Here is my question. My fiance went through a nasty divorce which left him with all of the debt from their marriage. One debt in particular is pretty large and he was paying on that. (before I starting becoming educated) In any case, the account was with a collection agency and the DOLA was/is 8/97 which puts this beyond the SOL by 2 years. The original CA that he was dealing with has apparently *sold* the debt to an attorney. He received the following letter from them (the attorneys) dated 4/22/03. What is wrong with this picture to you all??? From Joe Blow and Associates Attorneys at Law Dear Mr. Blah Blah, This office has been retained by the above stated client to assist in the collection of your past due debt. Please be advised that the balance(s) reflected may include collection costs, applied by our client, as directed by and in accordance with your contract. Additionally, interest has accrued and will continue to accrue on the outstanding balance(s) at the contract rate as specified until the account has been liquidated. Please be advised that your debt is in default. Pursuant to the terms of your contract the entire outstanding balance is payable on demand and pursuant to your contract this default may be reported to all national credit bureaus thereby damaging your credit rating. Our client may institute against you a civil suit to compel repayment of the amounts you owe plus related collection costs. It is very important that you contact this office as soon as possible to avoid any further action. Please note this office shall assume validity of this debt.....blah blah blah....you have 30 days....blah blah blah. Now, I am wrong or isn't that unfair practices to threaten to do something (suit) when they cannot do so? Does anyone else see anything funny, incorrect, or questionable in this letter? Thanks.
It says they MAY do something. If it said they WERE going to do something then you'd have a case. It's good that you're asking about it. I would send validation letter.
Please be advised that your debt is in default. Pursuant to the terms of your contract the entire outstanding balance is payable on demand and pursuant to your contract this default may be reported to all national credit bureaus thereby damaging your credit rating. Our client may institute against you a civil suit to compel repayment of the amounts you owe plus related collection costs. It is very important that you contact this office as soon as possible to avoid any further action Dang this letter overshadows the 30 day dispute process right and left. First, it states the entire thing is payable on demand. Second, it threatens your credit report. Third, it takes about a civil suit. All of this has already been found to overshadow the dispute process. If I had this letter and had proof the debt was past the SOL I would be downtown monday morning filing suit. Of course, that is just me.
Slow down guys. There's not as much here as you seem to think. First, they still CAN sue you for the balance. You have to raise the SOL as an affirmative defense. Happens all the time. This statement does not violate the "can't threaten to take action not intended to be taken or can't be taken" provision. They actually CAN. The overshadowing issue may valid tho. It does appear to demand payment immediately, but not really. It rather gracefully sidesteps the direct demand. So it might be an uphill battle there. I'd say, just go through the regular val process and wait for him to violate for real. He will ya know. You didn't happen to demand val while in the hands of the previous collector did ya Caligirl? ???
Butch, In all honesty I am not sure if he did the validation route or not. I can tell you that I doubt he did, but can't guarantee it. Do you think that validation is where he should start? It is not listed yet on his credit report through this company, so should he validate through them AND through the other CA? Also, I want to be sure I am understanding this, the other CA should now be reporting the debt as sold or transferred, zero balance, now - correct?
An elderly patient needed a heart transplant and discussed his options with his doctor. The doctor said, "We have three possible donors; tell me which one you want to use. One is a young, healthy athlete who died in an automobile accident. The second is a middle-aged businessman who never drank or smoked and who died in his private plane. The third is an attorney who just died after practicing law for 30 years." "I'll take the lawyer's heart," said the patient. After a successful transplant, the doctor asked the patient why he had chosen the donor he did. "It was easy," the patient replied. "I wanted a heart that hadn't been used." The END** *** **LB 59
