This CA calls me at home yesterday about a "possible financial setttlement". The guy proceeds to ask me questions (which I refused to anwer) like where I worked , etc. Anyhow, I asked for the address so I can send them C&D letter and then he starts talking about judgments and garnishments,... he refuses to give me the address!!! When I get to work today, there is a message from this guy ( I guess he called there and didn't get me so he called me at home) with a phone number. I call the phone number to get the address and they wouldn't give it to me unless I gave them my name. I even told them I wanted the address to send a " payment". I was so PO'd i refused and still don't have the address. I tried reverse phone number look up and it didn't come up.... any ideas.... I guess I could just call back and give my name, but really wanted to avoid that.
Also found this: Excerpt from http://www.pabar.org/uplmtypical.shtml "2. Holding Out In addition to controlling an attorney, it has been held that collection agencies are engaged in the unauthorized practice of law when they hold themselves out, their agents, or their employees, as being qualified to practice law. This is reminiscent of activities prohibited on the part of claim adjustors and is rather self-explanatory. In American Auto Association v. Merrick, 73 App. D.C. 151, 117 F.2d 23 (1940), the court held that the giving of advice prior to the collection of a claim and discussions with the person from whom collection was attempted did not involve the practice of law and could be performed only by lawyers who possess the required skills. And, in State ex rel. Freebourn v. Merchants' Credit Service, 104 Mont. 76, 66 P.2d 337 (1937), overruled on other grounds in Rae v. Cameron, 112 Mont. 159, 114 P.2d 1060 (1941), a corporation engaged in the collection business was held to be unlawfully practicing law where, in solicitor claims, it advised creditors that it had in its employ attorneys-at-law who were retained to represent it whenever necessary, where its letterhead represented that it could garnish the wages and attach property, and where attorneys' fees were included in judgments taken by it in Justice Court."
Diva, They can't threaten you with any action they don't intend to take and/or can't take. During the initial 30-day period they are especially vulnerable to being overshadowing. Sassy BTW, I'd say refusing to provide an address is unfair and deceptive as well as unconscionable. What do your state laws say? Here they have to disclose. Did he include you mini-miranda rights in the conversation or is the time clock on for the 5 days?
