Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clarification o (b)5) The term "debt" means any obligation or alleged obligation of a consumer to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, whether or not such obligation has been reduced to judgment. (/b) If this is a defintion of debt under FDCPA, then obviousy LL provided services, that were for personal purposes (Renting an apartment)... then there was a damage, allegedly caused by my negliegence, so they CLAIM i OWE them.... SO it seems like CA would just present this documents as VALIDATION, and if i further DISPUTED this, they would have no other CHOICE , but to file a suit, or refer this back to LL, who in turn would have to file a suit.... As Butch said, i would still be liable to them even if i catch them on violations. I understand that, but should this go so far as to I have violations against them and intend to sue them, i hope they might DROP THIS CASE COMPLETELY. I dont think a smart CA would want to get pounded for violations and lawsuits, in face of a case where they CAN NOT recover money..... I would assume, they would pursue this as long as there is no potential harm to them. or possibility of shelling out a lot of money.... This is what my goal is, to make THEM GO AWAWY!!!!
: Clarification o NEW MEMBERS READ THIS. http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=410243#post410243 ************************************************************ Would a CA 1*attempt to get a judgment first? 2* ask the LL to get a judgment and then refer this to them? 3*or just start reporting this and harassing me without a judgment? dgj77 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1* A CA can't get a judgment unless they own the debt. If they don't own the debt they can't sue in order to get a judgment. 2*They can suggest the LL sue. 3*This is probably what they would do.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clarificati Jenz, i wish you were right, and i really want to believe in what you said, but i am afraid, and others would concur, that they would not need a judgment to send this off to a CA... CA may ask the LL to have a judgment obtained first, but that is another story.... If what you saying is right, then they might as well FORGET about it and move on with their lives, cause their lawyer MADE IT CLEAR for them that they would waste money on ME! THis might be one of those situations, where they PUT A LOT OF CONFIDENCE in collectors. I have heard from a lot of landlords before that they would be giving thematter to a collection agency, which makes me think that they regard CAs as an ULTIMATE weapn against tenants! As if they have some TOOLS to induce payments or something I dont know
: Clarification o THis might be one of those situations, where they PUT A LOT OF CONFIDENCE in collectors. I have heard from a lot of landlords before that they would be giving thematter to a collection agency, which makes me think that they regard CAs as an ULTIMATE weapn against tenants! *As if they have some TOOLS to induce payments or something dgj77 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ * They do have such tools. They are called 1* intimidation 2* Humiliation 3* treachery 4* deception 5* deceit 6* lawlessness 7* harassment 8* coercion etc. However the good news about these weapons is they are only effect if you let them be so. NEW MEMBERS READ THIS. http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=410243#post410243 ************************************************************
: Clarification o Well, lbrown, dont CAs sue in case where an account has been referred to them from Citibank or Chase, of when CAs sue, they already pruchased those accts from the banks? In case they start harassing me, well, i guess i can use my rights under FDCPA and try to nail them. So you saying that if they just try to collect on this and i send them C& D letter, and THEY CANT SUE ME< cause they dont owe debt, they will have no other choise to refer this back to LL?? Can they bring a suit in LL's name?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clarificati Butch, by that i mean, that a creditor can't recover anything significant from a debtor. In my case i live in a NO WAGE garnishment state, i have no real estate, have a leased car, and my bank account balance is below what state allows to set asidd FREE OF ATTACHMENT....shold there be a judgment I really CANT THINK OF ANYTHING they can attach??? Furniture and appliances are aslo exempt up to like 4000 dollars.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clarification o The most you could sue them for violations of the FDCPA is $1,000, which is the limit per action, not violation. If a ca sees that they will never collect, they may not sue you. But, they will report it and it will stay there for at least 7 years from the date it occurred or until such time as you can dispute it off.
