this lawsuit against the collection agency for the medical collections, I wanted some advice from the board. I sent validation in November 2001 with C&D I sent intent to sue in April 2002 I spoke with them, they wanted to know what I wanted, because in November, before I requested validation, I had agreed to pay the debts. I told the rep, " yes, I may have agreed at that time, but then I requested validation that the debts are indeed mine before any payment" This conversation occurred early this month and the deadline on the intent to sue was May 10th. I am prepared to file but I feel my paper trail is week because I did not send estopple. It is obvious they cannot validate the account. The rep stated " I will see what we can do, it is really up to the hospital" What should I do?
Assuming you also disputed once or twice with the CRA's, you could make a case based on the two letters and telephone call. I always like to have three or four letters, disputes with the CRA and sometimes a couple of calls just to show that I really did everything possible before filing. Just play up what you do have. Since you have already sent the intent to sue letter, I don't think it would help you any to go back and send estoppel at this point. If you do, they will think you are playing games and have no intention of filing suit. In your shoes, I guess I would just go with it. Can't hurt and worse case, you are out the filing fees and nothing changes. I think they will gain incentive to get the documentation once you file...but if they have continued to verify with the CRA's after you requested the validation, then you have them anyway. Good luck!!! L
Possible...but highly unlikely. That usually only happens when a lawsuit is frivilous and its obvious the suit was filed in order to embarrass or otherwise harrass someone. In the situation she outlines, I can't imagine a judge determining her case to be frivilous. I don't know if you guys recall, but about six or seven years ago, there was a lot of noise about tort reform and a big push by lobbyists for big companies to make it law that the loser pay the winner in a civil case (their poster child case was the McDonald's coffee lawsuit...but don't get me started on that one). Their position was that it would cut out frivilous lawsuits. That position has so far been soundly slapped down because it would equate to an uneven playing field where the average person could not possible hope to seek redress for a wrong because of the threat of thousands of dollars in legal fees hanging over their heads. If anyone is interested in this topic, do a google search on "tort reform". Lots of interesting stuff on it. I did a reasearch paper on it in college and it was fascinating how our justice system came into being and what a huge threat tort reform was/is to the average Joe. L
I disputed with the CRA's. these two collections are both under $200.00 each and are listed on all three reports. They have verified to cra's after the request for validation. Only once account was notated as disputed the other was not (those are the violations) I have copies of reports from November through May with the date verified. one account is probably mine. The other account belongs to my son and I know they cannot validate.
