My research shows that the estoppel letter so widely proclaimed to be the cat's meow is nothing but pure bunk. I began to suspect that a couple of days ago and the more I looked it up the more I became convinced that this was the case. And today I went down to the law library and shepardized the famous Englehardt v Gravens (MO) SW 281 715, 719 case that is quoted as being the basis for the estoppel letter. The Englehardt case deals with a 25 foot strip of road way known and the Frederick Englehardt road in Missouri. Basically, Englehardt bought property which is/was (whatever) accessed by a road into a piece of private property. Englehardt had some land which was access serviced by the road and was the only access to the property based on Gravens word that the access road would be open to Englehardt's use and all times for access to his property. Then Gravens closed off the access road. Englehardt sued to regain access to his property and used the doctrine of estoppel claiming that he had purchased the land based on the Gravens promise which acted to his detriment. And that is the basic premise of estoppel. One person must perform some act or make some statement which causes the party of the second part (now plaintiff) to do something that he might not otherwise do and acts to his detriment. It furthermore appears that estoppel may be a purely property based law in the first place because all of the cases which showed up on the shepardized report are property law based cases. But I think that the final analysis as to the relativity of estoppel's use as proposed in the current estoppel letters under discussion and "common" use is the following. What did the collector of the debt do or say that the debtor relied upon to his detriment? The collector's refusal to validate certainly does not fall under that description. The collector's refusal or failure to validate within a 30 day period as demanded by FDCPA does not fall within that description. So I must state that unless someone can show me where my analysis is wrong then I have to believe that I have analyzed the situation correctly and can safely say that the concept of using estoppel against a collector of any stripe is purely ignorant and stupid. Be that as it may, other doctrines are applicable and valid so we are not left out in the cold and helpless. It's just that it's apparent to me that continued use of the estoppel is not supported by any case law and we must look awfully dumb to any knowledgeable collector when we use it. I can imagine the gales of laughter that must burst forth every time a knowledgeable collector sees one of those. I also wish I had had the common good sense to check it out before I used it instead of believing what some self proclaimed internet guru claimed was true. That's not the first time I've accepted what some people on certain highly respected message boards (not this one) have proposed and later found out was nothing but pure bunk either. I can only hope it will be the last time I fall for such sooper gimmicks. I do hope that others will also check out what I have said here and offer comments if their research turns up evidence that I may be wrong in my assessment of estoppel. That's the only way we can advance what we are trying to do. I think he's wrong, because it HAS worked for *me*. **edit** I can't get the color thing to work
apparently not, i just found this at another board i visit. Like I said it's worked for me and I told him that. We shall see what his response to me is.
Well, considering that alot of collection agencies visit this board (and others) maybe he should have kept his mouth shut?
**OUCH** Maybe I shouldn't have posted it here huh? Should I ask to have it removed? See my mouth is almost as big, SORRY
Re: B.Bauer's take on "estoppel" le Well, I've responded to that thread, and Bill doesn't disagree with the premise, which is: no matter what you call the letter -- whether you call it "estoppel" or not -- a lawful demand made upon CAs that they fulfill their obligations under the FDCPA is useful and necessary. Bill is apparently objecting to the nomenclature (calling the letter "estoppel"; referring to the "estoppel by silence" doctrine). As for the person who chastised Christi for bringing it up because CAs might read the board, that really doesn't matter. CAs are required to validate debts in a certain manner (read the FDCPA) and are required to take other specific actions if they do not. Irrespective of whether they like or dislike the linguistics, irrespective of whether they laugh or cry, they still must fulfill their obligations under the law. All of them should be welcomed to read this bulletin board or even this thread specifically. Even better, they should brush up on this part of the federal code which is squarely on the side of the consumer. Doc
Re: B.Bauer's take on "estoppel" le I agree Doc, you hit the nail on the proverbial cranium. -Irrespective of hate, Dave
Re: B.Bauer's take on "estoppel" le Well, you can chastise Bill if you like, but that still misses the point. It just doesn't matter what anybody writes about any step of the validation sequence. These rights are guaranteed to consumers by federal law. By scolding someone for discussing the process, you sound like someone who believes that we're getting away with something illicit and that these methods will disappear if they find out our tricks, etc. I would like for you to understand that nobody's getting away with anything. Nobody's keeping any secrets. The validation sequence is designed to protect us all from people who would literally accuse consumers of owing money they never owed. Collection agencies haven't always had the best reputations for honesty, and these FDCPA protections were designed in part to guard against that fact. Any discussion regarding improving validation methods -- and I'm convinced there's still room for improvement -- is useful. If Bill or Christi or me or Bruteforce or even Nave (snicker... don't ask me why I just took a dig at Nave... he was just there and I felt like it, lol... sorry) wants to deconstruct or criticize the validation process in an effort to make it better, then more power to us, and that still doesn't have to be kept secret. Doc P.S. Nave, there was just no reason for it. No reason at all. This little episode unfortunately confirms what others have suspected for years -- that lurking beneath a veil of feigned kindness, psychologists are really sadists whose so-called "confrontations" and "interpretations" serve only to mask derisive cruelty and unbridled narcissism. Forgive me.
