Went to court today and lost. wtf? I lost on almost every point. 1) CA took 4 months to list the debt as disputed. (The judge ruled that since we did not have case law to cite, the CA listed the debt within a reasonable amount of time. (4 months later?) 2) We could not prove that the duplicate listings on my reports were the fault of the CA and not the fault of equifax. 3) The judge then allowed the defenses counterclaim for the underlying debt. 4) The kicker was that the judge tried to award the defense attorney fees. After about a 15 min argument my attorney agued that the action was filed under the FDCPA and not the Colorado FDCPA. The judge stated that even though he could not award attorneys fees to the defendant, he could award court cost. $17 to the defendant. When asked what would be a reasonable time to remit the $17 to the defendant, the defense attorney stated 1 week. Again wtf? 4 months for the CA to list the account in dispute. 1 week to remit $17 to the defendant. I am thinking of appealing this ruling. Can anyone find anything wrong with the judges ruling? tix
I just read a case last night holding that counterclaims were not considered in FDCPA cases. It was a subject matter jurisdiction argument. Given that the judge has already heard the counterclaim, you are in a particularly poor position to have that turned around, IMWO. It's just not efficient, and courts like efficiency. I haven't seen any case law regarding reasonable amount of time to note an account as disputed..but will keep my eyes open.
I thought the FDCPA and FCRA were clear on this ? Sorry you lost. I have to wonder with the bad economy if these cases will get harder to win? Its a bit more conservative world than it was 2 years ago.
Ummmmmmm, I wouldn't call that decision conservative, I would call it ignorant. Conservative doesn't mean disregard a federal law. Where do some of these guys get their law degrees, at the 7-11?
Breeze, I would call you ignorant. Which federal law do you think that the judge is disregarding? Duh.....if you knew then you would say it. Is there a law that says exactly when the collector is required to report the tradeline as disputed? NO, duh...
You're a stupid son of a b*tch! How dare you post late at night, hoping no one will notice your post. Listen, you piece of sh*t. I am dam* sick and tired of you TROLLs posting your crap! Goodbye TROLL! Don't let the door, hit you in the as* on your way out! --sorry fellow CNetters, but enough is enough!!
To tix, I have found CO. to be very consumer-friendly! I am sorry(and shocked) about the decision. I might consider appealing in a higher court, but, of course, it is your decision. Good Luck.
sorry! (blushing). . . but when someone attacks someone as kind and helpful as SerenityBreeze aka breeze, it's as but as much as I can take.
Which federal law did the judge ignore? (echo, echo, echo, echo..I hear an echo.) lmao Here is the long and short of it: The guy should have gotten the dup tradelines taken off and that is the end of that. There is no need to clog the docket with this bogus suit. If you are going to bring a suit with an ATTORNEY no less, then at least write a letter to the CRA and get them to commit in writing when the tradeline was reported as disputed. NOW you have some evidence, YES! The coll agent doesn't report the account as disputed for 4 months...so what? Like it's going to make a difference..... The judge did the right thing in my opinion. It was a silly lawsuit brought in small claims ct by an attorney that didn't know how to file a federal complaint. Next time, get a competent attorney and try to correct things and "move on" before filing a lawsuit. You got taught a lesson, and you should take it as such.
Stan, The FDCPA was inacted for the purpose of dealing with uneducated folks just like you. To help you in complying with the law that you are bound by, I will list the applicable portion that, in your ignorance, you claim does not exist: § 807. False or misleading representations [15 USC 1962e] A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section: (1) The false representation or implication that the debt collector is vouched for, bonded by, or affiliated with the United States or any State, including the use of any badge, uniform, or facsimile thereof. (2) The false representation of -- (A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; or (B) any services rendered or compensation which may be lawfully received by any debt collector for the collection of a debt. (3) The false representation or implication that any individual is an attorney or that any communication is from an attorney. (4) The representation or implication that nonpayment of any debt will result in the arrest or imprisonment of any person or the seizure, garnishment, attachment, or sale of any property or wages of any person unless such action is lawful and the debt collector or creditor intends to take such action. (5) The threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken. (6) The false representation or implication that a sale, referral, or other transfer of any interest in a debt shall cause the consumer to -- (A) lose any claim or defense to payment of the debt; or (B) become subject to any practice prohibited by this title. (7) The false representation or implication that the consumer committed any crime or other conduct in order to disgrace the consumer. (8) Communicating or threatening to communicate to any person credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, including the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed. (9) The use or distribution of any written communication which simulates or is falsely represented to be a document authorized, issued, or approved by any court, official, or agency of the United States or any State, or which creates a false impression as to its source, authorization, or approval. (10) The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer. (11) The failure to disclose in the initial written communication with the consumer and, in addition, if the initial communication with the consumer is oral, in that initial oral communication, that the debt collector is attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose, and the failure to disclose in subsequent communications that the communication is from a debt collector, except that this paragraph shall not apply to a formal pleading made in connection with a legal action. (12) The false representation or implication that accounts have been turned over to innocent purchasers for value. (13) The false representation or implication that documents are legal process. (14) The use of any business, company, or organization name other than the true name of the debt collector's business, company, or organization. (15) The false representation or implication that documents are not legal process forms or do not require action by the consumer. (16) The false representation or implication that a debt collector operates or is employed by a consumer reporting agency as defined by section 603(f) of this Act. Notice, paragraph (8)! This means the CA violated the FDCPA. By not reporting that the debt was disputed, the CA is liable. There is not a timeframe because it is IMMEDIATE and encompassing! If the judge was educated on this law, he/she should have known that this was $1000 for the plaintiff. I say that the ruling should be appealed because the judge made an error as a matter of LAW! The authors of the law believed that the reporting of the debt being disputed was AS IMPORTANT as any other VICIOUS behavior committed by CAs everyday. So before you go blowing your mouth off, you better know the law by which your a bound. GO HOME! YOU ARE NOT WELCOME HERE!
