Now, Cap1 aside, is the nutcase letter the best way to take care of the paid collections? As far as the unpaid collections go, I understand the process people have used with success is: validate1, validate2, estoppel, intent to sue. Is my understanding of this correct?
Well, I keep thinking if we keep this post moving some of the more experienced will chime in! LOL I haven't ventured a nutcase yet, but as I understand it, it can be the best way to get rid of them. Have you tried simply disputing them yet to see what disappears on its own? For the unpaid, again, that is the order as well. Some suggest being careful on newer ones--don't want to wake the sleeping giants. Best I can figure though, is that's a crap shoot. Remember, as soon as you get the CRRR back on Validation 1, to dispute with the CRA's, which locks the CA into a 30 day period.
Oh, and another question I had (to anyone), I've read on this site that validation must consist of the CA producing the original contract or instrument which created the debt, an accounting of the item in question which must be accurate to the penny, proof that they've either been assigned or otherwise have the right to collect the debt, and proof that they are licensed both in their states and yours. 1) Is this list complete? 2) If so, what is the case law supporting this? Are there any FTC opinion letters on point?
In the FAQ's at the top of the board - there is a question what constitutes validation with several links. It references the Wollman Letter, Spears v Brennan, and some other stuff. Probably want to take a look there.
I read through both of those but the Spears case seemed pretty narrow on its facts and if I remember correctly it was an Indiana state court case (I could be wrong) and therefore useful only for persuasive purposes in my state (CA). So let's say the CA doesn't produce this stuff and I only get a printout of my account from them. I then send my green card to the CRA asking them to remove b/c CA hasn't validated properly and they don't. So I sue the CRA here in Cali. I'd think a Cali judge would want more than a non-binding state court case and an FTC opinion letter before he stuck it to a CRA, but maybe I'm wrong. Thanks for your responses, this board really is an incredible resource.
Now I'm waaaaaay out of my league. You might want to post a Spears v Brennan type post. There are some very experienced people here that might can advise you, suggest reads, etc.
It depends patent, what are you claiming in your validation letter? Not your account, wrong person? Never had an account? Balance is wrong? Already paid? For instance, if you are saying the account isn't yours, an itemized accounting isn't enough to establish that it is. However, if you are claiming the balance is wrong, it could be, depending on the court and state and what you are arguing -- and, whether the documents are from a CA's computer or the OC's records. Sassy
Well, I was under the impression that I could request validation vaguely without getting too specific about what it is that I had an issue with. From your post, it sounds like the best way to go is something like "I pulled my credit report recently and was shocked to find a collection from your company reported as I owe nothing to and have no dealings with the creditor that you purchased this debt from. Therefore, in accordance with the FDCPA, I demand that you validate...blah blah blah". In other words, wording it so that it sounds kinda of like a "not mine" and kind of like a "I don't owe what you say I owe" type of dispute. How specific should I get? I've read in other posts that a simple "not mine" seems to work but, with an eye always towards litigation, I want to be able to walk into court with some credibility intact.
That's how I do it, patent, I don't say it's not mine, but I sure can't remember anything about anything. I think that's the best way to go, because it isn't admitting or denying, it's asking for proof. If they forward you just an itemized accounting, I'd say, but I don't recall having an account with xxx at all, please forward me a copy of the signed contract showing I'm legally obligated and agreed to this debt. If they just send a copy of the contract, then I don't recall what I purchased or what the underlying debt was that could possibly equal the amount you claim I owe, please forward me an itemized accounting substantiating. California actually, that's where you are, yes? I understand has some incredible consumer protection laws that far exceed the FCRA and FDCPA. Sassy
I'll have to check into that - I'm getting ready to suffer through a month and a half of the BARBRI course, then the CA Bar in Feb so it's probably not a bad idea that I start familiarizing myself with CA law. And hey, then I can write letters and follow my signature block with "California Bar #XXXXX". That has to help too, right? =) Seriously, I'm writing patent applications for a living now, but really I think I'd love to specialize in this kind of law eventually. Maybe Lexington needs some competition!
oh wow, patent, There's a plan, the consumer law attorneys are far and few between. I'd bet you could make a baZillion just working on contingencies. Lexington had some foresight, indeed, there's plenty of room for competition! Prepaid legal does a similar Lexington service; however, they don't focus on FCRA/FDCPA. That's where Lexington was brilliant and making their services affordable to the joe-working population that have the most to lose. Here's one site you may find interesting, they won the Culpepper predatory lending case as well, with a focus on consumer law, it's good reading: http://www.edcombs.com/FSL5CS/Custom/home.asp Sassy
Patent, Here's a debt validation (specific) 101 that may help. It's from Kristy's site, same information as here, just all in one place: http://www.creditinfocenter.com/rebuild/debt_validation.shtml Sassy
LMBO!!!! Definately send these guys a validation request. These were the first people I sued! a) 3 separate accounts with LJ Ross (was $120, $144, $223) L
I spent about a day reading through your site, I actually emailed the link to the pic of the check they sent you to a buddy of mine going through the same stuff with them. If I get a check from them, I promise it will never be cashed, I'm going to frame it.
Sassy, thanks! This is *exactly* what I was looking for. I still have some doubts about how effective the FTC opinion letters and the Spears case would be in state court (particularly with low-end judges), but I guess the object is never to have to get there in the first place.
