Here's the background: http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=333349#post333349 (2) The acceptance by a debt collector from any person of a check or other payment instrument postdated by more than five days unless such person is notified in writing of the debt collector's intent to deposit such check or instrument not more than ten nor less than three business days prior to such deposit. What constitutes "notified in writing"? dropping it in the mail or receipt? The letter is postmarked 4/22, which is 3 days before 4/25. Anything in your case law bag of tricks?
Oh yea, and on 4/24, when I received the letter I called and told them absolutely to not deposit that check, as well as faxed them the same thing. Their letter stated: "Thank you for your postdated check in the amount of $62.00. We will be depositing your check on the agreed date, (04-25-03). If, for any reason, you do not wish your check to be deposited, please contact our office prior to that date." On 4/24 they said it was "too late".
Aren't you in Texas? I would invest in a phone recorder and set the CA up. Texas is a one party state for phone recording purposes. Sorry, I'm not Butch, but it did help me out. If your end result is for deletion, a supervisor will delete the TL after hearing the recording. Charlie
Thanks Charlie, yes, I'm in Texas. The TL is not on my report. They misrepresented themselves as Citibank and took a check by phone. The ultimate horror is that RMA has my checking account information!
LOL You would ask a tough one. Regarding mail, the old "their word against mine" argument is basically worthless. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try and use it tho. Courts have ruled consistently that requiring a CA to provide proof that they mailed something would place an undue burden on them because they send out thousands of letters a month. Therefore, the mere assertion that they did send you mail is good enough for many judges. We, on the other hand do need to prove our letters because we DON'T send out thousands of letters a month. They are required to send to your "last known address". So them sending the notice is all that's required to comply, unfortunately. There's no case law on the required notice, that I'm aware of, but hey, do it. We will all be talking about JLynn V. RMA. I read your case background. These people have screwed this up so badly you may need to just go ahead and file to get their attention. All we need is a sincere [good faith] belief that we have a legal argument in order to file suit and avoid the frivolous suit sanction. If all I had was that the CA did not send me a required notice I'd use it. Not that I'd necessarily win my case in court but that's not the point. Usually the mere filing of same is what wins the day. Let me know if that helps.
Actually this might be a good time to bring up the "Bill your adversary" tactic. Write out a detailed 72 notice of intent to sue and send it CRRR. INCLUDE your bill for $175.00 for services rendered in helping them correct their books. I've ALWAYS gotten attention with that one. LOL
Forgive my density this morning. I have 18 versions of we're going to court floating thru my brain this morning! Anyway, are you saying that simply dropping a letter in the mail 3 days before depositing meets the notification requirements?
unless such person is notified in writing Jodi, The first step to statutory interpretation is to examine the literal language of the statute itself. The word "IS" is a present tense. (Depending on what the definition of the word "is" is). Do they really get that technical? You bet they do. My interpretation would be that you need to receive the notice at least 72 hours prior, not that they merely mailed it. How else could a person BE NOTIFIED, until they actually receive it? But like I said you have a lot of other issues to go with too.
HA! Holy crap. Drug dealer gets arrested. While being questioned by the cops he pukes up the evidence because he swollowed it. Now he wants his conviction thrown out because ... get this ... "I didn't yield the evidence VOLUNTARILY, and had not, as of yet, been read my rights". Is that technical enough for ya? LOLOLOL
Re: Re: Butch! Dazzle Me! Thats what I thought. Just wanted it validated Oh, I have lots of issues - I'm almost hoping they pull that $62 out today.
Re: Re: Butch! Dazzle Me! Well, by definition, puking is an INVOLUNTARY spasmic movement. Thanks for the visual.
