry case that a particular amount was actually being claimed? "Gallerizzo, after receiving assurances from NationsBank that the sums were owed, verified the debt amounts in his January 18th letter to Plaintiffs' counsel and forwarded a copy of the bank's computerized summary of the Chaudhrys' loan transactions. The summary included a running account of the debt amount, a description of every transaction, and the date on which the transaction occurred. See Graziano v. Harrison , 950 F.2d 107, 113 (3d Cir. 1991) (holding that computer printouts which confirmed amounts of debts, the services provided, and the dates on which the debts were incurred constituted sufficient verification). Thereafter, in a January 19th letter to counsel, Gallerizzo restated the amount of the inspection fees and indicated that the amounts were correct. Nothing more is required." Apparently the CA did much more than send a printed out "you owe us this much" on company letterhead. They obtained verification in writing from the OC and forwarded it to the consumer. CA's like to quote the 'famous' part, but leave out this little detail.
Should they decide to litigate, you demand the assignment during Discovery. However, since they have been able to produce more than sufficient documentation, you might consider settling.
You need to settle this. If they can produce this much documentation, they'll be able to produce enough to preponderate it is yours and you owe something.
I think he ought to try to settle too if he has the funds to do so. But what is he or anyone else to do if they don't have the funds to do so or as I would do, refuse to pay under any circumstances? Personally, I could care less whether they get a judgment or even a garnishment or not. Every time a debt collector has ever attempted to collect a debt he has violated the law somehow and every time a lawyer files a collection case he will violate the law and usually multiple times. I don't mind paying original creditors whatever they claim I owe them. I firmly believe that everybody ought to pay their just debts to the very best of his ability to do so no matter how painful that might be. I've been in a position that I had to reduce myself to two meals a day. Cereal for breakfast and french toast at night for an extended period of time in order to pay what I owed. That was a long time ago but I'd do it again if I had to but I won't pay a debt collector or an attorney who can't or won't obey the law and respect my rights under the law a crying dime under any circumstances. Yes, they do have a right to be paid and I don't think anybody has the right to be a deadbeat and unjustly enrich themselves but just as they have rights under the law so do I. If they expect me to respect their rights under the law or suffer the consequences then let them also respect my rights under the law or suffer the consequences. The law is a two way street as it should be. That's just my way of belief and I don't think that ought to offend anybody.
Cap1 we at times had popcorn for dinner or breakfast to pay the people who would work with us,however our kids always had 3 meals a day.And still got a little spending money for them.I felt why punish them for our mistakes.Now cap1 your wrong people do have a right to be a deadbeat,however the rest of us should not be punished credit wise,judge me on what i do, not what they do,yet they keep getting credit.everyone should try to make an effort to pay their bills.
The bill of rights,which gives us the right to life,liberty,and the pursuit of happiness!If being a deadbeat makes you happy then you can be a dead beat.However that morally is wrong,and you must pay to be a dead beat.But it is a right,that has punishment.
Even if a CA violates the law in some manor, or even an attorney; at the end of the day you are still contractual obligated to pay Cap1. Even if the CA violates the law and you sue, you may be awarded up to $1000 or you may get $0. But you still owe the debt. You are sued and a judgment is obtained, in a most states judgments have long life spans. You may be judgment proof now, but at some point you may acquire assets that could be attached. First you keep a roof over your head, keep food on the table, keep power and water on, the rest will take care of it self.
That is true. That statement brilliantly illuminates your obvious ignorance of the facts in the issue at hand. Let me enlighten you and other readers of this thread. There are an average of about 500 to 600 federal cases filed against 3rd party debt collectors (including attorneys) each and every month. The average settlement price is about $3800.00. In addition to that figure, many plaintiff's also get their debts paid and their judgments vacated. I have seen exceptional cases run into settlements of well upwards of $1,000,000 paid to pro se litigants. Those numbers and facts are well documented and easy to come by. What those plaintiffs end up with depends on how well they documented their evidence and how well they prepared their cases and followed the rules of procedure. Not necessarily. It depends on what you demand and what the defendant will agree to in the settlement process. Very few such cases ever actually go to trial. Those who settle out of court generally get much better settlements than those who go to trial. Even if a person has no case to take to federal court or chooses not to pursue the violations it is not at all difficult to make themselves absolutely judgment proof forever. I am judgment proof for several reasons the first and most important is that I have an anonymous Delaware corporation. I didn't set it up in the first place. I bought it lock, stock and barrel for $1,000. Once I bought the corporation the board of directors voted me in as the president with full power to control the corporation and perform all actions necessary to the operation of the corporation then resigned themselves from that corporation leaving me as the sole owner. I bought the corporation's tax I.D. number and bank accounts in the process. There are now no public records showing who owns the corporation anywhere. I am the sole signatory on the corporate bank accounts and I take care of all tax requirements and filings. All money received by my efforts are paid directly to the corporation and my name never appears on any of it. Almost all money paid out is done through an ATM card and not by writing checks. Anybody could have that card and could make withdraws from the corporate bank account through ATM machines or at the checkout counter of almost any store. Any assets that might come my way will always go to the corporation. Piercing the corporate veil would be so burdensome and difficult to do that it is highly unlikely that anybody would even try even though there are ways that it can be done. If I did owe anyone a big enough sum of money to make it worthwhile trying to take over the corporation they would immediately find that they had taken over a corporate structure that had multiple poison pills and would end up owing more money to other corporations than they could stand to pay off while getting nothing out of the takeover. Thankfully, however, I don't owe anybody any money that I can't pay off easily. I'm not wealthy nor do I have any large assets nor do I want any. I just live comfortably and I don't want for anything. I have 3 fairly nice vehicles and lots of computer equipment and my home is well stocked with food and appliances. Most of those are new or nearly so including most of my computers. I replace them every few years with new equipment which I build from scratch. I'm in excellent health but have 100% free medical benefits including medicines in case I should ever need them. What more do I need? Absolutely! Unfortunately I haven't found that to be true. There are always additional expenses that must be taken care of somehow. Seems that the more we have the more we want. Nothing is free in this world. Even that free medical cost me quite a few years out of my life but it was well worth it in the end.
The issue of judgement proof - ok, here is a situation - person is in their 80's, lives in an assisted living center. Only income is from social security and a small pension. No real estate assets, no vehicle assets, only money in the bank is from social security and pension. Jusgement proof? The judgement might be issued, but there is nothing to collect, right?