Re: B.Bauer's take on "estoppel" le In my opinion all of you are a wonderful help, and I'm very relieved there are people teaming with me to FIGHT FOR OUR RIGHTS. Its perfectly fine to argue the fine points, and helps us to really perfect our strategies. -Sal
Re: B.Bauer's take on "estoppel" le Webster's 2.5: Estoppel "a legal preclusion or bar by which one is prevented from alleging something he has previously denied in actuality or by implication in his action or from denying something he has similarly alleged" What? lol
Re: B.Bauer's take on "estoppel" le aigle, great definition... In other words you can't ALLEGE something you have DENIED. In this case, a bill collector can't ALLEGE that you owe the bill if they have DENIED its existence by failing to validate it. In plain English, one might ask the CA, "Hey, how can you claim I owe a bill which you can't prove?" When you hear the phrase "estoppel by silence" on this board or elsewhere, this simply refers to the fact that SILENCE -- i.e., ignoring a request for validation -- is the same as denying its existence or validity. Otherwise, the law presumes that the CA wouldn't be silent, rather they would SPEAK UP and prove that the money was owed. Bottom line: if a collector refuses to prove the debt, then the doctrine of estoppel by silence certainly applies. Bill makes a great point that the legal case we sometimes have cited here -- "Englehardt v Gravens" -- isn't really relevant. However, the term "estoppel" is an old legal doctrine that predates this case of course, as you and Webster demonstrated, which basically just means that a CA has to "put up or shut up." Hey, maybe that's what we should call the letter instead -- the "put up or shut up" letter. Doc
Re: B.Bauer's take on "estoppel" le lbrown59, the "silence" refers to a CA's refusal to validate. (We're talking about the CA's "silence" -- not the consumer's.) Per the FDCPA, this does NOT create an obligation to pay. Rather, quite the opposite! When a CA refuses to validate, they have violated federal law, and their "silence" is considered the equivalent of failing to validate. That DISALLOWS the consumer's obligation to pay because the alleged debt has not been proven. lbrown59, on a different note, do you enjoy chiming in with nonsense that can potentially damage others -- or is that compulsive behavioral pattern just accidental? Doc
Re: B.Bauer's take on "estoppel" le Wish some body would have told me it was nonsense when I had to pay because of E by S.
Re: B.Bauer's take on "estoppel" le I appreciate Bill Bauers hard work and research on the estoppel issue. I'm looking for opinions and research when I come to Creditnet. otto
Re: B.Bauer's take on "estoppel" le My note that E by S Could or can cause one to have to pay is exactly why the Estoppel Letter works.
Re: B.Bauer's take on "estoppel" le lbrown..........you obviously don't understand the intent of the letter. If you did, by law, you should not have been forced to pay anything. The so called estoppel letter (for lack of a better name) is used after a CA can't validate. If you sent the validation letter, and the company didn't validate, then how did the E of S force you to pay? Makes no sense.
Re: B.Bauer's take on "estoppel" le lbrown I wasn't responding to your post, just making a general comment that I enjoyed the hard work put in by Bill. I do get tired of some posters pounding on him. He has helped me out a lot and I enjoy his comments and opinions (even when I don't agree). I am going to try his new Wrench SOAP letter and i'll let everyone know how it turns out. Cheers, Otto