Re: : Clarification o dgj, I'm understanding that this isn't the usual "debt" encountered on this board as far as the amount goes. However, it does fall under the FDCPA's definition of debt and you would be covered by its protections (limited though they are, and they are limited) if a 3rd party CA attempted collection -- that is true whether it is ever reported or not. There have been other posters with alleged debt resulting from a rental agreement that was never reduced to a judgment -- though you are facing a huge monetary loss, it's not so unusal. For instance, alleged damages that should have/would have been covered by a security deposit if there was one. Is the LL not entitled to the damages? Well, that's the question and it's a good one, but it doesn't stop CA's from attempting to collect just because there hasn't been a judgment. Most debts aren't reduced to a judgment. What state are you in??? You may have some additional protections there. Additionally, that's where you'll find the answer to whether or not a CA can bring a suit on the LL's behalf to collect. A C&D addresses communication with the consumer NOT collection -- that's a sure way to get sued, don't do that unless you're ready and willing to go to court. Please don't hang your hat on any CA following any rules of fair play, laws, sense of justice, or conscience -- they do this crap all the time, and for amounts far less than yours. They don't follow the rules by and large, which is why Congress passed the FDCPA, to regulate their business -- it is largely unenforced and the CA's don't give a flying one, there are more consumers that they can torture and torment into paying with their brass knuckles tactics than there are those who enforce their rights. Mostly it is the companies that are sued, so the collector's aren't penalized individually (though they can be) and the companies have insurance to cover any slaps on the wrist of the FDCPA -- it doesn't help that their violations in collecting or attempting to collect are seperate from the validity of the debt, at best, violations are a good negotiating tool, I won't pursue this violation against your company if you agree to cease collecting and go away. Usually, which is where you are substantially different, the dollar amounts are compariable or the FDCPA violation is worth more than the debt that is being collected. Ask KK the CA whose fiancee lost twice in court for 100k EACH, a CA attorney knowing he never had anything to prove the debt, the pending FDCPA violation he'll also lose, do either of them care of will they change anything, NO, they blame Bill Bauer and his cell phone and Household for not showing up. No matter that the attorney KNEW all along he had nothing, he was paid anyway. The biggest difference, as I see it, is that most consumer debt is based on an underlying agreement to be responsible -- still there is no proof required outside of a court room. You've not agreed to be responsible, someone (a Court) needs to declare that you are. However, what makes this difficult, is though you believe you are justified and can make the argument that you aren't liable, you've not made that argument nor had an opportunity to and my personal opinion is that you may well lose that one, understanding there was no intent to start the fire which would have made it criminal. The LL has a 100k deductible, aside from you believing there are deep pockets, why is the LL responsible for any out of pocket costs when you started the fire and damaged the property? Just like if you caused a car accident, someone is paying the deductible, and if you caused the accident, it's going to be you and your insurance company covering that loss -- you of course could fight the underlying citation and try to use that to say you weren't responsible (IF the court agrees). You could force that issue into court (there's your due process) so a decision could be made (at least you'd have resolution) but if you are going there, you also have to be prepared to lose and that would be a big loss. Your biggest problem is, I say, this isn't likely to go away, just because of the dollar amount claimed due and the involvement of the insurance company, whether they can collect it or not may be a factor but there's a lot of people with judgments that never get collected. For the insurance company to pay, usually there is some agreement that the responsible party will be pursued -- they may well need the judgment MORE than your money. FDCPA violations aren't going to stop them, flying with LKH, at 1k per action that's hardly a deterrent and at the 48-60k you are facing, that's not even an effective negotiating tool. So, after all that babbling, what did your attorney say -- did he think you had a snowball's chance in hell of winning a suit that would determine responsibility for reimbursement of that deductible, at minimum? Sassy
Re: : Clarification o Sassy, thank you for taking the time to reply. My attorney simply informed me that their attorney did not have an intention to bring the suit against me. As I said, i think he does not want to pursue this, as he believe, this will cost its client more money. Now, this of course, would not preclude my apartment complex to seek another attorney and bring the suit, but it appears to me that they are not pressing any charges now for at least 2 reasons 1) They were persuaded by THEIR attorney that it would be futile, and would cause them MORE damage 2) THey have business to run and they would rather have someone else, like CA, pursue this. We offered 2k, but they said no less than 24K. My take is that , since it is too early in the game, they have some hopes that they could get more than 2K. Time will show that they wont, so thats when they might start dropping this settlement amount According to them, and their lawyer, the deductible is 100K, meaning the insurance company WONT EVEN DO OR PAY ANYTHING, until the damages have surpassed 100K, and in this case its around 48K.... So INSURANCE, for now, is out of question.... Its between me and the LL, apartment complex. My lawyer said at this point its not worth any more legal costs to pursue this, and he suggested that if this matter is referred to a CA, that would adversely affect my credit ( NO $HIT!!: Mr Lawyer Again, there is a good chance i will lose in court, if it gets that far, but my lawyer explained to me that they would have to prove, by preponderence