Did you get the decision Right away? I'm still waiting for mine (3 weeks ago this Tuesday). I've also noticed the suits seem to be getting harder to win and i'm wondering if the longer this takes the better it is for me or the CA. Sorry you didn't win. Personally I'd be afraid to bump it up to a higher court (if you still actually owe the debt), you could end up paying more than $17.
Don't be sorry, I'm giving you a standing ovation here in ole' El Paso! Tix, have you sent this to the CO Collection Agency Board for violations? They are great!
Which federal law did the judge ignore? (echo, echo, echo, echo..I hear an echo.) lmao Here is the long and short of it: The guy should have gotten the dup tradelines taken off and that is the end of that. There is no need to clog the docket with this bogus suit. If you are going to bring a suit with an ATTORNEY no less, then at least write a letter to the CRA and get them to commit in writing when the tradeline was reported as disputed. NOW you have some evidence, YES! The coll agent doesn't report the account as disputed for 4 months...so what? Like it's going to make a difference..... The judge did the right thing in my opinion. It was a silly lawsuit brought in small claims ct by an attorney that didn't know how to file a federal complaint. Next time, get a competent attorney and try to correct things and "move on" before filing a lawsuit. You got taught a lesson, and you should take it as such. stan =============== Pat : Now here is a guy that is worthy of your wrath, so why waist your comtempt on me? LB 59
I'm not seeing where the judge disregarded the statutes, but rather where the case was not proved. You said you could not prove it was not the CRA's fault there were duplicate tradelines. You said that you cited no caselaw and offered no proof that four months was an unreasonable length of time for them to report the account in dispute. It sounds to me like your case was not prepared nor was it presented well. The fact that you had an attorney should have prevented this from happening...afterall...he is supposedly familiar with practicing in the local courts. I have never filed in small claims court, but I have filed in federal court and personally would not file anywhere unless I had documentation to back up every aspect of my case...from correspondence between myself, the CRA and and CA to caselaw, to FTC opinion letters...anything I could get my hands on to support my case. Your attorney (speaking as a non-attorney second guessing this guy) should have easily been able to cite caselaw as to the counterclaim. That should have been a separate case. While the unclean hands doctrine might apply here as a defense...the debt itself should not have...and there is caselaw to back this up (just please don't ask me for it because I don't have the time to go back through the hundreds of cases I researched to find it...lol). I'm really sorry you lost your case I would suggest an appeal, but I don't see where a review of the case you presented would make a difference as you really gave the judge nothing to base his decision on other than you saying what they did was wrong. L Edit: Oh...and about the four months to report the account as in dispute...the ca could probably have taken a month to report the account in dispute and the cra's say they have 90 days to update in a situation where an information provider is updating info (not the consumer disputing incorrect info) so if you did not also notify the CRA and make them aware that there was a dispute between you and the CA, then the judge might have seen this as reasonable.
The judge did the right thing in your stupid opinion. Read the last sentence of this. Then put it in your crack pipe and smoke it, and then get the hell out of here. jerk. An FDCPA suit "may be brought in any appropriate United States district court without regard to the amount in controversy", within one year of the date of violation. 15 U.S.C. §1692k(d). State courts have concurrent jurisdiction. A jury trial is available in FDCPA actions brought in federal court. Most courts have held that FDCPA litigation is appropriately filed within the district where the consumer received the communication. Officers and managers of the debt collector who have control over the procedures complained of may also be sued there. Filing in the district where the letter was received has been upheld even where the debt collector's letter had been forwarded to a district in which it did not do business. The debt collector normally may not bring counterclaims for either the underlying debt, or for bad faith and harassment ____________________________ Finally approved for Amex on 5/10/02, and again on 8/21/02 copyright ©LKH's Trick aka bumpage 2002. Be wary of people that demand info on your particular situation. They may use it against you.
Back on ignore, Mr Troll. BTW, it is against TOS to open duplicate accounts. This is "The Kid" posting under another user name.
