A valid defense?

That's interesting, but I would assume that the "damage" was "the alleged debtor failed to pay as promised". In other words, lost income. The fact that you've never had a direct relationship with the collector would be irrelevant if your original terms allow for the account to be transferred to a third party, or if the collector is a lawyer hired by the original creditor.

 

The problem is that nobody plays by the rules of logic. What you have said is plain and simple logic that things should be fair and square and such huge profits should not be allowed. Such profits outrage the common man but the judges and the plaintiffs think it is perfectly acceptable. Needless to say, the opinion of the common man means little or nothing to those kinds of people.

Statistics prove that in local courts the plaintiffs win better than 99 percent of the time. We might wonder why the odds are so heavily stacked against the defendants but the reasons are simple. Most defendants never even respond or go to court. Most seem to think that there is no reason to bother with it since they are going to lose no matter what they do. They might not think about it that way however. Their thinking is probably more along the lines that they know they have no defense and can't afford a lawyer so there is no sense of going just to take a beating. They don't think about how many others have lost. They only think that there is no possible defense so why bother..

 

I look at it this way: Let's assume that you owe Capital One $5000 in delinquent credit card debt from a few years ago. Let's also assume that with interest, this amount is now $7500. And for the sake of example, let's assume that the debt is valid, the amount is 100% correct, the matter is well within your the statute of limitations for litigation, and the original cardholder agreement gave them permission to transfer the debt to a third party for collection. Now let's say Scamtastic Debt Collectors Inc ("SDCI&quot buys the debt from Capital One for $750. SDCI believes they're getting a $7500 asset; as per your cardholder agreement, you agreed to pay this amount and agreed to allow this amount to be assigned to a third party. You, being an educated debtor, send SDCI a check for $750 and a letter stating that this is all you'll pay. SDCI has now been harmed to the tune of $6750, and they'll likely take you to court over it. Why? Because as per your contract, you were obligated to pay $7500 -- not $750 -- and this was the pretense under which SDCI purchased the debt. Let me put it another way. Let's say you go into Wal-Mart and steal a laptop with a price tag of $999. The laptop only cost Wal-Mart $300 wholesale, but they're going to come after you for the entire retail value of the unit plus their associated costs of handling you. Why? Because you denied them the $699 profit they could have gotten had you legitimately purchased the laptop (or left for someone else to purchase). I'm not saying you're wrong. You have an interesting approach. I just don't agree with it. Perhaps someone with more experience in this area will prove me wrong, but I think this falls under the old "if you owe it, pay it" chant. (sorry; my formatting is getting destroyed on my posts lately, I don't know why)

 

Yes, but as soon as one finds out that a new debt collector has taken over the old one should be taken to federal court for any violations they may have committed.

The problem that most who are relatively unfamiliar with FDCPA and all the possible violations that a debt collector might commit have is getting a good grasp on FDCPA and how the courts have ruled. We can go to meetings and seminars where great researchers such as Dan Meador (dceased) or Pat Patton (deceased) and multitudes of others have (had) to say but the only thing that counts is what the latest decision by the highest court of competent jurisdiction in your circuit has ruled. For example, I am in the 10th circuit. A ruling on some matter by a court in the 10th Circuit is compellng law. Judges in the 10t have no alternative but to rule in the same way as a higher court in the 10th has ruled. Courts are not bound to rule in the same way that a court in the 9th or the 11th might have ruled. They can and often will take decisions by other courts in other jurisdictions under advisement but are not bound to rule in the same way even though the cases are similar.

Competent attorneys almost never cite cases outside their immediate circuits. Pro Se litigants should always pay attention to and do what good attorneys do

Quoting some case decided in 1633, 1733, 1833, 1933 are of little value in most cases. They may amuse or even enlighten the court somehow but they carry no weight at all.

When doing research one should always use the annotated statutes rather than just statutory law in order to see how the courts have ruled. That's why I like to use a site known as fdcpaexperts~com because it is all properly annotated. If I go to the law library I want to see the annotated statutes and not just the regular law books. I can and quite often also Shepardize those cases to ascertain how attorneys have used the case cites in their cases and to see how similar their case have been to the one I happen to be working on at the time.

Never believe what someone says the law says no matter how much you might respect them. Use what they say. Research what your friend or highly respected guru has said to be sure that they know what they are talking about.

 

If a creditor writes off an account, they don't get a "tax credit." They write that amount off as an asset on their books. It is treated as a bad debt, so it does decrease their assets.

However, if they subsequently collect on that debt, they are required to reverse that transaction, and they "write back on" the amount that they've collected. In other words, they increase their cash and therefore their assets by that amount. So any tax implications (which would only be in earnings) are therefore reversed.

 

You'd be surprised how many current accounts are sold (factored) so that the company can get cash. They get a percentage of the value and the factor collects the entire amount. It's a common business practice.

What the OC got, what tax treatment they did or didn't get, and who they assigned or sold it to has nothing to do with how much money you owe. There is absolutely no relationship. The creditor has a right to sell or assign, and the debt remains valid.

 

Because of the time cost of money.

How long will it take and how much will it cost to collect the full amount?

The JDP has purchased the note at a steep discount -- pennies on the dollar, -- he can afford to take a lesser amount to cover his cost and still make a tidy profit.

A JDB buys for thousands of dollars, a portfolio of debts worth millions. He works the portfolio to collect what he can with reasonable effort, then packages and resells the remainder on to another JDB.

It's a business, and if he has good collectors that can generate cash, he makes money, and it is all about maintaining a flow of productive accounts.



Money is what it is all about.

 

CTF is spot on and it is a hell of a business model. Ethical, who is to say? However, it is legal and it is a consumers obligation to take enough initiative to arm themselves with viable defenses.