of evidence, that i was negligent, and that the damages were reasonable foreseeble by my actions.... Lets face is, there is only a report that alleges MISUSE of EQUIPEMENT, so if the fire captain does not appear in court, or something of that sort, there is noone who can testify with CERTAINTY, that i did something negluigently,,,, but this is a different issue I did write a JUDGMENT PROOF letter, but have not sent to anyone, just waiting for their next step. Yes, I can always file for Chapter 7, but want to wait and see how this turns out. If I had other substantial UNSECURED debt, i would not hesitate, but i dont owe much to credit card companies at this point, so just cause they gonna report this on my account, i dont think its worth it just yet.... Probably its easier to have collections FOUGHT OFF from the report thatn the BK itself... As fas as ME LOSING ANY MONEY IN THIS MATTER, i have no fears WHATSOEVER.. My concenrs are how this will affect my credit history!!! ANd what can I do to have this removed and what can i do to make them stop pursuing this... this will probably take time, and as time goes on, and they wont be able to collect, i hope they wil slash the settlement amount to something more reasonable, that i can afford, but at this point, 24K is just not realistic, provided that they havenot even proved anything!!!! I am in a cath 22 situation, if i DISPUTE this with a CA, they might drag me to court, but HOW LONG ARE THEY GONNA PURSUE THIS MATTER, if i tell them that i cant pay this??? arent they gonna thinkg of suing at some point, or just place this on my CRs and just bug me once in a while!!! if i am judgment proof, and they can check that... whats the point of suing? I live in NC, by the way!! One of four NO GARNISHMENT STATES (Texas, SC, NC, and PA)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clarificati The most you could sue them for violations of the FDCPA is $1,000, which is the limit per action, not violation. If a ca sees that they will never collect, they may not sue you. But, they will report it and it will stay there for at least 7 years from the date it occurred or until such time as you can dispute it off. Well, if they just place this on a CR, how do i have this removed? IF i try to have this removed, is not this going to provoke the CA to sue or take further actions, and how easy it is to have this removed, dispute with CRAs that the debt is not valid? which CA will validate probably.... SO i have to hope that this will not happen within 30 days, and CRAs will be forced to remove this... on CRs Will it say what this is for, something like "i owe landlord 48K" ???? Is this in any way better than owing to a credit card company? Is this better than having a judgment or a BK 7? and after 7 years, can they report this again, or 7 year is the LIMIT they can report one incident? If this spoils my credit history to this point , where i can t buy a house later, i might as well file chapter 7, and start all over... any thought about the magnitude of damage this can bring me??? VERSUS filing Chapter 7? thanks
NEW MEMBERS READ THIS. http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=410243#post410243 ************************************************************ Otherwise, i would think, ANYONE cans spoil your credit history, just by claiming that you OWE them dgj77 =============== Every Neg. on a report is based on allegation rather than it being a proven fact.
Ok, so if it is an allegation, and not a proven fact, why should it be spoling a person's credit. There is got to be a remedy for this. But then again, who cares about individuals in this country? It's all about money and whoever has more money always punishes us, who are perceived as defenseless PAWNS!
Clarification Not all judgments are a result of a deadbeat trying to weasel out of his obligations. ****************************************************** NEW MEMBERS READ THIS. http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=410243#post410243 ******************************************************* > ************************************************************ 1*If the ONLY way to prove debt is to SUE a consumer and get a judgment, what is ANOTHER way short of suing, to PROVE DEBT--- 2* and if a CA proceeds to sue, in order to PROVE debt (obligation) then , according to FDCPA, they get nailed. so this seems like a circle to me. Then as long as you dispute it, and there is no judgment, you CAN NOT BE SUED? is it right? Because if they sue you, while you are disputing debt, you can claim that they have violated the FDCPA.... dgj77 .................................. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1* I don't know of any other way does anyone else? This is the perfect illustration of why it's wrong to blindly plaster a judgment on someone's report. Often times there is no way to determine what or if there is an obligation or debt short of litigation 2* Can someone else answer this one for dgj77 .??
Clarification Not all judgments are a result of a deadbeat trying to weasel out of his obligations. ****************************************************** NEW MEMBERS READ THIS. http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=410243#post410243 ******************************************************* > ************************************************************ 1*If the ONLY way to prove debt is to SUE a consumer and get a judgment, what is ANOTHER way short of suing, to PROVE DEBT--- 2* and if a CA proceeds to sue, in order to PROVE debt (obligation) then , according to FDCPA, they get nailed. so this seems like a circle to me. Then as long as you dispute it, and there is no judgment, you CAN NOT BE SUED? is it right? Because if they sue you, while you are disputing debt, you can claim that they have violated the FDCPA.... dgj77 .................................. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1* I don't know of any other way does anyone else? This is the perfect illustration of why it's wrong to blindly plaster a judgment on someone's report. Often times there is no way to determine what or if there is an obligation or debt short of litigation 2* Can someone else answer this one for dgj77 .??
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clarification of FDCPA 809 http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=427565#post427565 . DG, Did you get your question answered?
